My grandma, who is almost 70 years old, saw my son last night for the first time. He's 2 months and 1 week old. She asked if he was eating 3 meals a day yet! I was like, woah, what do you mean he's only 2 months. She had 5 children, my mom being 1 of them, and said that up until her last son which wasn't born until 1980 she fed all her children baby food from the jar starting at 2 months old and all of them were eating 3 solid meals a day in addition to the bottle! I asked her if she was sure and she said she's positive it was 2 months old because they were hungry and bottles weren't enough. She said they had absolutely no foods issues growing up and all are healthy adults now. She said she didn't do that with her last son because by the time he was born in 1980 there was a big hype about babies not eating until 6 months and she couldn't understand that. Also, that specific son was more skinny and tinier than the rest of her children. Why do they pound it into your head...
2007-09-01
07:10:12
·
21 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Pregnancy & Parenting
➔ Newborn & Baby
that it's so wrong to feed your child before 6 months of age. My grandma did it and all her children are fine!! I'm now thinking of giving my son a taste of baby food at 3 months old. What's up with all this now? I'm confused about what age to start feeding my son baby food. Or even at least, baby cereal.
2007-09-01
07:11:20 ·
update #1
Well, you already sort of answered your question because by asking the opinions of people on here but defending your gram, you're sort of already saying that you don't need to wait.
I was fed baby food and cereal at 3 months and I'm alive and healthy now. I would ask your ped. what he has to say about this particular situation and why it was ok then and bad now...sometimes things change b/c we just learn more about what is healty, sometimes its just opinions and fads.
2007-09-01 07:14:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by its about time 5
·
4⤊
3⤋
This sort of thing happens all the time. Research and studies are conducted...medical science advances...and therefore the recommendations change. Sure women used to feed their babies jarred food at a young age back in the 60's and 70's, but they have since discovered it is not in the child's best interest to do so.
One of the problems with introducing solids early is the infants tummy is still so tiny it can't hold enough baby food to equal the caloric value of a formula/breast milk feeding. As a result, an infant who eats a meal of solids will actually receive LESS nutrition then they would have received from breast milk/formula.
Formula and breast milk contain 20 calories per ounce while jarred baby food only has 10 calories per ounce. If an infants stomach can only hold six ounces at a feeding and that infant filled up on baby food instead of formula/breast milk...they would be missing out on 60 calories!!
A 3 month old baby needs an average of 630 calories a day...which equals about five 6 ounce bottles of formula/breast milk (or 25 stage one jars of baby food!!)
2007-09-01 08:10:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Medical research now shows that early introduction of solids makes a child more likely to have food allergies. This doesn't mean EVERY child who has baby cereal at 2 months old gets allergies, they are just more likely to. The reason is that infants have what is called an "open gut." You can search it online for a better explanation, but basically there is space between the intestinal cells that allows the nutrients from breastmilk/formula to go straight into the bloodstream. This is a good thing, but when you introduce solid foods, these can also go straight into the bloodstream. Since the body is not ready for them yet, the immune system attacks the particles, thus causing the body to basically reject that food from then on, which is a rough approximation of what an allergy is. Research also shows that introducing solids early leads to a higher risk of diabetes and obesity.
I know what it's like though - everyone, and I mean everyone, keeps telling me to give my daughter solids. And a lot of people say "well our parents did, so it must be ok." My response to that is that my grandparents didn't put their kids in carseats or seatbelts - so since my parents survived does that mean I don't need to, either? We know more now than we did 20-30 years ago. What was considered best back then just isn't now. Ultimately it's up to you, but I would really consider if your child seems ready and discuss it with his pediatrician before changing his diet.
BTW - He's absolutely adorable!
2007-09-01 07:19:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
9⤊
0⤋
Since you have some reasons to go ahead and do it, try looking into reasons NOT to feed solid foods too early. A lot of grandmothers and even mothers today fed/feed babies solid food early. And yes, there are a lot of healthy people who were raised that way or at least people who don't connect any of their health issues to early solid food introduction. In fact doctors recommended solid foods at 2 months. (My husband's baby scrapbook had an old "parenting" pamphlet in it from 1966: orange juice @ 1 mo. , meats at 2 months , and then pretty much everything by 3 months.) My mother-in-law followed that advice. He is healthy, too. However, he also has a very sensitive stomach. He has been treated for ulcers. He easily contracts the stomach flu if exposed and it is usually a really bad case of it. Research has also linked early food introduction to allergies, obesity, and eczema later in childhood and adulthood.
I agree with the earlier post - a lot of medical advice has changed throughout the years with more research and more information. I was surrounding by older moms who thought I was being too careful and overprotective, but my thinking was "Why risk it?" Maybe think about holding on a few months to at least four. The time passes so quickly with your baby anyway. Enjoy his babyhood. Good luck with your decision.
2007-09-01 08:06:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by C.D.N. 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
It's been 27 years since your grandmother had a baby, and things have changed a lot since then. There's a greater medical understanding of how babies develope and grow, and it's now known that a baby's digestive system is deisgned only for breastmilk (or formula if you can't breastfeed) because it is still highly delicate. Look at this article at Babycenter.com
http://www.babycenter.com/0_introducing-solid-foods_113.bc
Also, of course her babies seemed hungry. Newborns (babies up to three months) need to eat every two or three hours! Their stomachs are the size of walnuts, so they need to be fed small amounts frequently. But, it's your kid. Do what you want, even if it's not the best thing. Just remember it's been *27* years since she had a baby, and lots of things have changed. 100 years ago babies who couldn't be breastfed would be fed something called gruel, which was a very watery oatmeal, or goats milk. Many babies died back then from being weak and unhealthy. But because a few of those babies survived and were fine, should we all start feeding our babies gruel or goats milk from birth?
2007-09-01 07:25:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by alimagmel 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Your grandma is the same age as mine and that generation did many things that we now know to not be in our babies best interest. When my father was born, there was no question about using formula. Formula was considered to be the best thing for a baby and women who breastfed their babies were looked down upon as not providing the best for their babies. We now know that nothing that man creates can come close to breast milk, even though you can raise a healthy baby on formula. Also, my grandmas method to help a child through teething is to give whiskey to the child, a common practice of years ago. There is no way you are touching my baby with whiskey, and her argument is that my father turned out fine. He was also started on solids soon after birth. So it may not hurt your baby, but why not listen to years and years of medical research and hold off until six months. They recommend it because it has been proven to be the best thing, and don't we all want the best for our babies?
JeanC, you don't know what you are talking about. That is a total lie. In most countries, babies are breastfed until they are 4. Our country feeds more solid food earlier and more formula than any other country in the world.
2007-09-01 07:29:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by howdesdoit 3
·
5⤊
0⤋
I was born in the "put a little cereal in the bottle" generation myself (and I turned out ok), but when I had my kids, I was told to wait. Most of the reasoning is that the formula or breast milk contains enough nutrients that babies don't need anything extra - giving them other food would only add unneeded calories and make them fat. If the baby's hunger isn't being satisfied with formula or breast milk (or if they aren't gaining weight sufficiently), then the doctor probably would have you start cereal sooner. I waited & my kids are all fine - not too big, not too small.
2007-09-01 07:26:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Quarter Midget Mom 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
There's been a lot of scientific advancement over the last 30 years. Doctors now know that the intestinal tract is not well established until at least 6 months old. That's why the conventional wisdom is to wait until that time to start any solids--including rice cereal.
The old "I turned out fine" argument is just not enough to put your child at risk for a food allergy. When your grandma was raising kids they didn't generally use carseats either, but I would hope you wouldn't use that as reasoning not to use one with your own son.
2007-09-01 07:17:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Heather Y 7
·
8⤊
0⤋
As knowledge of medicine and human development grows, what we are supposed to do with our children changes. When i was growing up babies were supposed to sleep on their bellies, now they sleep on their backs. Theres no reason your baby needs to be eating food at 2 months old. Most pediatricians don't even recommend food being introduced until they are 4 to 6 months old. This is a decision that YOU and your pediatrician need to make, not your grandmother.
2007-09-01 07:36:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by llllll_amanda_lllllll 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
like it has been said time & again, medical science has done a lot of progress since the 80's.
most important reasons for not starting solids before 6 months
1. food allergies
2. greater risk of diseases like obesity, diabetes & even heart disease.
3. lowered immunity.
4. poorly developed GI tract.
not given in any order of importance.
not only that it is also taught in most of the medical schools is that mother's feed is the best till 6 months & even formula milk should be avoided till 6 months if child is healthy, gaining weight & is satisfied withwhat he gets. this is because breast milk is supposed to contains lots of antibodies which help in developing short term & long term immunity of the child.
so what ur grandmother said was right in her time & what we may do may become a big nono of our grand children's time .
only god can answer that.
2007-09-01 07:45:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by KBS 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
I believe that it has something to do with an increased risk of diabetes later in life.
Remember that a lot of things our grandparents did, you would never do now. Like not use a car seat or smoke while pregnant. Things, especially medical things have changed a lot over the past few decades.
I would talk to the pediatrician about feeding baby foods before six months to be on the safe side.
2007-09-01 07:15:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by I ♥ old VW's 4
·
9⤊
0⤋