In response to Lori Peters post:

Many doctors seem to think that breast milk is just some fluid -- that it
has little or no nutritional value; or perhaps it is wonderfully nutritious
for a short time after the baby is first born, but then rapidly deteriorates
to become worthless ("Your baby is now ___ months old, and your breast milk
has magically turned into Kool-Aid.").

This is not true, of course -- human milk is the best possible food for a
human baby/child, and a child should get as much human milk as s/he can for
as long as possible.  When the mother's milk supply becomes insufficient to
keep up with the baby's needs (usually sometime during the second half of
the first year), then other foods need to be added to the diet.
Conveniently, this time also corresponds with the baby's developing ability
to sit up by himself, pick things up with his hands and bring them to his
mouth, and a cognitive/social interest in doing the same thing that other
people are doing at meal times with the family.

So -- be sure to include baby at meals, and offer small tidbits of
appropriate foods of appropriate consistency (but remember that things like
big rib bones that the baby can gnaw meat shreds off of are also good first
foods for babies), and don't worry too much about what baby eats.  Breast
milk should remain the primary source of food for the baby throughout the
second year of life.  Gradually, the baby will eat more solids and nurse
less -- depending on the baby and on how willing the mother is to continue
breastfeeding.

Children's need for food does not increase steadily as they get older.  Many
people mistakenly think that the bigger the child gets, the more food they
need.  In fact, the opposite is true -- children grow fastest during the
first year of life, more slowly during the second year, and by the third
year most children have settled down into the slow-and-steady childhood
growth rate that they will have until they begin their adolescent growth
spurt some 8-12 years later.  So a three year old might be eating *less*
food than a two year old, while nursing about the same amount, and getting
as much as 50% of its nutritional needs met through breast milk.  It is the
very rapid growth rate of the birth-two year period that results in a child
of that age needing more food per kilo of body weight than an older child or
an adult.

In conclusion, there are no solid foods which have superior nutritional
value to human breast milk for a child under the age of 7 years.  If you
feel more comfortable giving the child a chewable one-a-day vitamin to cover
any possible vitamin or mineral deficiencies, by all means do so.  But do
not let any doctor, however well-intentioned (and I'm sure they all are)
tell you that any solid food is better for a young child than human breast
milk, because it just isn't so.

Feel free to send this anonymously (or not) to your daughter's pediatrician.
I give blanket permission for anyone on LactNet to share my posts with
anyone.  Just spell my name correctly and include my university affiliation.

Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University
Researcher in infant/child feeding, growth, and health