# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to research done by Prof Amy Brown, of Swansea University, there is a growing body of evidence that BLW:

Encourages a wider acceptance of food and less fussiness
When there is less interference from carers, and babies are given autonomy over what, and how much, they eat, it makes picky eating and mealtime battles less likely.

Provides a more positive experience of family meals

Exposes babies to a wider variety of foods
BLW allows babies to explore the test, texture, colour and smell of foods.

Allows babies to develop positive ingestion learning
When a baby eats a whole carrot, for example, they start to associate what a carrot looks and feels like with what it tastes like, and how eating a carrot makes them feel. When babies eat purées, they are deprived of that learning experience.

Helps to develop hand-eye coordination and chewing skills

Helps with appetite regulation and protects against becoming overweight

Babies are born with an innate ability to self-regulate. When allowed to feed themselves, they will stop eating as soon as they're full.

With spoon-feeding, the temptation to coax the baby to eat more than they want is strong, but this stretches their stomach, damages their ability to self-regulate and puts them at risk of becoming overweight.

Benefits to parents:

BLW is less work because babies eat the same foods as the rest of the family, and parents love seeing how much their baby enjoys eating. Grandparents who are initially sceptical are soon won over by their grandchild's enthusiasm for food, and their self-feeding skills.
Baby-led Weaning workshops
I regularly facilitate introducing solids workshops with a focus on BLW:

https://www.cordeliauys.co.uk/solids

Here's baby Bee, one of my protegées, demonstrating her BLW skills:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Y-47wnqcw
Quotes about Baby-Led Weaning: "I'm so thankful I discovered the BLW method, as all 3 of my kids eat beautifully! (My sister-in-law has two young kids who are still on shop-bought baby mush at almost 3). I'm so thankful mine love real food! Doing BLW is one of best decisions I made as a mother." "I can't say how thankful we are that we chose to use the BLW method. BLW gave us the freedom and confidence to have Ellie live life alongside us rather than feeling trapped by mealtimes! My favourite part has been the ability to travel the world without the worry of packing food for Ellie."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to research done by Prof Amy Brown, of Swansea University, there is a growing body of evidence that BLW: Encourages a wider acceptance of food and less fussiness When there is less interference from carers, and babies are given autonomy over what, and how much, they eat, it makes picky eating and mealtime battles less likely.

# data[].attributes.headline
Academic benefits of messy play with food:

# data[].attributes.subject
Academic benefits of messy play with food:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
?

Attention, parents: The messier your child gets while playing with food in the high chair, the more he or she is learning.

Researchers at the University of Iowa studied how 16-month-old children learn words for nonsolid objects, from oatmeal to glue. Previous research has shown that toddlers learn more readily about solid objects because they can easily identify them due to their unchanging size and shape. But oozy, gooey, runny stuff? Not so much.

New research shows that changes if you put toddlers in a setting they know well, such as shoving stuff in their mouths. In those instances, word learning increases, because children at that age are "used to seeing nonsolid things in this context, when they're eating," says Larissa Samuelson, associate professor in psychology at the UI who has worked for years on how children learn to associate words with objects. "And, if you expose them to these things when they're in a highchair, they do better. They're familiar with the setting and that helps them remember and use what they already know about nonsolids."

In a paper published in the journal Developmental Science, Samuelson and her team at the UI tested their idea by exposing 16-month-olds to 14 nonsolid objects, mostly food and drinks such as applesauce, pudding, juice, and soup. They presented the items and gave them made-up words, such as "dax" or "kiv." A minute later, they asked the children to identify the same food in different sizes or shapes. The task required the youngsters to go beyond relying simply on shape and size and to explore what the substances were made of to make the correct identification and word choice.

Not surprisingly, many children gleefully dove into this task by poking, prodding, touching, feeling, eating--and yes, throwing--the nonsolids in order to understand what they were and make the correct association with the hypothetical names. The toddlers who interacted the most with the foods--parents, interpret as you want--were more likely to correctly identify them by their texture and name them, the study determined. For example, imagine you were a 16-month-old gazing at a cup of milk and a cup of glue. How would you tell the difference by simply looking?

"It's the material that makes many nonsolids," Samuelson notes, "and how children name them."

The setting matters, too, it seems. Children in a high chair were more apt to identify and name the food than those in other venues, such as seated at a table, the researchers found.

"It turns out that being in a high chair makes it more likely you'll get messy, because kids know they can get messy there," says Samuelson, the senior author on the paper.

The authors say the exercise shows how children's behavior, environment (or setting) and exploration help them acquire an early vocabulary--learning that is linked to better later cognitive development and functioning.

"It may look like your child is playing in the high chair, throwing things on the ground, and they may be doing that, but they are getting information out of (those actions)," Samuelson contends. "And, it turns out, they can use that information later. That's what the high chair did. Playing with these foods there actually helped these children in the lab, and they learned the names better."

"It's not about words you know, but words you're going to learn," Samuelson adds.

Lynn Perry, who helped design the study and analyze the data as part of her doctoral studies at the UI, is the first author on the paper. Johanna Burdinie, who was an UI undergraduate during the project, is a contributing author.

The National Institutes of Health (grant number: R01 HD045713) funded the research. Burdinie was funded by a fellowship from the Iowa Center for Research for Undergraduates.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parents, let your children get messy in the high chair. They learn better that way. That's according to a new study from the University of Iowa, which concludes that a 16-month-old's setting and degree of interaction enhances his or her ability to identify nonsolid objects and name them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Here's an interview with Gill Rapley on introducing solids: 

# data[].attributes.subject
Here's an interview with Gill Rapley on introducing solids: 

# data[].attributes.body
The following passage is, I think, really worth reading:

There is no rationale for pushing solid foods at the expense of breastmilk (or, indeed, formula).  No solid food comes close to the concentration of nutrients in breastmilk, so, spoonful for spoonful, breastmilk will always provide better nutrition (and more calories) than any other food.  Seeking to replace breastmilk in a child’s diet risks them being less well nourished, not more.  (This is the reason many societies give breastmilk to sick or elderly people who can’t manage large quantities of other foods.)  All that human babies need, once they’re over six months, is access to small amounts of other foods – in addition to breastmilk – to make sure they’re getting enough of the smallest nutrients.  Of these, iron – and therefore meat – is probably the most important but the amounts of actual food needed to provide this are very small.

The rush to replace breastmilk is a throwback from when we didn’t know much about the constituents of human milk, and when the formula replacements for breastmilk weren’t as good as they are today.  It also dates from a time when we thought the bigger babies were, the better.  We know differently now (and have done for many years), but some health care practitioners are unconvinced.  In the light of what we now know about the value of breastmilk – both nutritional and protective – we can see that, rather than preventing them from eating other foods, breastmilk provides an important safety net for a child whose appetite for other foods is small. Put another way, if a child isn’t putting on much weight on a diet of breastmilk with other foods, the thing that makes least sense is to replace the breastmilk!

Many practitioners stress that they are advocating spoon feeding as a way to increase the baby’s intake of solid food in addition to their milk but this simply doesn’t work for breastfeeding.  Breastfed babies are in charge of their milk intake – it’s impossible to persuade a them to continue feeding at the breast when they’ve taken all their body tells them they need.  This means that, if their tummy is full of solids, they will take less breastmilk to compensate.  So, like it or not, the solid food will replace breastmilk, not add to it, thereby reducing, not increasing, the baby’s overall nutrition (see previous paragraph).  This approach can, however, be made to work with formula feeding because it’s possible to encourage the baby to go on drinking beyond the point where he would naturally stop (and encouraging him to routinely ignore signs of fullness – one possible reason why formula feeding is linked to obesity).  Sadly, many health professionals are more familiar with formula feeding, and with the control it allows the person doing the feeding, than they are with breastfeeding, in which the baby is in control.  Indeed, this aspect of control is why some health advisors are not keen on BLW.

It’s worth bearing in mind that weight is only one guide to a child’s health.  We weigh babies primarily in order to pick up any illnesses that might otherwise have gone unnoticed (like digestive disorders, growth hormone deficiencies and heart defects).  If no one is suggesting any reason for an individual baby’s weight that requires investigation then s/he’s probably meant to be the size s/he is!  Indeed, if there weren’t some naturally small (and some naturally large) babies, the centile lines on the weight charts wouldn’t be where they are.  Length and head circumference can often be better indicators of a child’s health and growth than weight:  if both these are on target then it’s unlikely there’s anything wrong.  If there ARE any suspicions that a baby’s gentle (‘slow’) weight gain may be due to an underlying illness, then those suspicions should be acted on – because whatever it is won’t go away just by forcing the baby to eat more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr Gill Rapley is the author of Baby-led Weaning, Helping Your Baby To Love Good Food. This term Baby-led weaning was attributed by Gill Rapley. Enjoy this Q&A below! 1. Can babies with "tongue ties" commence baby led weaning and finger foods when showing readiness signs at 6mo?
For some babies, the presence of a tongue tie appears to cause difficulty in moving food around their mouth. However, if they have managed to breast- or bottle feed effectively over the first six months the tie is unlikely to lead to real problems when they start solids. If it appears to be causing difficulty, it needs to be addressed, because even if purees are used at first there is a) no guarantee the baby will find these easy to manage (tongue movement is important in managing soft foods as well as chewable foods), and b) s/he is going to need to start on chewable foods pretty soon anyway.
2. Why are a lot of Paediatritions and Health Care Nurses still not trusting babies that want to self-feed i.e. full Baby Led Weaning? There is a huge stigma about BLW and it's deterring a lot of parents to the only option of pureeing foods and baby cereals!
First, there are many nurses and paediatricians who are not convinced that it is appropriate to wait until six months to introduce solid foods, so it's the age of introduction rather than BLW itself that concerns them. This is a separate discussion but the two issues often get confused. Second, it's worth remembering that many paediatricians and dietitians are more familiar with the dietary needs of babies who have problems, not those who are well, so they are used to a high degree of control over what the baby should eat. This can be hard to relinquish. Some simply haven't taken the time to learn what BLW is, and assume it's a fad.

Parents themselves can do a lot to educate healthcare providers while we wait for more concrete research. When I'm in conversation with doctors, nurses, dietitians etc. I remind them that spoon feeding and purees may have become common practice but that they are in fact untested interventions, and that most of our knowledge about how chewing and swallowing skills develop has been gained through observing babies who have been spoon fed, not those who haven't. On the plus side, like parents and grandparents, many professionals are won over when they see babies who are being BLW'd eating well and thriving. I am hearing more and more stories from parents whose health advisers think BLW is great!
3. Gill, what are your thoughts on 'baby cereals?' A lot of them out on the market say they are full of iron but there is hardly any iron in them and they are full of sugars, salts, nasty oils! And is fortified iron less absorbed by the human body?
According to Gabrielle Palmer (author of Complementary Feeding: Nutrition, Culture and Politics), the main reason cereal has become the go-to food for babies has nothing to do with its (limited) nutritional value and everything to do with the fact that it's a cheap and plentiful staple food in most countries. Yes, cereals for babies are fortified with iron, but that is only because they are so low in iron naturally - to suggest them as a main first food without adding iron would put babies at risk of anaemia. I'm not sure about the bio-availability of the iron that's added to cereal but the iron in formula milks is known to be absorbed very poorly. The 'answer' (see next questions) is not to choose an inadequate food and then doctor it to make it suitable but to choose a different food! Meat is full of iron, and is a great first food for babies of six months.
4. Does iron in breastmilk actually start to decline after 6mo? And why do Health Care Nurses and Paediatric suggest baby cereals always as the 'answer'?! I've read about how the amazing the human body is at absorbing a lot more iron from breastmilk than fortified iron absorption.
The amount of iron in breastmilk is pretty constant throughout a mother's lactation. It's not very high - but it doesn't need to be because, provided they are born with good stores of iron, babies don't need to source much iron from their food in the first six months. From about six months these stores are beginning to dwindle, meaning that the need for dietary iron increases beyond the level that breastmilk alone can supply. Babies whose umbilical cord was cut early, or who were born prematurely, may be already running short of iron before this but most babies will be fine until at least six months. From then, all they need is access to an additional source of iron on top of a full intake of breastmilk. There is a risk that focusing on large amounts of fruit and vegetables at the beginning of weaning will not only fail to provide sufficient iron but also fill the baby up and decrease her/his appetite for breastmilk. A better option is to offer iron-rich foods - especially meat - while continuing to breastfeed whenever the baby wants.
5. In your study did you ever find out if teeth correlate to food intake? In your book you make reference to the fact babies don't need teeth to chew all sorts of food (except raw carrot, apple)... what are your thoughts on this?
I didn't specifically study any connection between tooth eruption and solid feeding but I have never found anything to suggest that babies who don't get teeth until quite late (over a year, say) take any longer to get going with their actual food intake than those whose teeth appear earlier. What may change more or less rapidly is the range of textures they can cope with, so, for example, babies who are later getting teeth may not be able to manage raw veg (such as carrot sticks) until later. But they still seem to eat the same gradually increasing amounts of food.

It's worth remembering that the first eight teeth to come through are the incisors. These are at the front of the mouth and are designed for biting off chunks of food - especially harder textures - but they are irrelevant when it comes to chewing, which still has to be done with the gums. Most babies don't get their first premolars/molars/cheek teeth/chewing teeth until they are over a year - and they don't get the second set (back teeth) until about two years, by which time they're already eating (and chewing) most foods, even if they haven't done BLW.
6. What are your thoughts on nitrates in foods? Some parents are avoiding foods that may have nitrates i.e. carrots, spinach dark greens... it's such a shame! Surely nitrates only exist in country's that have wells etc?
I don't know a great deal about nitrates but it seems to me that the ones we need to avoid are those that are added artificially, not those that are a natural and normal component of the food. The two biggest problem areas are processed meats (to which nitrates are added to improve the food's appearance, and which are not suitable first foods for babies anyway, owing to the presence of other additives and salt) and foods grown using artificial fertilisers. The best way to avoid both of these is to stick to unprocessed, organically grown foods as much as possible, to wash fruit, and to remove the skin of vegetables produced non-organically. It's worth remembering that vitamin C reduces the conversion of nitrates to potentially harmful products, which means that most fruit and vegetables have a built-in safety factor. Also, the key to good nutrition is variety: provided the baby's diet doesn't consist solely of root vegetables, all will be well.
7. "Would you still do Baby Led Weaning if your little one had weight issues? My babies Dr and my Lactation Consultant are telling me to do pureed food instead so she gets more calories but I feel like BLW would be the best way to go for everything except her weight."- question from a Mummy
While I am not in a position to offer advice about babies I have never met, and while I would not wish to undermine the health professionals involved in an individual baby's care, I think the following points are worth bearing in mind:

There is no rationale for pushing solid foods at the expense of breastmilk (or, indeed, formula). No solid food comes close to the concentration of nutrients in breastmilk, so, spoonful for spoonful, breastmilk will always provide better nutrition (and more calories) than any other food. Seeking to replace breastmilk in a child's diet risks them being less well nourished, not more. (This is the reason many societies give breastmilk to sick or elderly people who can't manage large quantities of other foods.) All that human babies need, once they're over six months, is access to small amounts of other foods - in addition to breastmilk - to make sure they're getting enough of the smallest nutrients. Of these, iron - and therefore meat - is probably the most important but the amounts of actual food needed to provide this are very small.

The rush to replace breastmilk is a throwback from when we didn't know much about the constituents of human milk, and when the formula replacements for breastmilk weren't as good as they are today. It also dates from a time when we thought the bigger babies were, the better. We know differently now (and have done for many years), but some health care practitioners are unconvinced. In the light of what we now know about the value of breastmilk - both nutritional and protective - we can see that, rather than preventing them from eating other foods, breastmilk provides an important safety net for a child whose appetite for other foods is small. Put another way, if a child isn't putting on much weight on a diet of breastmilk with other foods, the thing that makes least sense is to replace the breastmilk!

Many practitioners stress that they are advocating spoon feeding as a way to increase the baby's intake of solid food in addition to their milk but this simply doesn't work for breastfeeding. Breastfed babies are in charge of their milk intake - it's impossible to persuade a them to continue feeding at the breast when they've taken all their body tells them they need. This means that, if their tummy is full of solids, they will take less breastmilk to compensate. So, like it or not, the solid food will replace breastmilk, not add to it, thereby reducing, not increasing, the baby's overall nutrition (see previous paragraph). This approach can, however, be made to work with formula feeding because it's possible to encourage the baby to go on drinking beyond the point where he would naturally stop (and encouraging him to routinely ignore signs of fullness - one possible reason why formula feeding is linked to obesity). Sadly, many health professionals are more familiar with formula feeding, and with the control it allows the person doing the feeding, than they are with breastfeeding, in which the baby is in control. Indeed, this aspect of control is why some health advisors are not keen on BLW.
8. Introducing cocoa or cocao to babies under 12mo? Would you recommend? I was reading an interesting article here about carob vs cocoa.
It's worth bearing in mind that weight is only one guide to a child's health. We weigh babies primarily in order to pick up any illnesses that might otherwise have gone unnoticed (like digestive disorders, growth hormone deficiencies and heart defects). If no one is suggesting any reason for an individual baby's weight that requires investigation then s/he's probably meant to be the size s/he is! Indeed, if there weren't some naturally small (and some naturally large) babies, the centile lines on the weight charts wouldn't be where they are. Length and head circumference can often be better indicators of a child's health and growth than weight: if both these are on target then it's unlikely there's anything wrong. If there ARE any suspicions that a baby's gentle ('slow') weight gain may be due to an underlying illness, then those suspicions should be acted on - because whatever it is won't go away just by forcing the baby to eat more.

I don't really have a position on this. My primary interest is in infant development and behaviour - in what eating is like for babies, and in what they learn about food, rather than in their nutrition per se. Clearly, the more nutritious what we offer babies is, the better, so in that sense perhaps carob is preferable. However, my main concern is the message we give our children about which foods are desirable, or to be expected at every meal, since these messages can last a lifetime.

If a parent chooses to make sweet foods using carob and then either offers those foods all the time, or talks about them as 'treats', the baby/child is likely to develop a particular liking for them. This may make them crave or seek out those flavours - or something similar (chocolate?) in later childhood/life. The opposite can also happen, where the parent effectively demonises chocolate, explaining that 'in our family we don't eat X [chocolate] because ...'. This can result in the child feeling that they are missing out - and being even more keen to try the 'forbidden' food as soon as the opportunity arises!

For me, then, it's not so much about 'carob vs. chocolate' but about how we introduce either of those foods (if at all) - specifically, whether we end up doing it in a way that distorts the child's learned response to it, with possible consequences that are the opposite of what we were trying to achieve.

Thank you Gill! Your book ' Baby-led Weaning, Helping Your Baby To Love Good Food' by yourself and Tracey Murkett, is absolutely brilliant! You have given guidance, inspiration and motivation to many new nervous Mum & Dads out there starting their baby with Baby Led Weaning around 6mo. We can't wait to see more Mums & Dads out there trusting the process of BLW and trusting their babies appetite and food control.

For any other questions that are not answered in Gill Rapley's book (Baby Led Weaning) please email me at babyledweaningideas@gmail.com

If you are interested to read Gill Rapley's biography, please click here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Q&A | Gill Rapley - Baby Led Weaning Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Baby Led Weaning Ideas had the opportunity to Q & A with Gill Rapley Dr Gill Rapley is the author of Baby-led Weaning, Helping Your Baby To Love Good Food. This term Baby-led weaning was attributed by Gill Rapley. Enjoy this Q&A below! 1. Can babies with "tongue...

# data[].attributes.headline
Gill Rapley's guidelines to implementing BLW:

# data[].attributes.subject
Gill Rapley's guidelines to implementing BLW:

# data[].attributes.headline
Here’s a thorough analysis of the research into BLW by Rosie Dodd’s of the NCT from 2013:

# data[].attributes.subject
Here’s a thorough analysis of the research into BLW by Rosie Dodd’s of the NCT from 2013:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dodds Baby-led weaning is associated with less parental control of children¹s eating and lower BMI p14-15 Mar13

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Article summary

Introduction

How should solid foods be introduced to infants? Do different weaning methods impact on food preferences and health-related outcomes? These questions are currently unanswered. To date, the focus on weaning has been on when, rather than how, to wean. 1 Recently, much media attention has centred on baby-led weaning, 2 3 which emphasises infant self-feeding with solid finger foods from the outset rather than parental spoon feeding with purees. Baby-led weaning is suitable for most infants 4 and is associated with (1) reduced maternal anxiety about weaning and feeding 5 and (2) a maternal feeding style, which is low in control. 6 However, the impact of this weaning method on food preferences and health-related outcomes is not known. Thus, we examined the influence of different weaning styles on food preference, body mass index (BMI) and picky eating in early childhood.

Methods

Parents of 155 children (aged 20-78 months) were recruited to the study between June 2006 and January 2009. The baby-led group (n=92) was recruited through an advert posted on relevant internet sites; the spoon-fed group (n=63) was recruited from our toddler laboratory database.

Participants completed a questionnaire (a standard research tool for examining food preferences 7) concerning the following: (1) infant feeding and weaning style. (2) Child's preference (rated from 1 'loves it' to 5 'hates it') for 151 foods (adapted from Wardle et al 8), which was analysed by standard food categories, for example, carbohydrates, proteins, dairy, 9 and included a category called 'meals' for whole meals like lasagne. 8 See supplementary information in etable 1 for details. (3) Exposure (frequency of consumption) rated from 1 'more than once a day' to 7 'less than once per month', as this is closely related to food preferences. 10 11 (4) Picky eating (a single item requiring a 'yes/no' response to 'Would you classify your child as a picky eater?'). (5) Child height and weight for BMI calculation (weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in metres). In the spoon-fed group, these measurements were made using standardised procedures when assessed in our laboratory. We calculated BMI z-scores using the WHO Growth Standards. 12 BMI percentile ranks were calculated using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Child and Teen BMI Calculator 13 and the National Health Service (NHS) Choices BMI Calculator 14 (which uses UK90 reference data for children older than 4 years 15 and WHO Growth Standards data for children younger than 4 years). 12 (6) Socioeconomic status (via postcode using the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) score and rank for 2007 and National Statistics 2001 Area Classification of Super Output Areas and Data Zones)). 16 These measures are frequently used in social and health-related research with children and by government departments. 17 Socioeconomic status has been shown to influence eating practices and behaviours. 18−20 (7) Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (short form). 21 Parents who returned a completed questionnaire were entered into a prize draw for £50. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Nottingham School of Psychology Ethics Committee. Parents completed a consent form prior to participation in the study.

Data were analysed using PASW Statistics V.18.0. 22 Pearson's correlations and t tests were used to examine relationships between outcome measures and groups, respectively. Non-parametric tests (Spearman's rank correlations, Mann-Whitney U) were used when there was significant skew or problems with homogeneity (Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons). Missing food preference data were accounted for in the calculation of averages across categories. Cases with other missing data (eg, BMI) were excluded from analyses. Preliminary analyses showed that exposure and preference ratings were not contaminated by socially desirable responding and only liking for vegetables was significantly related to socioeconomic status (IDACI score) (r s=−0.25, p=0.005) (higher social class associated with increased liking for vegetables).

As no formal definition of baby-led weaning exists, 6 parental self-report of weaning style was used to generate weaning groups. To verify the veracity of self-reported weaning style, responses to items concerning weaning methods were interrogated. This confirmed that the baby-led group were more likely to have handled food from the introduction of solid foods, were given finger foods earlier and fewer had been spoon-fed with pureed foods at all ( table 1). Thus, the two groups differed significantly on criteria typically used to characterise baby-led weaning. 6

Results

The baby-led group was significantly younger than the spoon-fed group ( table 1), and overall age and preference were significantly correlated (collapsed across food categories, r s=0.28, p=0.001; and for the individual food categories of dairy, r s=0.35, p<0.0001; snacks, r s=0.21, p<0.009 and meals, r s=0.26, p=0.001). To control for this effect of age, a case-controlled age-matched sample of 74 participants (37 pairs) was generated to analyse the food preference data (see table 2 for details).

Between the two weaning groups, significant differences in preference were found for only one food category-the baby-led group liked carbohydrates more than the spoon-fed group (t (72)=−3.11, p=0.003, d=−0.53). Indeed, carbohydrates were the most liked food category for the baby-led group, whereas sweet foods were most liked by the spoon-fed group ( table 2). The baby-led group also liked proteins (t (72)=−2.71, p=0.008, d=−0.63) and whole meals (U=448.00, p=0.02, d=−0.40) more than the spoon-fed group, but these differences did not survive Bonferroni adjustment.

Next, we investigated the effects of exposure on food preferences in the matched sample 10 11 ( table 3). Across groups, comparisons revealed increased exposure to vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates, protein, meals and sweets in the spoon-fed group. Exposure was significantly associated with liking for dairy foods (r s=0.58, p<0.0001), snacks (r s=1, p<0.001), vegetables (r s=0.47, p<0.0001) and proteins (r s=0.44, p<0.0001). No association was found for carbohydrates (r s=0.19, p=0.11), sweet foods (r s=0.19, p=0.11), fruits (r s=0.10, p=0.39) and meals (r s=0.17, p=0.14). This suggests that for carbohydrates, the only food category with significant group differences, weaning style was more influential than exposure on preference ratings.

Finally, we investigated the influence of weaning method on health-related outcomes. BMI scores (percentile rank) differed significantly between groups ( table 1)-lower BMI were associated with baby-led weaning in the whole sample. (This difference was also evident in the matched sample-NHS percentile rank (U=276.50, p=0.008) and CDC percentile rank (U=268.50, p=0.005)). As shown in table 1, the mean BMI percentile rank for the baby-led group was close to the expected average (percentile rank of 50) for both the NHS and CDC classification systems. In contrast, the mean percentile rank for the spoon-fed group was above the average level, indicating that more children in this group were likely to be classed as overweight.

BMI z-scores were also found to differ significantly between the weaning groups (see table 4). To investigate this further, we determined the number of children in each group classified as significantly underweight (z-score more than −2) and those who were obese (z-score of more than +2)-clinically the most concerning cases. Using this criterion, we found there to be an increased incidence of obese children in the spoon-fed group (n=8) as compared to the baby-led group (n=1). In contrast, more children in the baby-led group were classified as significantly underweight (n=3) compared to the spoon-fed group (n=0) (Fisher's exact test, p=0.02, two-tailed). A similar pattern of results was found when child BMI was classified according to percentile rank (see table 4).

BMI (WHO z-score) was not correlated with socially desirable responding in the baby-led group (where self-report of height and weight measurements was used, r s=−0.13, p=0.29). Also BMI (WHO z-score) did not correlate with socioeconomic status (IDACI score) (r s=−0.07, p=0.51) or breastfeeding duration (r s=−0.10, p=0.29) in the whole sample. (There was also no correlation between BMI scores and breastfeeding duration in the matched sample (r s=−0.11, p=0.43)). The same pattern of results was found when using the BMI percentile rank measures. (No difference between the two weaning groups was found in the prevalence of picky eaters ( table 1)).

Discussion

Understanding the factors that contribute to healthy nutrition in early childhood is crucial as this could be the optimal time to modify food preferences so as to foster healthy diets in obesogenic food environments. 10 Our findings show that baby-led weaning has a positive impact on the liking for carbohydrates-foods that form the building blocks of healthy nutrition (ie, those found at the bottom of the food pyramid). 9 This is a significant finding since, to date, the factors thought to be most influential on early food preferences are sweetness and familiarity (exposure). 10 Consistent with previous research, the spoon-fed group preferred sweet foods most, whereas the baby-led group most preferred carbohydrates (even though significantly higher exposure to carbohydrates was reported in the spoon-fed group).

Children weaned using the baby-led method are more likely to encounter carbohydrates in their whole food format earlier than spoon-fed children as these foods are ideal early finger foods (eg, toast and pitta breads) so age of introduction may impact on behaviour. However, our data show that exposure per se did not influence preference for carbohydrates, so another factor must be driving preference here. Presenting carbohydrates to infants in their whole food format, such as toast, rather than a pureed form may highlight awareness of perceptual features (such as texture) that is masked when food is pureed. Previous research has shown that food presentation significantly influences food preferences, 23 so it is possible that differences in the presentation of foods across the two weaning groups impacted on preferences. It is also possible that carbohydrates are easier to masticate compared to some other foods such as meat (which may be easier to eat when pureed and spoon-fed). Interestingly, the baby-led group showed increased preference for all food categories except sweets compared to the spoon-fed group (although this was only significant for carbohydrates).

Our results also showed that baby-led weaning was associated with lower BMI (in terms of mean percentile rank) that could not be accounted for by differences in birth weight, parental BMI or socioeconomic status. The analysis of BMI z-scores revealed an increased incidence of underweight (the baby-led children (3/63)) and an increased incidence of obesity (the spoon-fed children (8/63)). It should be noted that there was some missing data on BMI in the baby-led group (32%). However, in both groups, the vast majority of the children were of an average/healthy weight (see table 4). In contrast to past literature, 24 breastfeeding duration and BMI were not significantly associated. This discrepancy may be due to the fact that the vast majority of the mothers in this sample breastfed their babies and for much longer periods of time than might be expected from past research. 25 Nonetheless, duration of breastfeeding may have a mediating effect, which requires investigation in relation to the impact that weaning style has on BMI. No difference in the prevalence in picky eating was found across groups. Moreover, 93.5% of the baby-led group reported that their child had never experienced a choking incident (a serious concern for parents and practitioners). 2

Our results suggest that baby-led weaning promotes healthy food preferences in early childhood that could protect against obesity. This finding is of note given the serious problems with childhood obesity facing many modern societies. 26 The baby-led approach was, however, associated with a higher incidence of underweight relative to the spoon-fed group. The factors underlying this require exploration in future research.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to have examined the impact of weaning method on food preferences and health outcomes in early childhood. Future research should determine whether our findings hold for more specialist populations, such as babies born prematurely or with specific health difficulties. Moreover, careful consideration should be given to the classification of weaning method. In the present study, we relied on parents identifying themselves as having used baby-led weaning (and we checked the reliability of this self-report by asking some specific questions about their weaning practices). This gave rise to a dichotomous variable-either the parents used baby-led weaning or they did not. However, it may be more sensitive to consider weaning methods as a continuum where parents rate the percentage use of pureed foods in their child's diet over time. 5 In addition, previous studies have shown that parents who used the baby-led approach to weaning are less controlling and more willing to hand control over to the child when introducing solid foods. 6 Future research needs to address the contribution of this factor into any effect of weaning method on food preferences.

A large controlled prospective study is now required, which examines weaning practices in tandem with the other key factors, including BMI, milk feeding practices (breast vs bottle/formula fed), socioeconomic status, locus of control and picky eating. In particular, a study is needed that includes a greater proportion of children who have been formula/bottle fed in order to compare the relative impacts of weaning method and milk feeding practices on food preferences and health outcomes in early childhood.

Acknowledgments

Dr Sarah Knowles BSc (Hons), MSc, PhD (now at School of Community-Based Medicine, University of Manchester, UK) assisted with data collection and input. Joanne Pybis BSc (Hons), MSc (now at British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy) assisted with the data collection for the spoon-fed group as part of her PhD research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). We thank the parents who took part in the study from the Nottingham Toddler laboratory, the 'I Want My Mum forum' and the 'Baby-Led Weaning forum'. We thank Professor Paul McGraw and Dr Scott Campbell for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

View Abstract

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Baby knows best? The impact of weaning style on food preferences and body mass index in early childhood in a case-controlled sample

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Objective The impact of different weaning methods on food preferences and body mass index (BMI) in early childhood is not known. Here, we examine if weaning method-baby-led weaning versus traditional spoon feeding-influences food preferences and health-related outcomes.

# data[].attributes.headline
This article has interesting research into the benefits of BLW, (although the accompanying photo is ridiculously alarming) from the Daily Telegraph in January 2014: 

# data[].attributes.subject
This article has interesting research into the benefits of BLW, (although the accompanying photo is ridiculously alarming) from the Daily Telegraph in January 2014: 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"This results in the baby being better able to control his or her appetite which could have a long-term impact upon weight gain and eating style that may continue into childhood.

"There is increasing recognition of the role of feeding style during infancy upon how a child's appetite and eating style develops.

"Allowing the child to regulate their own appetite and not pressurising them to eat more than they need is a really important step in encouraging children to develop healthy eating patterns for life."

Dr Brown and Michelle Lee, from the University's College of Human and Health Sciences, compared the weight and eating style of children weaned using a baby-led approach with those using a traditional spoon-feeding style.

Baby-led weaning allows infants to feed themselves solid foods from the start of weaning.

Instead of the parent spoon-feeding the baby pureed foods, babies are offered a range of whole foods which they pick up and eat themselves until they are full.

The study examined the eating habits of 298 babies - first looking at how they were introduced to solid foods between 6 and 12 months.

The researchers then studied the weight and eating behaviour of the same infants between 18 and 24 months.

Dr Brown said the study found infants weaned using a baby-led approach were "significantly more" able to stop eating when they felt full and were less likely to be overweight.

These results were independent of other factors such as mother's background, birth weight, weaning age and breastfeeding.

She said: "This may be explained by the baby being allowed to handle foods, control their intake and eat at their own pace, alongside being exposed to a wider variety of tastes.

"All of this may promote appetite regulation and healthy weight gain trajectories."

The results of the study were published by the journal Pediatric Obesity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spoon-fed babies more likely to be overweight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"This results in the baby being better able to control his or her appetite which could have a long-term impact upon weight gain and eating style that may continue into childhood. "There is increasing recognition of the role of feeding style during infancy upon how a child's appetite and eating style develops.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is Baby Led Weaning? The official website: 

# data[].attributes.subject
What is Baby Led Weaning? The official website: 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Mush Stops Here

Baby Led Weaning, quite simply, means letting your child feed themselves from the very start of weaning. The term was originally coined by Gill Rapley, a former health visitor and midwife.

According to the most recent research most babies reach for food at around six months, which is also the time that mothers are being encouraged to wean* by their Health Visitors, in accordance with the WHO guidelines.

The distinct advantage of weaning at around six months is that by then, our children are developmentally capable of feeding themselves proper food, in other words - no more mush!

You just hand them the food in a suitably-sized piece and if they like it they eat it and if they don't they won't. (But they do, really they do... check out the baby with the pork chop).

That's the essence of Baby Led Weaning. No purees, no ice cube trays, no food processor, no potato masher, no baby rice, no weird fruit and veg combos... just you and your child, eating food that you enjoy with you and your family.

Please browse the site, or come and join us on the very welcoming Baby Led Weaning Forum

* re 'wean'. This is meant in the Brit sense, not the American. In the UK, 'weaning' means 'adding complementary foods', whereas in the States it means 'giving up breastfeeding'. Two nations divided by a common language, and all that. In fact, there is even a helpful hands-across-the-ocean translation thread on the subject on the forum, which solves the mystery of what the UK equivalent of the Graham's Cracker might be. (While we're on the subject of terminology... if it was up to me, I'd have called this whole thing Baby Self-Feeding, but that ship has sailed, my friends, and Baby-Led Weaning it is.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Baby Led Weaning, quite simply, means letting your child feed themselves from the very start of weaning. The term was originally coined by Gill Rapley, a former health visitor and midwife. According to the most recent research most babies reach for food at around six months, which is also the time that mothers are being encouraged to wean* by their Health Visitors, in accordance with the WHO guidelines.

# data[].attributes.headline
Study by Dr Amy Brown showing babies doing BLW do not choke any more often than those eating purees: 

# data[].attributes.subject
Study by Dr Amy Brown showing babies doing BLW do not choke any more often than those eating purees: 

# data[].attributes.body
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jhn.12528/full

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Research Paper

Authors

A. Brown

Corresponding author

College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

Correspondence

A. Brown, Department of Public Health, Policy and Social Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.

Tel.: +44 1792 518672

E-mail: a.e.brown@swansea.ac.uk

Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Background

Baby-led weaning (BLW) where infants self-feed family foods during the period that they are introduced to solid foods is growing in popularity. The method may promote healthier eating patterns, although concerns have been raised regarding its safety. The present study therefore explored choking frequency amongst babies who were being introduced to solid foods using a baby-led or traditional spoon-fed approach.

Methods

In total, 1151 mothers with an infant aged 4-12 months reported how they introduced solid foods to their infant (following a strict BLW, loose BLW or traditional weaning style) and frequency of spoon-feeding and puree use (percentage of mealtimes). Mothers recalled if their infant had ever choked and, if so, how many times and on what type of food (smooth puree, lumpy puree, finger food and specific food examples).

Results

In total, 13.6% of infants ( n = 155) had ever choked. No significant association was found between weaning style and ever choking, or the frequency of spoon or puree use and ever choking. For infants who had ever choked, infants following a traditional weaning approach experience significantly more choking episodes for finger foods ( F 2,147 = 4.417, P = 0.014) and lumpy purees ( F 2,131 = 6.46, P = 0.002) than infants following a strict or loose baby-led approach.

Conclusions

Baby-led weaning was not associated with increased risk of choking and the highest frequency of choking on finger foods occurred in those who were given finger foods the least often. However, the limitations of noncausal results, a self-selecting sample and reliability of recall must be emphasised.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No difference in self‐reported frequency of choking between infants introduced to solid foods using a baby‐led weaning or traditional spoon‐feeding approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research Paper Corresponding author College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK Correspondence A. Brown, Department of Public Health, Policy and Social Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK. Tel.: +44 1792 518672 E-mail: a.e.brown@swansea.ac.uk Search for more papers by this author Baby-led weaning (BLW) where infants self-feed family foods during the period that they are introduced to solid foods is growing in popularity.