Comments on: First Foods: Why Babies Don’t Need Cereals or Purees

By: mamatoothfairy

mamatoothfairy — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:23:38 +0000

I thought your post was very informative and not at all false-claiming. I also didn’t precieve any implied expert testimony from it. Just a voice of experience pointing out a different way. Thanks for the information, as intended, it expanded my perception.

By: heather

heather — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:43:20 +0000

Thanks for your comment, momof3. I make no claims to be an expert, just a “happy customer.” And this post was never intended to provide all the details, just a glimpse into our own experience. It’s not “my” baby-led feeding either, I’m not some guru who came up with the idea. I’m just passing along the information for other moms who, like myself a couple years ago, have not yet heard about it.

If you read the article that I’m linking to, you’ll get more information. Because there are, indeed, actual facts to back all this up.

Of course many kids grow up just fine on the “traditional” method, but not all do. My point is simply that it’s not *necessary*, and since it does carry *some* potential downfalls and is just so much more complicated, then why bother?

If you read the entire article, you’ll get much more information. Even better, read the information from the true ‘expert’, Gill Rapley — http://www.baby-led.com.

By: momof3

momof3 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:56:48 +0000

Funny – I raised 3 kids the “traditional” way – starting traditional baby foods at 6 months – and all three eat extremely well – and were self-feeding by one year. I respectfully disagree that your experience with one child and your “baby led feeding” makes you the expert you claim to be. If you’re going to claim that starting with baby cereal is potentially harmful, then you need to back your statement up with actual facts.