Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
For the last 2-3 weeks I had the feeling that Ela was quite ready for solid food and this Sunday I finally decided that it was time! I started with pears at breakfast and on Friday I'll move the pear to lunch and give carrots at breakfast. She loved the new taste and seemed to be quite happy to get something other than breastmilk. I wasn't sure at first what to start with since there're some views that say it's better to start with veggies since fruits contain sugar and babies get used to the sweet taste and refuse to eat veggies later but then I read a nice article that supported the opposite idea...here's the relevant paragraph:
Purists recommend that vegetables be introduced before fruits so that infants don't learn to expect that food should always taste sweet. This is one of those nutritional directives that sound great in theory, but many of us who have fed lots of babies have found it hard to put into practice. First of all, babies are born with a sweet tooth. Their tiny tongues are more richly supplied with sweet tastebuds than with any others. This makes sense, because human milk is sweet, and breastfed babies are less likely to willingly accept the bland taste of vegetables than formula-fed babies. While there is no doubt that vegetables are nutritionally superior to fruits, most parents find that babies will happily eat fruits, making them hassle-free first foods. The nutritional content of starter foods is of secondary importance; the main goal of these early solid food feedings is for the baby to learn how to swallow foods of different textures. You're likely to have more success with fruits than with vegetables. When introducing veggies, try the sweet ones first: carrots and sweet potatoes. If you have a baby who loves vegetables, good for you! Don't worry if your baby attacks veggies with less enthusiasm than fruit. He'll eventually learn to like them if you keep offering them.
I cooked the pears a bit before feeding her to prevent diarrhea and since her stool became a bit watery after a few hours I was glad I did that...due to teething Ela had less frequent bowel movements lately but since Sunday she started to poop very frequent and easy again ;))) (I still find it funny to be so happy about poops and wees and gas releases!)
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Here’s what we know for sure about baby shoes: They are darn cute. Indeed, many parents confess to buying their baby’s first pair of shoes strictly for pleasure. Beyond the eye appeal, though, there are conflicting opinions about baby shoes. We asked Denis Leduc, chair of the community paediatrics committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), to lay to rest the most common myths.
Babies need shoes to ensure proper foot development.
Not true, says Leduc. “A shoe does not shape the foot better — in fact, there is a body of evidence that the development of the arch is encouraged better by walking barefoot.” The CPS statement on infant shoes further says, “Walking barefoot develops good toe gripping and muscular strength.”
However, sometimes a baby’s foot, or walking gait, looks odd to parents. Leduc explains, “Sometimes the intrauterine position will have an effect in the first months. The legs may be bowed or the feet may be turned in. Usually this will just go away. And babies will sometimes stand with their feet turned in, or turned out like Charlie Chaplin, but this is related to how the hips are placed for stability, not the feet. The foot just sort of goes along with the rest of the leg.”
In rare cases where there is a problem that requires treatment, says Leduc, “it might involve physiotherapy or casts, followed by a special orthopaedic shoe.”
Babies need shoes for ankle or arch support.
Wrong again. According to Leduc, there’s no evidence that babies need support when walking. “A shoe doesn’t improve ankle strength,” he says, “on the contrary.”
As for arch supports, these may be necessary for an older child or adult, but babies don’t need them. You might even say they have their own built-in arch support. “A baby’s foot has a fat pad underneath it that makes it look like there is no arch,” explains Leduc. “But the foot isn’t really flat — the fat pad is just concealing the arch.” So a really prominent arch support may not even fit the shape of the baby’s foot.
“A soft shoe is fine,” says Leduc. “It doesn’t have to be a rigid shoe. A baby is out of shoes in three to six months and you could end up spending a lot of money.”
Of course, you’ll have individual preferences. If your baby tends to get hot, sweaty feet, for example, you may want to avoid vinyl shoes, which don’t breathe as well as leather, nylon or canvas. And while ankle boots have no great advantage medically, they are harder for babies to remove.
Whatever the price, a shoe that fits well is important. The CPS advises that shoes must fit properly at the heel (no slipping and sliding), and that new shoes should leave about 1.25 cm (about half an inch) between the longest toe and the tip of the shoe. It can be hard to tell on a baby, so an experienced salesperson can be a big help in ensuring the fit.
Barefoot is always better.
Now that’s going too far. Shoes provide protection, warmth and grip on a slippery surface. “I don’t think they need shoes really unless they go outside,” says Zoé Schuler, mom to nine-month-old Emily. “To protect from rocks, glass and things like that. In the house I would let her go barefoot or in grippy socks.”
“A shoe is to protect a little foot from being bumped, scraped or injured,” agrees Leduc. “That’s all.”
Or not quite all. Shoes work better than anything for keeping little socks on. And sometimes… well sometimes, you have to indulge yourself and add a pair of shoes to the outfit — just because they are so darn cute.