Featured Posts
JenniferMiller0
Don't tell me how to feed MY baby!!!!!!!
January 14, 2013 at 12:07 AM

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. >.>

Replies

  • JenniferMiller0
    January 16, 2013 at 7:59 PM

    Okay then. Thanks everyone for the advice, asked for or not! LOL. I had no idea this topic would get so much attention. Looking back now though, I probably should have thought before posting this. I was in a rather pissy mood and wanted to vent. There are a lot of "discussions" going on right now and I am actually enjoying readng them, both the friendly ones and the not so friendly ones.

  • SuDoNim
    by SuDoNim
    January 16, 2013 at 8:24 PM

    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.


    Quoting SlapItHigh:

    No, the red text has nothing to do with your #1, it has to do with your #2.  There is evidence that it extends beyond 6 months b/c research has shown that stores are significantly increased still at 6 months and they don't disappear overnight. 

    I quoted you to dispute your claim that cereal is a good source of iron. The OP doesn't ask that question. Did she ask within the thread somewhere else?  Any who there is quite a bit of evidence of the dangers even long term reduced intelligence. There is only a "biological need" for more iron when babies have immediate cord clamping, with the exception of high risk groups I mentioned earlier. I don't care if people want to have their LOs tested but I don't think it's dangerous not t if the child is not at risk.  

    Quoting SuDoNim:

    1. Yes, I did (see red text)

    2. I implied no such thing. Again, I AGREE that there is a benefit of higher iron levels with delayed cord cutting, but the fact is there is no evidence that the benefits extend past 6 months.

    To be honest, I'm not sure why you quoted me in the first place. The OP asked why some claim that cereals are useless or downright "dangerous". We're talking about adding cereal at 6 months, what do iron stores before 6 months have to do with the biological need for more iron after 6 months? Not all breastfed babies will be deficient, but it's dangerous and foolish to assume so without actually having those iron levels checked in the first place. 

    Quoting SlapItHigh:

    No, you didn't say #1.  As for #2, you claim that they last until 6 months which implies at 6 months they are the same.  At 6 months, they are significantly higher and that doesn't imply how much longer they last.  Are you claiming they just magically disappear the day after 6 months?  Why did you quote my post in the first place to comment on my cord clamping statements?  To agree with me?  You clearly were implying that there's not much difference by 6 months which is not accurate.  The research beyond 6 months simply hasn't been done.  However we know that at 6 months it is much higher.  With immediate cord clamping, babies iron stores last until 6 months and then additional iron intake is warranted.  With delayed cord clamping such is not the case as their iron stores are much higher at 6 months. 

    We will have to agree to disagree regarding electrolytic iron.  The process is not as simple as you describe as you are completely ignoring the "electro" part of the process.  The process of electrodeposition is not simply grinding down elemental iron into powder.  My first thought was artificial but then I dismissed that since it does come from natural forms, however the process and the end result is not what would be naturally found in food.  Therefore, it fits the definition:

    "devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual realities"

    Quoting SuDoNim:

    ...which is pretty much what I said:

    1. Iron stores are sufficient until about 6 months

    2. Benefit of higher iron levels after delayed cord cutting until about 6 months

    3. Electrocytic iron is not synthetic

    Quoting SlapItHigh:

    Even with immediate cord clamping across the board, exclusively breastfed baby's iron stores last until 6 months.  The exception to that is babies born to diabetic mothers and low birth weight babies.  Additionally, we know that delayed cord clamping for 3 minutes (I do longer) "significantly increases serum ferritin levels in infants at 6 months of age".

    The iron used in baby cereal is electrolytic iron.  I considered a couple different words before settling on synthetic and I think it was apt.  Unfortunately, I've had to study iron fortification extensively as I have Hemochromatosis and my children are risk as well.

    Quoting SuDoNim:

    I agree delaying cord clamping can be beneficial, but as far as I've read, the higher iron levels after delayed clamping only last until 6 months of age; after that the difference is negligable and benefits are theoretical. Again, not all breastfed babies will be deficient without some form of iron supplementation, but the only way to know is to have their levels checked.

    As far as the iron used in baby cereal, it is not synthetic; electrolyic iron is simply elemental iron in powdered form. Cereal is not the only way to supplement iron, but is often the easiest and most realistic 





  • Corinnesingh
    January 16, 2013 at 8:36 PM

    I completely agree with u... Congrats

  • cRystienah
    January 16, 2013 at 9:32 PM

    I don't understand that :/ The ladies I know who have gotten it have a great income. I actually went with a friend of mine a while back and her husband works with my dh. They didn't lie about their income or anything and she still got WIC.

    Quoting littlelamb303:


    Quoting cRystienah:

    Wait what? You will seriously get bashed for getting WIC?? They highly recommend WIC to every pregnant woman where I live so everyone ends up getting it.. I never knew it was a bad thing to some people..

    Quoting emeraldangel2.0:

    you're new huh? that was actually NICE compared to what i've seen. take everything here with a grain of salt.

    and be prepared to be bashed for getting wic. nothing people here hate more than someone declaring they're on public assistance.


    no, everyone does not get WIC, it is income based.  I never qualfied for it.  They bash it because it is funded by tax dollars and not everyone qualified


  • SlapItHigh
    January 16, 2013 at 9:57 PM

    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.

  • ChristyG2012
    January 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM
    I think the "bad" thing about baby cereal is (supposedly) the "empty calories". I think I've heard women say it has no nutritional value & it's just meant to "unhealthily" bulk your baby up. Who knows? I actually needed to "bulk my baby up" & cereal helped me do it!
  • ChristyG2012
    January 16, 2013 at 10:13 PM
    Yea. My baby & I are both on WIC & we have a lot better income than most ppl around here! We don't qualify for any other gov. assistance (like food stamps). WIC is the only GA we get. I figured their cutoff is a lot higher than most...


    Quoting cRystienah:

    I don't understand that :/ The ladies I know who have gotten it have a great income. I actually went with a friend of mine a while back and her husband works with my dh. They didn't lie about their income or anything and she still got WIC.

    Quoting littlelamb303:



    Quoting cRystienah:


    Wait what? You will seriously get bashed for getting WIC?? They highly recommend WIC to every pregnant woman where I live so everyone ends up getting it.. I never knew it was a bad thing to some people..


    Quoting emeraldangel2.0:


    you're new huh? that was actually NICE compared to what i've seen. take everything here with a grain of salt.


    and be prepared to be bashed for getting wic. nothing people here hate more than someone declaring they're on public assistance.




    no, everyone does not get WIC, it is income based.  I never qualfied for it.  They bash it because it is funded by tax dollars and not everyone qualified



  • SuDoNim
    by SuDoNim
    January 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM

    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
    January 16, 2013 at 11:31 PM

    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.



  • captaincw322
    January 17, 2013 at 12:16 AM
    I tried cereal with my dd at 4 months since that's what the ped recommended and she had a horrible reaction. We had her tested for allergies to everything and nothing ever came back positive. The only other place I have ever seen a person throw up like that was on the exorcist. Ped even told me it was all in my mind and she found it hard to believe that dd couldn't keep solids down. Do what you feel is right for your child. YOU know your kid best, no one else. We learned that the hard way. I'm sure it's been answered but adding anymore feedings will increase your supply, unless you are substituting the pumping session with a feeding.
Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Today's “Featured” Posts
More Featured Posts