It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breast may not be best for the first six months of life, some experts say

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
If it wasn't best then formula would grow on trees.

I know it's not for everyone but, come on, the assertion is ridiculous.


reply to post by FarArcher
 


edit on 15/1/2011 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Why when we talk about introducing solids does everyone automatically assume the only solid available is corporate products at the store?

It's not.

People with private gardens should mash up some of their produce (after testing it themselves first) and offer them to their baby. Green beans, cooked soft carrots, babies love this stuff typically.

Every thing you do affects the babies growth mentally and physically.
Giving them food to play with increases their abilities significantly, and you don't need a scientific study to realize that.

The later you wait, the less opportunity the child's early development has to prosper.

If you have a kid you will know, early on when trying to introduce solids for a child, 99% of it gets on their face and not in their belly. This is true, and funny.

But there is no logical reason to hold off on it. It does not replace breast milk because the kid isn't eating barely any of it anyway. He/She will still be begging for the milk, you can be sure of that.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
There is new research that shows that our brains develop at a massive rate initially, and later on actually start to retard as connections die and reform.

The reason for this is suggested to be the increased need to explore and make connections, to take that away is only hindering that development.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
just my 2 cents here

I think we should take the advice of following nature + the parents with experience here.

as violater points out this looks like junk science to me

I also think we should note that the gist/bottom line of this study is how soon can baby be exposed to food toxins.

yep definitely start baby's solid food with homegrown/organic



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I didn't wait the recommended six months to give my children solids. I knew when they were ready for it. In fact, I caught a lot crap for feeding my first solids at 4 months old (he was 18lbs at this point, but he started out at 9 lbs so of course he was big) so I tried to wait with my second. I took him to the doctor at around four months (he was about 15lbs or so) and they said I had to start solids due to his size.

I could tell they were ready when they were suddenly interested in watching us eat.

My point:

You know your child better than any doctor does, if you feel they are ready then they probably are.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PoorFool
 


Humans are infinitely adaptable. You know, peoples who had cattle as their main source of food (like in Europe and Africa for example can drink milk whilst the majority of people can't? It's because they genetically adapted to be able to tolerate milk and to break down the lactose. The same goes for grain. Your statement may have been true 10000 years ago. It really isn't anymore.




top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join