are things really that different now? (OT)

TwinMama08 · #1 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 05:08 PM

Weird question for you all...

My question is..... my 3 older kids were born in 1996, 1998, and 2000 and I got in a discussion yesterday about what is best for babies under age 12 months old. Is it really different now in 2008 than it was in 2000 or earlier?

Some moms in a chat started discussing taking their babies off formula between 7 and 9 months old and going straight to cows milk. They were not supplementing vitamin drops or anything... They also stated they give their babies honey, peanut butter, coke, pepsi, rootbeer, chocolate bars, candy, and any adult food they eat.. They stated they started those foods pretty early in their babies lives.

I chimed in on the conversation stating why cows milk is bad for a baby under 12 months old and why the other things are as well and they got really furious with me. Two ended up leaving the chat over it all in their anger.

So, am I right that those things are still bad for babies under 12 months old or have things changed since I last had a baby?

I think breastmilk is best for them but I understand not all can make enough milk. Unfortunately one of the moms who left the chat never even attempted to breastfeed her baby even from day one, she said she did not feel like it. One other chatter who did not leave claimed she felt strange about breastfeeding and thought it was icky so she did not as well. That is a whole other discussion but... just adding it in there for chatter background.

One of the moms who left the chat in anger stated that she was on WIC and that she ran out of formula one day and that is what prompted her to give her baby cows milk and she just never stopped from there on out. Doesn't WIC provide you with additional cans of formula if you do run totally out and have no money if you just stop by the local WIC office and ask them? I would assume they would provide that sprt of service for those on WIC.

The moms thought it was funny and cute.. not to mention normal that they give their baby all these non-baby type foods and junk food. They basically tried to make me sound like I was 100 years old and that those once harmful things that were not to be given to babies now are totally acceptable.

Oh ALSO... one woman claimed her baby has a much more advanced digestive system than others because of her introducing all those things so early in the babys life.

sounds like a load of crappola to me.

Any thoughts?

thanks!

Ashleysmom04 · #2 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 05:23 PM

No things have not changed. Babies should be not be given milk till they are at least a year. Honey could be very dangerous if given early. The same with everything else you mentioned. I cannot believe those moms were bragging about something like that. You are right, it was a bunch of crappola.

Mommie2Ava&Presley · #3 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 05:33 PM

My first thought in reading this is "How old are these people in this chat room?" They sound like really young moms.

As for things like peanut butter and eggs, I started those before age 1, because I hadn't heard that you weren't supposed to. When I had my "first batch of kids" you could add them at 6 months. My boys both survived and so has Ava. Now I realize that peanuts and nuts in general are a really serious allergy risk, but most nut allergies are hereditary, I believe and no one in our family has ever had one, so I didn't see the cause for concern on that.

Most of the other things seem pretty much like a common sense issue - that is, if they are extremely young, they probably don't have a lot of it. LOL I switched my kids to whole milk at 12 months. That is what the "rule" was with my first bunch of kids back in the 80's and early 90's and I just had assumed it hadn't changed.

A thought about not BFing - my thought is that for those that chose not to even attempt to BF, there could be things in their lifestyles that would pass on through their breastmilk and cause additional harm - smoking, alcohol, caffeine, unsafe meds that they might need to take, but had to get off of during pregnancy - so in essence that would be a responsible choice not to BF if those things are part of their day to day lives.

As for the chocolate, sodas, and other odd choices; if they are really young they probably assume that if it doesn't cause an adverse reaction immediately that there is no harm in it. When their children have rotten teeth in a year or two, they will see that they were mistaken. Unfortunately the child will be the one that will suffer because of it.

Just my

goldenrose222003 · #4 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 05:40 PM

Lurker
It sure sounds like some of those moms are a bit off... Honey is a BIG no under a year still. Cow's milk is still not good under a year, but some can start giving it diluted with formula at 10/11 mos. Depends on the dr. And I do NOT believe that they have "advanced" their child's digestive system by giving them these things earlier than recommended. The baby has more likely just built up a tolerance to them, but is getting virtually no benefit. There is a reason they need formula or breastmilk for a year, then whole milk for at least one more.

The things I've noticed that have changed between my first kids and the second "batch"...
-Recommended age for starting foods is later (6-8 mos instead of 4 mos)
-Some drs recommend keeping infants on formula even past a year, when with the boys it was goal to have them totally off it by a year
-Motrin is suddenly a no-no for some drs under 6 mos...not sure why, and I don't believe it for many reasons, but there it is
-Some drs (and hospitals) no longer allow infant rectal temps due to the possibility of rupturing the intestine. I will not allow it in my children
-Rice cereal for reflux is not a "given" anymore. More go to try other types of formula and medications first

TwinMama08 · #5 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by MissAvasMommie

My first thought in reading this is "How old are these people in this chat room?" They sound like really young moms.

As for things like peanut butter and eggs, I started those before age 1, because I hadn't heard that you weren't supposed to. When I had my "first batch of kids" you could add them at 6 months. My boys both survived and so has Ava. Now I realize that peanuts and nuts in general are a really serious allergy risk, but most nut allergies are hereditary, I believe and no one in our family has ever had one, so I didn't see the cause for concern on that.

Most of the other things seem pretty much like a common sense issue - that is, if they are extremely young, they probably don't have a lot of it. LOL I switched my kids to whole milk at 12 months. That is what the "rule" was with my first bunch of kids back in the 80's and early 90's and I just had assumed it hadn't changed.

A thought about not BFing - my thought is that for those that chose not to even attempt to BF, there could be things in their lifestyles that would pass on through their breastmilk and cause additional harm - smoking, alcohol, caffeine, unsafe meds that they might need to take, but had to get off of during pregnancy - so in essence that would be a responsible choice not to BF if those things are part of their day to day lives.

As for the chocolate, sodas, and other odd choices; if they are really young they probably assume that if it doesn't cause an adverse reaction immediately that there is no harm in it. When their children have rotten teeth in a year or two, they will see that they were mistaken. Unfortunately the child will be the one that will suffer because of it.

Just my

OH I desperately wanted to blame their stupidity on their age BUT I was 19 when I was pregnant with my first child. It was not planned, I was alone. No dad in the picture. I read book after book after book. I read pamphlets. I did research. I was fully prepared well before she was born to knwo what was good and bad, right and wrong and WHY... I researched why as well.

I breastfed, I avoided all the bad things I mentioned these ladies give their babies.

So their age can not be an excuse unfortunately for them.

nightowlmama · #6 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 06:15 PM

Uh, no...I also had babies - my first "batch" (love that - haha!) in '96 and '98...and then following in '03, '05 (almost '06)...and now this little love, of course.

Now I'm just sitting here trying to figure out if I've moved on to my third batch...or would this baby still be part of my second one?

Just kidding...I got a kick out of that.

Seriously...
If anything, "safety standards" have risen concerning baby's age since the 90's, not decreased. While I do personally feel very sorry -and scared- for those kids, I've come to realize that some people have their own minds made up and nothing I might say makes a difference. The type of mindset it seems they portrayed would only lead to defensiveness from them, and unfortunately, nothing helpful for the babies. Of course, I realize that not everyone is going to agree with me...and that's ok...but I do know, as a concerned mommy, how upsetting it can be to witness people actually doing potential harm to their children. (I'm not talking abuse as that's another story...just uninformed "Duhs"...ya know...) It's hard, but I know all I can personally do is quietly say a prayer for the little one(s) and think "To each his/her own" regarding the parent(s).

I agree that they did sound like young, uninformed moms...rather immature and bragging about nonsense. Then again, I *personally* was a young mom who fought to make breastfeeding work and was anal, for example, about not even giving my firstborn a teeny tiny taste of ice cream prior to one. (LOL at myself now - I was the 'typical' overly cautious first-time mom on just about everything.) Not patting myself on the back or suggesting anyone is less than wonderful if they choose not to breastfeed...or cannot breastfeed (for whatever reason)...just giving young moms who don't fall into the 'pathetic stereotype' a little credit where credit is due, I guess.

glowkitten · #7 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 06:19 PM

ITA with Melissa...very well put!

amyliz73 · #8 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 06:44 PM

Hmm how much time between children is considered a batch? Dd was born in 2003 and some things do seem different, but not those things (at least not to me). We started her on whole milk right about the time she turned one. She is almost 5 and still doesn't get soda - she occasionally has sips, but I don't think she has ever had an actual cup of it. In fact, I frequently water down juice for her if I can. She didn't get any of the allergy foods until after she was 1. I don't see any point in feeding a baby younger than 1 anything but breastmilk/formula and baby food.

TwinMama08 · #9 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 06:51 PM

They started to irritae me so much I said well gee why not give them beer too...

Mommie2Ava&Presley · #10 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by TwinMama08

OH I desperately wanted to blame their stupidity on their age BUT I was 19 when I was pregnant with my first child. It was not planned, I was alone. No dad in the picture. I read book after book after book. I read pamphlets. I did research. I was fully prepared well before she was born to knwo what was good and bad, right and wrong and WHY... I researched why as well.

I breastfed, I avoided all the bad things I mentioned these ladies give their babies.

So their age can not be an excuse unfortunately for them.

Yeah, but a lot has changed about the mindset of young people in the last 10 years. Females have become the pursuers of guys rather than the other way around. They have become hell bent on getting their way at all costs to whomever gets in their way. Young people, sadly have become so much more self-centered than they ever have been in history. I have one that is 22 and one that is 17 (both boys) and in spite of the way we raised them, they have been negatively influenced by their environment at school and in society as a whole. I'm sure if they didn't at least have our positive structured influence, things might have been a lot worse with them than they ever did get.

What I'm saying is, unfortunately nowadays you and people like you (responsible teens) are the exception to the rule in society. Our future does not look good if things don't change.

Mommie2Ava&Presley · #11 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by amyliz73

Hmm how much time between children is considered a batch?

Well I used that term first in this thread, because mine are almost a full generation apart. I had my first "batch" in my 20's. Those kids are 22 and 17. DH had his first "batch" in his teens and 20's. Those kids are 29 and 26. Our children together were born/will be born while we are both in our 40's. I was 40 and DH was 46 when Ava was born in Dec 2005. I will be 42 (almost 43 in about 2 weeks after the birth) and DH will be 48 when this one is born. I don't really consider 5 - 10 years age difference a second "batch" - just a good resting break before the next round.

TwinMama08 · #12 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by MissAvasMommie

Yeah, but a lot has changed about the mindset of young people in the last 10 years. Females have become the pursuers of guys rather than the other way around. They have become hell bent on getting their way at all costs to whomever gets in their way. Young people, sadly have become so much more self-centered than they ever have been in history. I have one that is 22 and one that is 17 (both boys) and in spite of the way we raised them, they have been negatively influenced by their environment at school and in society as a whole. I'm sure if they didn't at least have our positive structured influence, things might have been a lot worse with them than they ever did get.

What I'm saying is, unfortunately nowadays you and people like you (responsible teens) are the exception to the rule in society. Our future does not look good if things don't change.

My first child is turning 12 in April. It is amazing how things have changed with how moms are from then til now.

Mommie2Ava&Presley · #13 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 07:49 PM

I think your firstborn is very fortunate to have had a young mom who was willing to sacrifice to put her first! That's so awesome and not the norm. I think you're great!

Running Mom Ragged · #14 (**permalink**) 02-13-2008, 05:07 AM

"When their children have rotten teeth in a year or two, they will see that they were mistaken. Unfortunately the child will be the one that will suffer because of it."

But also they may not even CONNECT that..

NO things have not changed. Babies aren't meant to be able to digest anything but breastmilk/formula until about 6 months of age. (Now there are Drs who say it is ok to introduce cereals at 3-4 months, or even jar food! YIKES) Then juices around 4-5 months. Uhhhh I think this is starting to cause alot of childhood obesity, diabetes and other health issues. (Bad allaergies, asthma)
Honey is like poison to kids under a year because it can carry botulism. Would these people give their kids raw chicken? (It causes salmonella!) They would hopefully say no. LOL But it is kind of the same.

Oranges and strawberries because strawberries can be allergenic and I forget why no oranges for a year. Eggs and milk and peanut butter- allergies...I should try and find this article on cnn not long ago about a woman whose little boy had really severe allergies to peanut butter and other stuff. I don't think it was anything she did, but you never know if it is your kid that will go into anaphalactic shock or worse because of a food allergy.

No these people are unfortunately uninformed. And to the detriment of their child. The comment someone said about her child being more "advanced" is simply untrue and ignorant. Maybe they should skip formula all together and start feeding their kid steak and hot dogs. About the beer- some woman actually killed her baby by giving her VODKA in her bottle.

I think she mixed a shot in with the baby's formula thinking it would make her sleep and the baby got alcohol poisoning basically and died. The woman was a crack addict I think...really sad. I know you were being sarcastic Kristin...but it just shows how people's ignorance isn't bliss. It isn't a good thing.

My kids hated cereal. They would not eat it. I started them on table foods maybe earlier than some would, but they would eat what we ate, mashed up. I basically "made" their food but it was just what we had- if we had peas, I mushed them and let them try it at 9-10 months. They had teeth...and they never ate jar foods at all. None of them would eat it! I think it was because of breastfeeding. They liked the taste of real food! LOL I gave them hummus and other different kinds of foods. For awhile they didn't like normal kid foods like hot dogs LOL I didn't try the cereal until 6 months either.

They were recommending breastfeeding at least a year and I think in some places it is 2 or more. In other countries it isn't unusual for babies to nurse past 2. In the US people look at you funny if you nurse past 12 months. Mine nursed 16, 26 and about 31 months respectively. Breylan was over 2.5 years...but that organization- NOW I think it is- recommends at least a year or more of nursing (or formula) and then regular milk. Cow's milk isn't good for us anyway LOL

I am going to see if I can find the allergy article. I wonder if you found mainstream articles about infant feeding recommendations if those moms would pay attention. They are sure to have kids with problems later.

Running Mom Ragged · #15 (**permalink**) 02-13-2008, 05:29 AM

My son's food allergies: danger every day - CNN.com

I found that article- it wasn't peanuts but it was eggs, dairy, wheat...it just shows how severe allergies can be.

JavaMama · #16 (**permalink**) 02-13-2008, 07:35 AM

They started to irritate me so much I said well gee why not give them beer too...

ahhh I wonder if they took you up on it.

They were just very ignorant/uninformed, and to brag about it just made them look well stupid. I feel sad for the kids, because this could cause all sorts of havoc on their digestive systems, not to mention get them addicted to sugars very early in life and lead to obesity. It's a sad situation for those kids.

If anything I think guidelines for food and infants/pregnancy has become more strict since I had my first babe in 2001.

amanda84 · #17 (**permalink**) 02-13-2008, 01:26 PM

i definatly understand what some of you ladies are saying about them being young moms....BUT i'd like to say for the record us young moms aren't all dumb and naive. I was 21 when had ds and im 23 now. Im not taking any offence because i know that there are a lot of misinformed or uniformed young moms out there and they tend to give all us other "good" young moms a bad rep. I read every book i could get my hand on about raiseing children in a loving, SAFE enviroment. I also think there are older moms who are simply misinforemed that could learn a thing or two about raisng children. ( and i'm not talking about anyone on this board)
In short form i also agree with Melissa.