Dear all: First, in International Nutrition we defined "supplementary" as extra food provided to a family, or vulnerable family members in addition to the diet they had access to on their own. "Complementary" was defined as the foods given to an infant in addition to breast milk. I want to make it abundantly clear that all of the studies I have ever seen on providing malnourished mothers with "supplementary foods' in developing countries never showed an improvement in their milk supply or their infant's growth. Some of the earlier studies on infants compared "supplementary" food provided to infants compared to locally prepared and often contaminated "complementary" foods. In fact, my dissertation results (completed in the early 1990s) from data collected in the 1970s showed that uncontaminated food provided at feeding centers to 3-6 month old infants resulted in greater height at two years of age. Here's the hitch --- NONE of the infants in this part of Guatmala were exclusively breastfed after 3 months. I cannot overemphasize the fact that the COMPARISON group was not exclusively breastfed --- the comparison group was receiving complementary foods that were most likely far more contaminated than that offered at the feeding center. So, this did not show anything other than children have higher length at a later age if they are fed clean food between three to six months than if they are fed contaminated food between three and six months of age. From any logical standpoint, the CLEANEST and most NUTRIENT dense food is breast milk. Had these infants in the 1970s been offered breastmilk alone, I am dead certain their growth would have been far more healthy than those who received the "Supplementary" food. While I was working on my dissertation the 4-6 month range was still up for grabs. Because I knew that my research might be misinterpreted by some as justification that it is just fine to offer complementary foods between three and six months I never published my results. Shortly after I finished my doctoral dissertation much of the research supporting six months was conducted, much of it by researchers at UC. Davis. I was quite happy to see that UC Davis and others were able to really do the appropriate research to show that six months is the appropriate "approximate" age for starting solids. In fact, much of the research does show that too early of an introduction of solids even in developed countries can actually CAUSE growth faltering. Why is this? Because most of the foods we introduce to young infants are very low in nutrient density. Think about cereal - it is not very dense in nutrients. If you have a small stomach and fill up on cereal you can't drink enough of the far more nutrious breast milk. This is ESPECIALLY true in developing countries where access to latrines, water, and a means of making the water potable is difficult. So, even in developing countries, infants usually do much better without disrupting their gut with some other substance. In short, if an infant is faltering in growth, stuffing them full of cereal is not a solution and is likely to make the situation worse. Now, here's my real mom story. My son absolutely loved to toddle around the Museum of Natural History. The instant he saw the oldest ground in gum that had become part of the floor, he would drop down and speed crawl (he was faster crawling than running) to the gum and try to plaster his mouth to it if I didn't notice in time. He had an amazing ability to find old gum. Best, Susan Burger *********************************************** 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