Despite some clear messages from many health organizations, old recommendations -- or old wives' tales -- have many babies starting on solids before they reach 6 months old. Reasons range from "Baby is big enough!" to "Baby is too small!" (huh?) and even "I can just tell she's ready."
Even when it seems like baby is interested in food before then, often they're just interested in mimicking you, and would copy you putting something in your mouth the same way they'd copy putting your hairbrush on your head -- just copying, not intestinal lining cellular changes, the thing we're really waiting for.
There are very good reasons to delay solids until at least 6 months ...
1. It's recommended by the World Health Organization, UNICEF, The American Academy of Family Physicians, National Health & Medical Research Council, and many prominent pediatricians. The lower range numbers, and many of the reasons along with it, have been outdated for quite awhile.
2. Waiting until the cells lining the baby's gut have closed helps prevent many allergies, gas, rashes, and medical issues.
3. Waiting also shows less incidences of gastroenteritis, diabetes, and obesity (as much as six-fold!) and even ear infections.
4. Breastfeeding for at least seven months actually shows decreased rates of anemia.
5. Baby is much less likely to choke -- even on purees -- when baby is older, and can also sit upright of their own accord (babies should never be fed foods leaning back).
6. Baby's gut doesn't produce enzymes to aid in digestion until 3-4 months, and the ones that break down more complicated fats, starches, and carbohydrates won't be produced until 6-9 months, meaning lots of gas, constipation, vomiting, and wasted nutrients before then. Even generally fussiness months later is noted in babies who were started too early.
7. While some babies may be ready between 4-6 months (no evidence has ever shown anything but risks earlier), it's impossible to tell without looking with a microscope in the gut, so waiting until 6 months minimum is a safer move for all babies.
8. Waiting until your baby can pick up and put food into their own mouth while sitting up straight is a clear sign of readiness, especially if they can gum and swallow the foods. The Department of Health's Infant Feeding recommendation actually suggests allowing babies who show readiness before 6 months to play with finger foods (that's right, no purees), as it's also unlikely they will swallow before they're biologically ready.
9. The tongue thrust reflex is to help prevent choking, but spoons of liquid purees can often get past it, since the reflex point is farther forward than an adult's gagging reflex. Putting food in the front of the mouth and allowing baby to move it back, which they can't do until often after 6 months, helps prevent choking and is also, of course, a sign of readiness.
10. Most parent assumptions about when babies are ready are related to other biological norms -- waking up at night, reaching for food, mimicking your eating, wanting to eat more -- and are confused for signs of readiness. Having a set date AND a list of readiness signs helps prevent early introduction based on confusion about normal behaviors.
My friend at the Analytical Armadillo has a much longer and science-heavy post that I adore, but after all is said and done, it pretty much comes down to this: There are no benefits, only risks, to starting a baby before they're biologically ready, and since we can't see the gut, we have to go by outside cues, and waiting until a bare minimum of 6 months is the safest way to play it. If a couple weeks is the difference between a gut infection and not, the choice is pretty clear.
What reasons were most compelling for you to delay solids until 6 months (or more)?
Image via babbagecabbage/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 68
i started my daughter on rice cereal in the bottle at 5 weeks, and jar food at 8 weeks. she is now 2 years old, and to this day has only had 2 ear infections, 1 cold, and 1 mild case of bronchitis. nothing more! plus, no allergies! her doctor says that she is the most brilliant child he has seen in over 15 years of practice. not to mention, she will eat just about anything you put in front of her. she prefers aspargus over cupcakes. how bout them apples?
Pinky, lots of doctor claim that each child is the brightest to make the parents feel better and keep going back. Odds are your child really isn't the brightest child he's even encountered. Also bronchitis for toddlers isn't common, so your child having had it isn't anything to brag about. My almost-2-year-old was EBF until 7 months, didn't want solids until later so back to the boob, and still nurses but also eats solids now, and has had...one cold. Her favorite foods are broccoli and spinach. I've been told by a few doctors that she's "the brightest child ever", but I'm not so conceited as to believe it and not ignorant enough to not see it for the attempt at stroking my ego as it's meant to be.
i wonder....were these studies done on just children or children into adulthood followed over the years...i also am left wondering how much of these gut problems are caused not by feeding solids too soon but by chemicals and additives in todays foods? think about it, there are more pesticides, additive and chemically altered foods out there, i would lean more towards todays foods rather than feeding a child to young. but, there is more "scientific" proof proving this lady's article....right?
To all the whiny, whinging moms who are complaining about an article meant purely to educate and assist moms with the difficult task of bringing up a child (especially a first one) - Who the hell do you think you are? Do you not think that our knowlege and/or technology should grow and be better as the years go by? Should we not gain all the knowlege we can and do everything we can to better ourselves and ensure our children grow up into healthy adults? What right have you to want to deprive other moms of this information just because it is no longer applicable to someone who is not going to have any more children (and someone who has a guilty conscience it seems)? I read everything i can, listen to everyones opinion, and at the end of the day still go with my gut because no one knows my child like I do. That does not mean however that i do not take into account the information provided to me by healthcare professionals. Why should other children suffer just because you dont want to hear that you may have done something wrong? In future, just dont read the articles. And if you do - Shut the hell up - we don't want to listen to your self-pitying nonsense.