I think the premise of trusting babies to let us know when they are ready for solids makes perfect sense, but for the fact that I do not trust that these babies have intact guts to begin with. The idea of "trusting one's gut" demands that the gut--the seat of the "second brain", or enteric nervous system, is intact. I would argue that, given the stresses that most babies encounter today, beginning in utero (not their mothers', but their grandmothers'--where their mothers' eggs developed), on to birth and the pp period, we cannot assume that any baby has an intact gut. Human infants were not designed to grow in the body of a mother who eats the SAD, who gets no exercise, who is exposed to thousands of toxins every day, including heavy metals and other neurotoxins, who suffers the immense stresses of isolation as a mother in this culture and who may have very little sense of connection to her own instincts. Human infants are not meant to be brutally born in hospitals and assaulted by lights, sounds, smells and touch that are harsh, are not meant to be exposed to foreign microbes (microbes that are not the mother's), have chemicals placed in their eyes, in their blood stream and often in their bellies. They are not meant to have any experience other than that of the mother. The stress of living life in a sympathetic response will do untold damage to the gut all on its own. 

We tend to notice that many babies who delay solids well past the middle of the first year have food allergies. In other words, these babies have damaged guts and are actively avoiding ingesting more of their allergens (many may already have been exposed through mom). We know that children and adults have a tendency to crave their allergens and to eat them to the exclusion of other foods (especially common with cow milk and gluten allergies). Is it possible that babies might be as likely to crave their allergens as avoid them? Maybe it isn't true that babies are more likely to develop allergies by being fed solids at an early age--maybe babies who have allergies happen to be more likely to be fed at an early age, b/c they are cuing for them? 

So, my point, especially to Christine and Nikki, is that I trust babies immensely, but I think we may be misinterpreting what they are telling us. Has anyone noticed how many babies who demand foods, will at first seem to eat most anything and pretty soon are picky eaters? When you look at their diets, these kids are often living on the most common allergens and refusing most all else. 

I am also not sure it makes any more sense from an evolutionary perspective for a baby to signal readiness for solids than it does for the mother to be able to recognize those cues. Yet, most moms have no idea how to recognize readiness cues and are feeding solids based on deeply flawed cultural schedules or inaccurate medical models. If mom's "gut instincts" are not intact, neither are her baby's. 

Christine argues that babies are different and may have varying ages of readiness for solids, but when one looks at other mammals, we do not see such huge disparity in developmental milestones. Doug Graham, who is a fitness and nutrition expert, argues that the variation we think we see in humans is a cultural fallacy--that the human body, like that of any other mammal, may be able to adapt under the stress of need (deer strip the bark off trees in winter, but do not thrive on said bark), but that there is a much narrower window of possibility for what allows us to thrive. Think about the period of gestation--while we have made it culturally "normal" for babies to be born at 37-39 weeks gestation, biologically normal for a first baby is 41 weeks. Babies born much earlier (not induced) are typically under stress and those born much later are typically in an undesirable position for labor. How much variability is really within the biologic norm?

I know that folks will post about babies who ate solids early and had no allergies or ate solids late and had no allergies, but I am really referring to populations, not individuals. Most of the time on LN, when we talk about babies delaying solids of their own volition, we are usually talking about children with allergies. I also know that many folks will post about babies who "outgrew" allergies and I absolutely do believe that the body can heal such that allergies are no longer an issue, but most of the time when a mom tells me her baby outgrew allergies, it is simply not true--the allergies have just attacked different systems in different ways. 

So, while I trust babies to cue, I do not always trust our ability as adults to read those cues. 

Christine wrote:

"I guess I just trust babies and trust mothers' instincts about their 
babies more than I trust technology, research, or calendars.  Perhaps 
that's part of the difference between the approach of LLL leaders and 
LCs?  I know that if LLL ever changed its recommendations to be based on 
the calendar rather than baby's readiness, I would be unable in good 
conscience to continue to be a leader."

Hmm... so, is it assumed that those of us who have concerns about maternal/adult competency in 
"watching the baby" rely more on technology than on instinct? Or that we are not LLLL's? Or that 
LCs are not practicing from the perspective that babies are innately wise and competent? Since we
are working from a completely skewed paradigm, I think all of our uncertainty is valid. 

Jennifer Tow, LLLL long before I was IBCLC, CT, USA
Intuitive Parenting Network LLC


 








 


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome