Advertisement
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Don't tell me how to feed MY baby!!!!!!!

So, I've heard all this bad stuff about baby cereal and oatmeal. I even made a post in group asking a question but no one answered my question because they were so intent upon tell me how bad feeding my baby oatmeal was and that I should do "baby led solids" and completly skip baby food all together. I did research it and decided that "bab led solids" just wasn't for me...especially seeing as how we get FREE baby food through my WIC. Why let all that food go to waste? I understand that people have opinions but someone could have at least answered my question before telling me what to feed MY baby. >.>

CafeMom Tickers
by on Jan. 14, 2013 at 12:07 AM
Replies (321-330):
Bonita131
by Member on Jan. 18, 2013 at 4:53 AM

 


Quoting Momof38186:

yup

Quoting Bonita131:

 

 

Quoting Momof38186:


Quoting Momof38186:


Quoting SewingMamaLele:


Quoting Momof38186:

All 3 of my kids had cereal & Oatmeal. 

This is the 1st I've ever heard it was bad !!

All my friends, family etc.. have always given it to their children too.

Why would W.I.C. give it out if it wasn't healthy?  Seriously.....

 

I have VERY healthy children. They are all about to celebrate birthdays & turn 6,8 & 10.  

Do what YOU Feel is best for your child  & sure- research & learn about anything & everything you can-- always, but always, always make your own choices & never care what others think ,once you do.

Every day it seems like something that was good is now bad suddenly ,but who's to say next year they wont say " ooppss we were wrong about that "   I say, if after THAT Many years, no one really had any issues - these  new studies saying it's horrible, probably are just a way to sell some new, more spendy product to us , to make "them" more money .

If it's worked for many,many years & Even W.I.C.  ( who only lets healthy foods be approved & makes sure we do nutriton classes etc.. to keep us and our babies healthy ))  approves of it -- I'm pretty sure it's fine.

There's always room for me to be wrong though, and I'll be the 1st to admit it  

WIC also gives a ridiculous amount of juice and barely any fresh produce... their packages are outdated and limited by funding.  It's sad, but true.  

Let me ask you this... do you think "white" grain products are healthy?   White bread, white rice, white pasta, etc...?   Or are "whole grains" healthier?

Whole grains.  I never gave my kids the rice. I always gave them the oatmeal. I really don't know why I said "cereal & Oatmeal" The oatmeal came in the same box's is prob why lol Honestly, I'm into the eating healthy and what not.  I haven't had WIC in 6 years & It was in Alaska, so a lot is probably different. We were allowed to go to the farmers market with ours & they encouraged VERY healthy eating and choices. We had to take nutrion classes and all sorts of stuff in order to even get WIC.

In fact, I have a website will all natural health & Beauty tips & am adding a section on how to treat illness's and common and uncommon problems  with natural things,foods,herbs etc. 

I'm def. not an ignorant ,uneducated person when it comes to health & healthy lifestyle.   I've recently lost 96 pounds  *that were NOT gained from unhealthy ways but from medications,health problems and bedrest out of my controll since childhood *   and you don't lose that kind of weight being ignorant to healthy ways. Trust me :-)   

I've taken at least 5 nutrition classes and done more research and studying than I could estimate at this point.

In fact, I have a website will all natural health & Beauty tips & am adding a section on how to treat illness's and common and uncommon problems with natural things,foods,herbs etc.

I hope you also have a disclaimer on your website that you are not a medical professional, and your opinions/thoughts on treating illnesses with natural herbs, foods, etc, are you own.
 


Good, and I was being serious, not sarcastic, just in case you took my comment that way. A dear old friend of our family with a heart problem stopped taking his heart meds after being convinced to take a "special" herbal mixture by a person claiming certain healing herbs would make him well. He died of a massive heat attack two months later, so you can understand my asking about a disclaimer. Unfortunately, not  all nutritional experts & herbalists are as they claim, and that can be deadly to people who are willing to give up life saving medications for the the "miracle cure" they've been looking for.  Our dear friend being a prime example.  

 

Gaelic.mom
by on Jan. 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM
I gave both my daughters cereal an oatmeal an gradually changed it up myself. It's up 2 u wat u feed ur baby no1 else. All this stuff about u shouldn't feed ur baby this and that. Hello wat did we grow up eating and were perfectly fine. :-)
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
SlapItHigh
by on Jan. 18, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Although we do agree on many points, the benefits of cord clamping and the benefits of iron fortified baby cereals are the two major points we disagree.  The literature does show that the benefits to delayed cord clamping extends beyond 6 months.  Actually, it shows that beyond 6 months is when those benefits are truly realized since before then, regardless of when the cord is clamped, the body is generally self-sufficient at handling any iron needs in the breastfed child.  The literature states over and over that this is why iron becomes so important after 6 months.  

It's not theoretical that the benefits last beyond 6 months.  What is theoretical is estimates attempting to quantify those benefits.  That can be said for most of the things we are discussing.  You had no problem throwing around outdated estimates of so-called "biological needs" of iron even though they were totally theoretical.  The current recommendations and estimates of average intake are quite different....to put it mildly.  Still, neither of us are pretending that the differences in needs are theoretical.  

I agree that after 6 months, additional sources of iron are generally needed especially since the vast majority of babies have immediate cord clamping.  The major point of my initiation of conversation with you was to point out that it's not as big of a concern for those who have delayed cord clamping and that's something that pregnant moms reading this right now can look into.  The little bit of difference can be a big deal to a baby who is not that big on solids from the get-go which seems to be pretty common.

Quoting SuDoNim:

Seriously, I don't even know what we are disagreeing on, aside from how long the benefits of delayed cord blooding last. The science confirms benefits through 6 months; anything beyond is theoretical. Probable, but still theoretical. 

Re: iron needs/day, it depends on the source of information. The WHO states 0.49mg and 0.90mg/day at 1-6 months and 7-12 months respectively. The CDC states 0.27mg and 11mg respectively.  

Also, regarding your link: you only quoted the abstract. If you read through the entire paper, as well as the citations, it is confirming my stance that another source of iron is generally needed after 6 months. 

Quoting SlapItHigh:

I actually did provide you evidence but here is more:

"Iron deficiency is estimated to be the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide and is particularly persistent among infants and children. The high prevalence of anemia in 6- to 9-mo-old children raises the concern that birth iron stores in some infants are inadequate to sustain growth and development through the first 6 mo of life, and postnatal factors are contributing to early depletion of iron stores and development of anemia. At the same time, there are concerns about negative effects of excess iron in infants. Maternal iron status, infant birth weight and gestational age, as well as the timing of umbilical cord clamping at birth all contribute to the establishment of adequate total body iron at birth. Postnatally, feeding practices and growth rate are factors that will affect how quickly birth iron is depleted during the first 6 mo of life. Under conditions in which maternal iron status, birth weight, gestational age, and umbilical cord clamping time are optimal, and exclusive breast-feeding is practiced, infants should have adequate iron stores for the first 6–8 mo of life. Under suboptimal conditions, infants may not reach this goal and may need to be targeted for iron supplementation before 6 mo of age."

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/12/2529.full

Contrast that with how long supply lasts when delayed cord clamping is not taken into consideration and nearly all infants are immediately clamped: 

"Healthy full term infants are born with a supply of iron that lasts for 4 to 6 months. There is not enough evidence available to establish a RDA for iron for infants from birth through 6 months of age. Recommended iron intake for this age group is based on an Adequate Intake (AI) that reflects the average iron intake of healthy infants fed breast milk [1]."

Which brings me to my next point -- where is your evidence for your claim, "before 6 months a baby needs about 0.49mg/day, while after 6 months a baby needs about 0.90mg/day, which is also at the time when iron levels in breastmilk start to decline"?  That doesn't sync up with any of the information I have saved.  And the above shows that their is only a AI based on aveage iron intake before 6 months. 

I'm not sure why you are doubting.  If stores are optimal up to 6 months with immediate cord clamping (which we both agree) and stores are signficantly higher at 6 months when cord clamping is delayed (which we both agree), why do you then doubt that there are benefits beyond 6 months? The stores are higher at 6months which means the benefits will extend, as the stores do not disappear overnight.  We don't know exactly when the benfits run out, but it's esitmated to be some time within a couple of months from 6 months which is when babies are often more willing to eat foods naturally containing iron that is much more readily absorbed. 

Quoting SuDoNim:

And again, you haven't shown any evidence of benefits beyond 6 months, which is when the risk of iron deficiency begins. I am not questioning iron stores before 6 months because the science is clear that most babies are adequately covered during the first 6 months.  

Quoting SlapItHigh:

Again, the reason a baby's iron needs increase around 6 months of age is precisely because the stores of iron they are born with are enough to meet their needs until around 6 months.  This is well documented (IOM, 2001; Butte, Lopez-Alarcon, & Garza, 2002; Dewey & Chaparro, 2007).  However, infants who receive delayed cord clamping have higher iron stores remaining at 6 months. Therefore, their needs do not increase at the same level as those with immediate cord clamping.

I disagree with your assertion that cereal is one of the easiest and more realistic modes of increasing a baby's iron.

Quoting SuDoNim:

Again, you are choosing a pointless argument. AFTER 6 MONTHS OF AGE, a baby does indeed have a biological need for more iron; before 6 months a baby needs about 0.49mg/day, while after 6 months a baby needs about 0.90mg/day, which is also at the time when iron levels in breastmilk start to decline. Not 6 months and 1 day, but around 6 months. And I have also already stated, cereal is not the only means to increase a baby's iron intake, but in the context of the limited diet of an infant, it is one of the easiest and most realistic modes.






SuDoNim
by on Jan. 18, 2013 at 4:07 PM

You keep saying it, but have yet to produce evidence of these benefits beyond 6 months. And, if I recall, just a few pages back you stated that the research has yet to be done. Which is it?


Quoting SlapItHigh:

Although we do agree on many points, the benefits of cord clamping and the benefits of iron fortified baby cereals are the two major points we disagree.  The literature does show that the benefits to delayed cord clamping extends beyond 6 months.  Actually, it shows that beyond 6 months is when those benefits are truly realized since before then, regardless of when the cord is clamped, the body is generally self-sufficient at handling any iron needs in the breastfed child.  The literature states over and over that this is why iron becomes so important after 6 months.  

It's not theoretical that the benefits last beyond 6 months.  What is theoretical is estimates attempting to quantify those benefits.  That can be said for most of the things we are discussing.  You had no problem throwing around outdated estimates of so-called "biological needs" of iron even though they were totally theoretical.  The current recommendations and estimates of average intake are quite different....to put it mildly.  Still, neither of us are pretending that the differences in needs are theoretical.  

I agree that after 6 months, additional sources of iron are generally needed especially since the vast majority of babies have immediate cord clamping.  The major point of my initiation of conversation with you was to point out that it's not as big of a concern for those who have delayed cord clamping and that's something that pregnant moms reading this right now can look into.  The little bit of difference can be a big deal to a baby who is not that big on solids from the get-go which seems to be pretty common.

Quoting SuDoNim:

Seriously, I don't even know what we are disagreeing on, aside from how long the benefits of delayed cord blooding last. The science confirms benefits through 6 months; anything beyond is theoretical. Probable, but still theoretical. 

Re: iron needs/day, it depends on the source of information. The WHO states 0.49mg and 0.90mg/day at 1-6 months and 7-12 months respectively. The CDC states 0.27mg and 11mg respectively.  

Also, regarding your link: you only quoted the abstract. If you read through the entire paper, as well as the citations, it is confirming my stance that another source of iron is generally needed after 6 months. 

Quoting SlapItHigh:

I actually did provide you evidence but here is more:

"Iron deficiency is estimated to be the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide and is particularly persistent among infants and children. The high prevalence of anemia in 6- to 9-mo-old children raises the concern that birth iron stores in some infants are inadequate to sustain growth and development through the first 6 mo of life, and postnatal factors are contributing to early depletion of iron stores and development of anemia. At the same time, there are concerns about negative effects of excess iron in infants. Maternal iron status, infant birth weight and gestational age, as well as the timing of umbilical cord clamping at birth all contribute to the establishment of adequate total body iron at birth. Postnatally, feeding practices and growth rate are factors that will affect how quickly birth iron is depleted during the first 6 mo of life. Under conditions in which maternal iron status, birth weight, gestational age, and umbilical cord clamping time are optimal, and exclusive breast-feeding is practiced, infants should have adequate iron stores for the first 6–8 mo of life. Under suboptimal conditions, infants may not reach this goal and may need to be targeted for iron supplementation before 6 mo of age."

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/12/2529.full

Contrast that with how long supply lasts when delayed cord clamping is not taken into consideration and nearly all infants are immediately clamped: 

"Healthy full term infants are born with a supply of iron that lasts for 4 to 6 months. There is not enough evidence available to establish a RDA for iron for infants from birth through 6 months of age. Recommended iron intake for this age group is based on an Adequate Intake (AI) that reflects the average iron intake of healthy infants fed breast milk [1]."

Which brings me to my next point -- where is your evidence for your claim, "before 6 months a baby needs about 0.49mg/day, while after 6 months a baby needs about 0.90mg/day, which is also at the time when iron levels in breastmilk start to decline"?  That doesn't sync up with any of the information I have saved.  And the above shows that their is only a AI based on aveage iron intake before 6 months. 

I'm not sure why you are doubting.  If stores are optimal up to 6 months with immediate cord clamping (which we both agree) and stores are signficantly higher at 6 months when cord clamping is delayed (which we both agree), why do you then doubt that there are benefits beyond 6 months? The stores are higher at 6months which means the benefits will extend, as the stores do not disappear overnight.  We don't know exactly when the benfits run out, but it's esitmated to be some time within a couple of months from 6 months which is when babies are often more willing to eat foods naturally containing iron that is much more readily absorbed. 

Quoting SuDoNim:

And again, you haven't shown any evidence of benefits beyond 6 months, which is when the risk of iron deficiency begins. I am not questioning iron stores before 6 months because the science is clear that most babies are adequately covered during the first 6 months.  

Quoting SlapItHigh:

Again, the reason a baby's iron needs increase around 6 months of age is precisely because the stores of iron they are born with are enough to meet their needs until around 6 months.  This is well documented (IOM, 2001; Butte, Lopez-Alarcon, & Garza, 2002; Dewey & Chaparro, 2007).  However, infants who receive delayed cord clamping have higher iron stores remaining at 6 months. Therefore, their needs do not increase at the same level as those with immediate cord clamping.

I disagree with your assertion that cereal is one of the easiest and more realistic modes of increasing a baby's iron.

Quoting SuDoNim:

Again, you are choosing a pointless argument. AFTER 6 MONTHS OF AGE, a baby does indeed have a biological need for more iron; before 6 months a baby needs about 0.49mg/day, while after 6 months a baby needs about 0.90mg/day, which is also at the time when iron levels in breastmilk start to decline. Not 6 months and 1 day, but around 6 months. And I have also already stated, cereal is not the only means to increase a baby's iron intake, but in the context of the limited diet of an infant, it is one of the easiest and most realistic modes.








SlapItHigh
by on Jan. 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM

I've repeatedly provided you with evidence. I stated that the research has not been done to quantify the benefit. According to the review in the Journal of Nutritian that I posted earlier, the benefits are estimated to extend an additional 2 months. 

Let me ask you, if you agree that delayed cord clamping leads to higher iron stores through 6 months and that with immediate cord clamping leads to lower iron stores but enough to last through 6 months then what effect does the higher iron stores have on infants who received delayed cord clamping?  How does delayed cord clamping benefit a baby under 7 months?

Quoting SuDoNim:

You keep saying it, but have yet to produce evidence of these benefits beyond 6 months. And, if I recall, just a few pages back you stated that the research has yet to be done. Which is it?


Quoting SlapItHigh:

Although we do agree on many points, the benefits of cord clamping and the benefits of iron fortified baby cereals are the two major points we disagree.  The literature does show that the benefits to delayed cord clamping extends beyond 6 months.  Actually, it shows that beyond 6 months is when those benefits are truly realized since before then, regardless of when the cord is clamped, the body is generally self-sufficient at handling any iron needs in the breastfed child.  The literature states over and over that this is why iron becomes so important after 6 months.  

It's not theoretical that the benefits last beyond 6 months.  What is theoretical is estimates attempting to quantify those benefits.  That can be said for most of the things we are discussing.  You had no problem throwing around outdated estimates of so-called "biological needs" of iron even though they were totally theoretical.  The current recommendations and estimates of average intake are quite different....to put it mildly.  Still, neither of us are pretending that the differences in needs are theoretical.  

I agree that after 6 months, additional sources of iron are generally needed especially since the vast majority of babies have immediate cord clamping.  The major point of my initiation of conversation with you was to point out that it's not as big of a concern for those who have delayed cord clamping and that's something that pregnant moms reading this right now can look into.  The little bit of difference can be a big deal to a baby who is not that big on solids from the get-go which seems to be pretty common.

Quoting SuDoNim:

Seriously, I don't even know what we are disagreeing on, aside from how long the benefits of delayed cord blooding last. The science confirms benefits through 6 months; anything beyond is theoretical. Probable, but still theoretical. 

Re: iron needs/day, it depends on the source of information. The WHO states 0.49mg and 0.90mg/day at 1-6 months and 7-12 months respectively. The CDC states 0.27mg and 11mg respectively.  

Also, regarding your link: you only quoted the abstract. If you read through the entire paper, as well as the citations, it is confirming my stance that another source of iron is generally needed after 6 months. 



SuDoNim
by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 7:36 AM

I don't know how much clearer I can express my stance; I go with what the science confirms. The extended benefits are probable, but the going with the body of evidence, the subject is too variable to say for sure. For example, looking at babies with lower iron stores at birth, their bodies compensate by absorbing more iron from breast milk than a baby born with adequate iron stores. It's highly individualized, with variables than just the timing of the cord clamping.

This isn't meant to be a dig or an insult, but I'm not sure how much formal training you have in interpreting a scientific study. The Journal link you provided suggests that the benefits extend beyond 6 months (which I have stated I agree), but it does not confirm it, partly because there just isn't enough evidence, as that age group hasn't been the focus of a particular study.

Again, suggests vs confirms; that's what it comes down to. We can go back and forth for a few more days, but I think it comes down to our differences in interpreting the science.


Quoting SlapItHigh:

I've repeatedly provided you with evidence. I stated that the research has not been done to quantify the benefit. According to the review in the Journal of Nutritian that I posted earlier, the benefits are estimated to extend an additional 2 months. 

Let me ask you, if you agree that delayed cord clamping leads to higher iron stores through 6 months and that with immediate cord clamping leads to lower iron stores but enough to last through 6 months then what effect does the higher iron stores have on infants who received delayed cord clamping?  How does delayed cord clamping benefit a baby under 7 months?





noel1978
by on Jan. 22, 2013 at 9:07 AM

when i had my kids wic only gave me baby cereal when they turned 6m. my kids were hungry for more than just the bottle when they were 1m. so i had to make my own baby food. my inlaws gave me a bunch of baby food, but when i opened the first jar it didn't smell right and i found it was a year past the date. 

in my oppinion, you get it from wic, use it. 

SlapItHigh
by on Jan. 22, 2013 at 10:24 AM

You didn't answer my questions. Why?  Because answering them would prove that your argument doesn't make sense.  You have already validated my claim yet refuse to state such in direct terms. 

Quoting SuDoNim:

I don't know how much clearer I can express my stance; I go with what the science confirms. The extended benefits are probable, but the going with the body of evidence, the subject is too variable to say for sure. For example, looking at babies with lower iron stores at birth, their bodies compensate by absorbing more iron from breast milk than a baby born with adequate iron stores. It's highly individualized, with variables than just the timing of the cord clamping.

This isn't meant to be a dig or an insult, but I'm not sure how much formal training you have in interpreting a scientific study. The Journal link you provided suggests that the benefits extend beyond 6 months (which I have stated I agree), but it does not confirm it, partly because there just isn't enough evidence, as that age group hasn't been the focus of a particular study.

Again, suggests vs confirms; that's what it comes down to. We can go back and forth for a few more days, but I think it comes down to our differences in interpreting the science.


Quoting SlapItHigh:

I've repeatedly provided you with evidence. I stated that the research has not been done to quantify the benefit. According to the review in the Journal of Nutritian that I posted earlier, the benefits are estimated to extend an additional 2 months. 

Let me ask you, if you agree that delayed cord clamping leads to higher iron stores through 6 months and that with immediate cord clamping leads to lower iron stores but enough to last through 6 months then what effect does the higher iron stores have on infants who received delayed cord clamping?  How does delayed cord clamping benefit a baby under 7 months?







SuDoNim
by on Jan. 23, 2013 at 7:18 AM

Aren't the benefits (improved hematocrit) what we've been discissing all along? You're deflecting from the issue at hand: the lack of evidence of those benefits beyond 6 months.

Quoting SlapItHigh:

You didn't answer my questions. Why?  Because answering them would prove that your argument doesn't make sense.  You have already validated my claim yet refuse to state such in direct terms. 

Quoting SuDoNim:

I don't know how much clearer I can express my stance; I go with what the science confirms. The extended benefits are probable, but the going with the body of evidence, the subject is too variable to say for sure. For example, looking at babies with lower iron stores at birth, their bodies compensate by absorbing more iron from breast milk than a baby born with adequate iron stores. It's highly individualized, with variables than just the timing of the cord clamping.

This isn't meant to be a dig or an insult, but I'm not sure how much formal training you have in interpreting a scientific study. The Journal link you provided suggests that the benefits extend beyond 6 months (which I have stated I agree), but it does not confirm it, partly because there just isn't enough evidence, as that age group hasn't been the focus of a particular study.

Again, suggests vs confirms; that's what it comes down to. We can go back and forth for a few more days, but I think it comes down to our differences in interpreting the science.


Quoting SlapItHigh:

I've repeatedly provided you with evidence. I stated that the research has not been done to quantify the benefit. According to the review in the Journal of Nutritian that I posted earlier, the benefits are estimated to extend an additional 2 months. 

Let me ask you, if you agree that delayed cord clamping leads to higher iron stores through 6 months and that with immediate cord clamping leads to lower iron stores but enough to last through 6 months then what effect does the higher iron stores have on infants who received delayed cord clamping?  How does delayed cord clamping benefit a baby under 7 months?









jisgro212
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 9:29 PM

 

I am a mom of premie twins (  months early). Born 1pound 14 oz and 1pound 10 oz. They are a year old now  -one weighs 22 pounds and the other 17 pounds.!! Both are very healthy and strong babies. I fed them organic baby rice cereal then multi grain and also oatmeal each mixed w fruit or with organic whole milk yogurt . I also gave them some cereal in the bottle w their breast milk and formula (they needed extra nutrients being premies). I made a decision to feed them the cereal based on my pediatrican , my research into the ingredients that were in the cereal/oatmea,l and what I believed to be a good source for them. I looked into what they were eating before I gave it to them ingredients wise. As a mom you should use your best judgement as to what you think is best, not what everone else says. Being on WIC shouldnt have anything to do with it. NO JUDGEMENTS.  If you can afford organic I say go for it . If not, then the next best to what is nutriously healthy for the baby. As with ANY food for the baby I would just be sure all is natural and has nutrients.

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)