Thursday, February 3, 2011

Baby-led Weaning




Baby-led Weaning:
Helping your baby to love good food.
By Gill Rapley and Tracey Murkett



I know it probably seems like we do everything different, and apparently feeding baby proves to be no exception. I always thought that I would make my own baby food, but when I learned about baby-led weaning, I thought it was even a better idea. I came across baby-led weaning accidently. Another blog website I frequent had a small excerpt about it since that was how they fed their babies. I looked it up and thought it was pure genius. Actually I really thought it seemed like common sense.

"Weaning" does not refer to weaning from the breast so much as it refers to the process of starting solid foods from exclusive milk feeds and eventually eating only solids. It is just that instead of being parent led i.e. the parent is in control of when, what, and how much baby eats, the baby is in control of this (solids and milk feeds).

"Forget baby purees, ice cube trays, and weaning spoons, and simply let your baby feed himself." The concept is that you offer your baby table food. Whatever you are eating (with a few exceptions), as long as it is healthy, whole food, you let your baby eat, in easy to grab shapes. The baby starts eating solids as actual solid food, at six months, or whenever the baby appears to be ready. At first the baby doesn't actually "eat" much. Meal times are considered play time, and the baby picks food up, sticks it in their mouth, gives it a gnaw and decides what to do with it. It will mostly get spit back out. As the baby learns more about food, that it tastes good, that it can be swallowed, and that it helps fill her up, more will be ingested.

I've found that there are more baby food myths than can be counted. A few include:
1) A baby has to start with mushy food, they will choke otherwise.
The book says that a baby in control of what she puts in her mouth is less likely to choke than a spoon-fed baby. This is due to where the gag-reflex is on an infant - not very far back. The baby would put food in her mouth at the opening, not in the middle where a spoon would go and this keeps the baby in control so the food does not go too far back. The baby may gag, but that is to move the food forward so they will not choke. The book also says that when a baby traditionally is allowed to feed themselves (8+ months) they are more likely to choke because they have not learned how to control the food and the gag reflex has moved back on the tongue.

2) You have to introduce one food at a time to see if they are allergic.
The book says that this old rule was based on the recommendation of feeding four month old infants solid foods. A four month old's digestive system is not mature enough to handle food at all, so the foods did have to be runny, mushy, one at a time, and simple. Until around six months, an infants digestive track is "open" allowing foods to pass through the intestines into the blood stream. This does cause many allergies, and parents had to be very careful. Because the recommended age is now six months, which is based on scientific learning of a baby's digestion, this one food at a time rule doesn't apply. However, if you have allergies in your family, it would be wise to introduce that food carefully, otherwise, there is no need to watch for a reaction for each food. If you still have reservations or are nervous, there is nothing wrong with following a 3-day wait when introducing new foods.

3) You have to introduce vegetables first. If you do fruit first the baby will develop a sweet tooth.
This is an old wive's tale. I've even heard that you have to introduce fruit first because the baby is used to sweet foods (breastmilk). A lot of pediatricians still recommend delaying fruits until after vegetables because that is what they were taught and it gets passed down the line. The AAP says that this has no scientific basis. Besides, breastmilk is the sweetest baby food around. As sweet as many fruits. Plus, how many toddlers do you know that refuse to eat any vegetables at all, and were still introduced to vegetables first as a baby?

4) A baby doesn't understand nutrition and needs their parent to feed them what they need.
This is true and false. A baby doesn't understand nutrition, but doesn't need you to feed them what they need. Rather, they need you to offer what they need. If offered a wide variety of healthy food, a baby will choose a variety of what they need. The book says that a baby actually will go for what they need at a particular time. Babies are not picky. They don't know they aren't supposed to like broccoli. In fact, broccoli is particularly interesting to a baby. Its bright, it has different textures and looks fun. The book also warns to be careful not to get into an eating rut. For instance, I have oatmeal every single morning. A baby would need a few different breakfasts throughout the week. A baby's nutritional needs should be judged weekly, not daily. A baby, left to her own devices, will pick a variety throughout the week. So even if they only eat banana one day, they will most likely try something else another day. Breastmilk (or formula) is a baby's main source of nourishment for the first year. Even if a baby is not truly "eating" much solid food, the milk feeds are perfectly adequate.

Benefits of allowing a baby to feed herself include: its enjoyable and natural, a baby is allowed to learn about food, learn to eat safely, gain confidence, they trust food, they are a part of the family meal, better nutrition, long-term health, they learn how to deal with textures and learn to chew, they experience real food, its easier and less complicated, no mealtime battles, less pickiness as a toddler, and finally, it is cheaper. The disadvantage: its messy.

I think the less pickiness as a toddler point is key. A baby is less likely to have food-related and eating issues if they are able to explore real food from the start. A lot of a child's food issues stems from texture, but a BLW baby explores food texture from the beginning so this doesn't become a problem later.

We just now started baby-led weaning. Mary Abilene is one week shy of six months. I don't know if six months is hard a rule, but she was really showing signs of readiness to start solids. She can sit upright on her own. She reaches for our food and she can chew, though she has no teeth. We have only been offering her solids for three days and already she has eaten, or rather, tried apples, carrots, deconstructed tostada, dahl (a lentil, onion, tomato puree), banana, orange, and stir fry. She loves oranges. Oranges are one of the only foods that she has really eaten so far. She takes the little wedge and sucks all the pulp out of the membrane. It is absolutely amazing. I did find broccoli in her poo too, so I know some of that got in her!

I am going to chronicle our baby-led weaning journey. We are doing good so far. She did gag the first two days a little. The first day was our fault because we gave her a raw apple and it was breaking off into little chunks. The gagging is scary, but she coughed it up then went about her business. We cook the apple for just a bit in the microwave and she is able to gnaw and suck on it much better. Day three she didn't gag at all. So she must be learning how to manage the food.

Baby-led Weaning is not new. I think a lot of people used to feed their baby this way before Gerber and the AAP. I also think a lot of people feed their baby this way now, they just do not talk about it for fear they will be seen as lazy or negligent. The weaning and the feeding could be two different subjects. This method combines them so the baby decides when she wants to nurse, when she wants to eat solids, or when she wants to give up nursing entirely. I think it will be easier and less stressful for me (as I love nursing) and for Mary Abilene since the breast will not just suddenly be off-limits. So will Mary Abilene still be nursing by the time she's three? Maybe. Probably. Depends on the child. That's just fine with me.

Monday, January 31, 2011

New Feature!

It took me a while to figure out how to do it, but I have added an email subscription to my blog. If you want to get emails of when I update, add your email and you'll be in the know!!

Thanks for reading and visiting my blog over the past year. I hope I have touched on worthwhile topics, and have enriched your life somehow!

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Charlie's Soap


“If you want flowers, go pick some.” - Charlie’s Soap

We started using Charlie’s Soap last summer when we started washing all of our new baby clothes. I was talking to a friend who uses cloth diapers and she was telling me how important it is to use a laundry detergent that is free of all additives for cloth diapers. If there is any residue left from the detergent, it makes the diapers less absorbent. There is a list of approved laundry detergents on several cloth diapering websites I was visiting, but she told me about Charlie’s Soap and now we use it exclusively.

Most name brand detergents (ok, all name brand detergents) have additives on top of additives. These are chemicals to make your clothes smell good, look brighter, and remove stains. These chemicals get mixed into the fibers of the clothes and remain there. Have you ever been somewhere there was a black light and noticed splashes and streaks all over everyone’s clothes? Those are optical brighteners. They deposit into clothes to make the colors brighter. Not good for babies’ skin, clothes, cloth diapers, or the environment for that matter. Charlie's Soap is free of all of these additives.

With Charlie’s Soap you do not even need to use fabric softener. The reason fabric softener is necessary to have soft clothes is because of all the chemical additives in regular laundry detergent. These additives would make clothes stiff and crunchy so along comes the fabric softener (or dryer sheets) to deposit even more additives to now make your clothes soft. Charlie’s Soap cleans clothes effectively without depositing residues on them, so it does not produce the crunchy clothes effect.*

Because the chemical additives in regular laundry detergents are not good for babies’ clothing and bedding, most people I know separate their babies’ laundry from their laundry so they can use the “sensitive” or “free” types of laundry detergent. There is no need to do this with Charlie’s Soap. We wash everything with it. That is a major advantage because Mary Abilene only has a few dark colored clothes. I can’t imagine running a load for a couple of onsies; they just get thrown in with our dark clothes.

Plus, Charlie’s Soap is actually cheaper than regular laundry detergent! I get the 80 load laundry powder locally at my herb shop (they also have it at a retailer that sells cloth diapers) for $11. 80 loads for $11 plus I do not have to buy any fabric softener! I’m pretty sure we are saving money there.

Advantages:
Better for the environment
Hypoallergenic
Cheaper – no fabric softener, do not have to separate baby’s clothes, so fewer washes.
Just clean – no fragrances or optical brighteners
Good for cloth diapers

Disadvantages:
Clothes come out a little rough if you have hard water
Some static in the winter

*Our laundry actually does come out a bit rough. This is because of the limestone in our water. The limestone is depositing on our clothes, not the detergent. I think I’ve gotten used to it, but I didn’t like it for awhile. I can either use more Charlie’s Soap to combat the limestone and wash it away, or Charlie’s Soap says they are coming out with an additive to combat the hard water. Not sure about this since it is not out yet. Even with the slightly rougher clothes, I wouldn’t go back to Tide. I’ve gotten used to the scent of clean instead of fragrances.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Mom's Diner - Open All Night!!

I can't have a pregnancy/baby blog without talking about breastfeeding. I've kinda delayed this post since I thought some people might be sensitive to the subject. But I can not resist any longer. I love nursing my baby, and it is truly the most special time for both me and Mary Abilene.

Breastfeeding is the perfect design for mother and baby, and specifically formulated for YOUR baby.  Did you know that if you have a preemie the nutrition in your breastmilk is different than for a full term baby?  The milk content changes as your baby ages.  There is nothing more perfect in the world than your milk for your baby.  It is essentially manna from Heaven. Food provided essentially out of nowhere. Aside from the nutrition, it is the most precious bond I can image between mother and child.  Anyone can feed your baby a bottle, only you can breastfeed your baby. 

I saw an article that said in the late 1950's and early '60's, only 9% of women left the hospital breastfeeding.  That is shocking and sad.  Formula companies were booming and they were making every effort to get women to use their formula rather than breastfeed.  They even thought cow's milk was superior to human milk.  Let's think.  Cow's milk is for baby cows.  Kangaroo's milk is for baby kangaroos.  And human milk is for baby humans.  Even the AAP, nowadays, says that a mother should breastfeed exclusively for six months (that means no solids for six months either.)  And then continue for AT LEAST a year.  (Surprising the AAP recommends this, since no one makes any money off breastfeeding. But enough of the cynicism, I digress.)  It is hard, in this American culture, to find women that breastfeed beyond a year, but almost every other culture breastfeeds well past that year.  Some even continue to nurse until the next baby is born.  Just food for thought.

The formula companies spend lots and lots of money convincing you that you do not need to breastfeed and that formula is a good replacement. Congress wanted to start a Breastfeeding campaign and the formula companies put a hasty stop to that. All they care about is your money. NOT your baby.

Ok, so my  point of this post is to share some hard facts on breastfeeding versus formula feeding.  I got this fact sheet when I took a breastfeeding class before Mary Abilene was born.  The following are highlights from the sheet, because the whole thing won't fit on my blog...

Aside from the cost of formula itself, which is typically $1500-$2000 per year, not breastfeeding is costing a lot in health care. In an article by Hoey and Ware (1997) they stated the total annual cost of not breastfeeding was $1.186 to $1.301 BILLION in health care expenses.

Breastfeeding contains 100,000 living cells in every teaspoon, while formula is dead and has none. Formula also only contains some of the nutritional ingredients and none of the antibodies or immunity.

I didn't know until just recently that almost all formula contains high fructose corn syrup! Sometimes it is even the first ingredient!!

So, the long and short of it is that Breast really is Best. I understand people do have problems breastfeeding. It is important to find a lactation consultant as soon as possible! And stick with it if at all possible. Even if you have to supplement. It is so worth it. I wouldn't give up breastfeeding for anything in the world.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Merry Christmas!




We have a white Christmas here, in the south!!  What a special day.  Mary Abilene loved to help open presents and she made out like a bandit!

I hope everyone takes time today to reflect on the birth of our Savior.  For we would have no presents, no cranberry sauce, no babies, and no snow if it were not for Him!

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Tasty Tuesday - Banana Chip Cookies

Another recipe from 101 Cookbooks, these are absolutely scrumptious, and dare I say, (relatively) healthy cookies!  We just made them for the first time and I'm definitely keeping this recipe.

Banana Chip Cookies
Consider using coconut oil instead of butter in this recipe. Coconut oil makes AWESOME chocolate chip cookies. This is by far my favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe. I substitute shredded coconut instead of banana chips or just leave them as plain chocolate chip cookies. The dough is to die for. Try to bake the cookies and not just eat all the dough like I'm tempted to do!

1 3/4 cups whole wheat pastry flour (can use regular AP flour)
1/2 cup (toasted) wheat germ
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
scant 1/2 teaspoon fine grain sea salt
1/2 cup unsalted butter
1 cup natural cane sugar (or brown sugar)
2 large eggs
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
2/3 cup banana chips, loosely chopped
1 cup chocolate chips
2/3 cup toasted walnuts, chopped

Preheat oven to 375 degrees, racks in middle/upper middle. Line two baking sheets with parchment paper.
Whisk together the flour, wheat germ, baking soda, baking powder, and salt. Set aside.
In a large bowl, or stand mixer, beat the butter until lightly and fluffy, then beat in the sugar until it is the consistency of a thick frosting. Beat in the eggs one at a time, incorporating each fully before adding the next, and scraping down the sides of the bowl a few times along the way (important!). Stir in the vanilla. Add the reserved flour mix in two increments, stirring/mixing a bit between each addition (but not too much). By hand, stir in the banana chips, chocolate chips and walnuts - mix just until everything is evenly distributed.

Drop 1 heaping tablespoon of dough for each cookie onto the prepared baking sheets 2 inches apart and bake for about 7 - 8 minutes, until barely golden on top and bottom. Resist over baking, they will come out dry and not as tasty. Cool on racks.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Baby Carriers Review

I have four baby carriers/slings.  So here is a review of my personal favorite and a bit of information about each.

1) Seven Sling
I got this sling after Mary Abilene was born because I got a great promotion on one (free)!  I thought the patterns were adorable and my other sling (The Peanut Shell) was a bit big.  I was only able to use this sling while Mary Abilene was very small.  I ordered my size based on their sizing chart (actually a 1/2 size up because I was between sizes) and it was way too tight.  I could stuff my baby in it, but she didn't seem comfortable, and when she was only 2 months old, I could not stuff her with her cloth diaper in it anymore.  She also seemed to get stuck when I tried to pull her out.
Positives:  Cute patterns
Negatives:  Everything else
I do not recommend the Seven Sling


2) Peanut Shell
My friend Michelle gave me her Peanut Shell while I was pregnant.  I really enjoyed it while Mary Abilene was very small.  As she got older, she did not like to lay down in the "newborn cradle" position.  Another friend has one who has used hers since her little girl was born, and her baby is now 3, and she still uses it to hold her on her hip. I have not tried other positions besides the newborn cradle, like sitting her up in it like a little kangaroo because Mary Abilene enjoys the next two baby carriers quite a bit...
Positives:  Easy to put on and take off
                Cute fabrics and patterns
                Good for short trips like to the grocery store
Negatives:  Starts to hurt your back
                  Not very versatile


3)  Baby K'tan
My friend Amiee is letting me borrow this baby carrier.  The one I have is a tad big, so I think I would like it more if it were a size down.  I do like this sling.  It allows a newborn cradle or an upright position that can face in or out, which is Mary Abilene's preferred way to sit.
Positives:  Can be quickly put on
                Fairly comfortable
Negatives:  Sized, Patrick can't wear it
                  Two pieces, more to keep track of, and requires the carrier to reach around her back and take her hands off her baby to tie it, or requires a partner.

4) Moby Wrap 
My friend Laura gave this to me.  I was thinking "Oh, another baby carrier" but as soon as I found the position both Mary Abilene and I like, it quickly became my favorite baby carrier!  It is versatile, Mary Abilene loves it, it is comfortable, and anyone can wear it! It securely holds Mary Abilene in her favorite position (upright, facing in or out).  This wrap is gigantic straight out of the box, which I thought "This is absurd!"  But it shrinks feet after its first wash.
Positives:  Comfortable
                Patrick can wear it too
                Versatile
                Great for wearing around the house or on longer outings
Negatives:  Confusing straight out of the box
                  Have to make your baby wait to wrap it around yourself