Showing posts with label recommendations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recommendations. Show all posts

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Musing on Elimination Diets

Ahh, the elimination diet. The first thing that many moms suggest when someone's baby has so much as a painful toot. We Americans are obsessed with food. Some with eating it, some with not eating it. It's become the most popular trend in 'crunchy' circles to blame everything on food and insist everything can be cured with it. A lot of people have great success and improved health discovering what they are intolerant or allergic to and removing it from their diet and that's great. Others seem to be nothing but miserable and even unhealthier while on their special diets and eventually abandon them for their sanity.

This has trickled down to babies at the breast. For some babies, an elimination diet is a lifesaver--both for the baby and his parents! However, when it's the go-to for pretty much any upset tummy or rash, are we doing more harm than good?

Courtesy stockxchng

Many studies have come out in recent years that suggest that our clean, sterile environments and avoidance of allergens may be contributing to (or causing!) our poor health here in the US. For instance, a study of babies who ate peanuts earlier in infancy vs. those who wait until after a year as guidelines have recommended showed that the babies with earlier exposure are less likely to be allergic to peanuts! Autoimmune diseases are being linked to clean (sterile) environments, calling for an end to things like Clorox wipes. Pets, once considered a cause of childhood allergies, are now suggested to actually reduce the risk by over half (and kids raised on farms have less allergies, too).

Children learn about the local diet that they are going to be eating through amniotic fluid that they sample in the womb and the milk they drink at mother's breast. It makes sense, then, that places that have diets heavy in fish, such as Japan, have nearly no fish allergies (something I envy, as salmon, tilapia, sardines and several other fish all slam my throat shut like an angry teenager's bedroom door) and announcing you have such an allergy leads the people there to wonder how you can even live, as surely, you must starve if you can't eat fish! So, what does it do to a nursling's expectation for a mother to drastically change her diet to something that does not reflect what the child will grow up eating (or eat when grown up)?

courtesy stockxchng
Now, moving past studies into my own personal experience. My first daughter, Lilly, had a lot of gas. "She could toot so loud," I joked, "that the neighbors blamed the dog." Her poop was nuclear green and on and off frothy. She spit up a lot. A lot. There were few to no signs of pain, but still, I thought that I didn't want my daughter to be ill, so I considered a dairy elimination. Then I considered all the new information about exposure being related to a reverse allergenic response and I decided to try the opposite: I increased my dairy consumption. Of all things, her symptoms disappeared.

I should note that at the same time, I also started adjusting for my overactive letdown/oversupply. Her poop remained green (I did not produce much foremilk, however, I believe due to my poor hydration habits), but she still had no signs of pain, the frothiness disappeared and the gas even took a step back. So, clearly, her problem was not dairy.

With my second, I didn't even think of food allergies when confronting her myriad of nursing problems. I got through them all without ever touching on the subject.

With my most recent, Kat, again, I was looking at a baby who had the symptoms of a dairy intolerance (these, by the way, are also the symptoms of overactive letdown, which is a known problem for me, so I took that into account). When blood appeared in her green, mucousy stool and she cried in pain at every bowel movement (and quite a few toots) while breaking out in an unexplained rash, I decided that I would try an elimination diet.

While I was doing this, I also worked on my overactive letdown and started pumping off some of my early milk to slow the flow (and noted that my foremilk/hindmilk was well balanced). I also forced her to block feed (she was quite opposed, but eventually allowed me to do this). The blood vanished from her stool and it started appearing seedy and turning butter yellow while losing the foul smell.


For the rash, I took all of her clothes and rewashed them in the detergent that I use for myself (Era). Voila, the rash disappeared (it recently reappeared and now I believe it was either a reaction to cinnamon or clove, as that was heavily present in my diet when the first rash appeared as well as the new one--but she also tried on clothes that were washed in the original rash-giving detergent, too! Oy!). Her diaper rash problem was solved by adding baby powder to our diapering routine.

My elimination diet was a failure, however, as I did not realize that my coffee creamer had dairy in it! I had switched without checking, as the other creamer I had been using was dairy free, so it didn't occur to me. None of her symptoms remained or returned when I reintroduced regular dairy back into my diet.

With Kat's symptoms, an elimination diet was even recommended by my pediatrician and was most definitely warranted. However, it turned out that it was not caused by a food allergy, but rather, my milk ejection reflex and laundry detergent. Had I only attempted the elimination diet, she would have continued suffering.

Right now, it seems that the first (and often only!) answer given to any nursing mother with a baby displaying digestive issue symptoms is to eliminate food. Dairy, soy, wheat, corn, eggs... there are lists available to check off one food after another in an attempt to find what's wrong with the baby. Personally, I think that LCs (no matter how many letters precede those two) need to remember to bring up other common problems as well. "Food sensitivities in breastfed babies are not nearly as common as many breastfeeding mothers have been led to think." -- Kellymom.

Elimination diets are a great tool for babies who truly do have sensitive systems, but more than simply gassiness or fussiness must be present before we go recommending that Mom cuts out what may be one of the primary sources of protein for her (we're talking milk, cheese, yogurt--all of that and more, for a dairy elimination). A dairy intolerance is not 'lactose intolerance,' but rather, difficulty processing cow milk protein.

First, as far as straining and pain with passing gas and stool: babies have to learn basically everything. That includes how to fart and poop. They do not know how to relax their sphincter and often get in their own way attempting to simply eliminate. This can cause pain and frustration. Typically, it's outgrown after a few weeks and they learn to relax instead of fighting to have a bowel movement or pass gas.

Green poop: This can be a sign of a lot of things, from allergy to letdown to hindmilk/foremilk imbalance. All of these should be considered. Blood in the stool can be caused by all of these problems as well. The position in the stool tells you whether it's internal (inside the poop, meaning it got there before being passed) or anal (outside the poop--caused by anal fissures from straining).

Symptoms of food intolerance include: fussiness and crying for extended periods, sudden waking accompanied by cries indicating pain, rash (particularly a red ring around the anus--how I identified a food allergy to strawberries in my first and spinach and broccoli in my second), hives, eczema, congestion, vomiting and unusual stools (green, mucousy and/or bloody). These area also all symptoms of other problems, so experimentation may be needed.

If baby displays these symptoms within four to twenty-four hours of you eating a new food, there's a good chance that baby is experiencing a reaction to the food. Usually, symptoms will pass within a few hours if it is a new food. Symptoms that are ongoing indicate a regular food in mom's diet.

In closing, my thoughts are that while elimination diets have their place, like any other treatment or tool, they can and are being abused by well-meaning mothers and their breastfeeding counselors. I think that starting an elimination diet without real symptoms (just over normal baby developmental issues) is not the best idea and may actually be doing baby a disservice when it is used as a first recourse. 


I am not calling for an end to elimination diets--far from it. Babies who are diagnosed 'lactose intolerant' (a pet peeve of mine) or 'allergic to human milk' (flat out impossible, however while galactosemia and similar conditions obviously exist, they are not an 'allergy') would definitely benefit from mom figuring out what it is in her milk that is causing the reaction. And mothers are good at identifying that something is 'wrong' (far better than society gives them credit for). These are just my observations that I wanted to share as an alternative 'food for thought.'

Did an elimination diet help your baby? Did you try one and have it fail? Did you wish that you had been given more options?

Friday, May 20, 2011

AAP Surprises

There are a few things you may not know are recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Some people get outdated information and others simply misunderstand the language. Here are a couple things that are not considered mainstream (but should be!) that the AAP, who is supposed to be the mainstream 'go-to' (especially for pediatricians) recommends.

Cosleeping
http://82cottage.com/images/Bedroom%202%20double%20+%20crib.jpg
The first thing that comes to most minds when they hear "cosleeping" is baby in the parents' bed. But really, that's just one type of cosleeping, referred to as 'bed sharing' to be specific. Another form is to have baby in a crib or cosleeper attached to the bed and yet another is to have the crib in the parents room. The AAP actually recommends that babies spend the first six months of life in their parents' room, in a separate sleeping area (a bassinet, cosleeper or crib). This benefits both the research that cosleeping is better for babies and crib manufacturers, who hate those studies. "Mother and infant should sleep in proximity to each other to facilitate breastfeeding."

Rear-facing for Two Years (and beyond!)

Her chest clip needs to be adjusted a little bit here, but this is Lilly, rear-facing at 2 1/2.
The AAP advises parents to keep kids rear-facing as long as possible, up to the maximum limit of the car seat. The current (new) minimum recommendation is now 2 years. Most people aren't aware that this is the recommendation, because they have been following the minimum law (if at all), much to the potential detriment of their children. Children under 2 who are rear-facing are 75% less likely to be fatally injured in a car accident.

Feed On Cue, Not Schedule
Feeding the wild
There are repeated comments on this in the official AAP guidelines, from "Crying is a late indicator of hunger," to "During the early weeks of breastfeeding, mothers should be encouraged to have 8 to 12 feedings at the breast every 24 hours, offering the breast whenever the infant shows early signs of hunger such as increased alertness, physical activity, mouthing, or rooting."
A1
Breastfeeding Past the First Year

The AAP's official stance: "There is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychologic or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer."

So there you have a few things you may not have know that the AAP recommends.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Six Months Is Still Ideal

Lilly, feeding herself her first solids at six months

This post is being reorganized since the trigger article is so out of date now ;)

The open gut. It's open for the first four to six months of life to allow as many antibodies and healthful particles through from breastmilk to pass into the body as possible. It naturally closes around 6 months, but introducing solids causes it to close prematurely to protect the body from harmful allergenic particles, also cutting down the amount of helpful antibodies that baby gets (which are still plentiful, but it lowers immunity and increases risk of allergies). THAT is the reason to wait at least six months to introduce solids--our bodies aren't designed for them in the first six months (things that do not enter the stomach should not be counted, such as teething tablets, gas drops, vitamin drops, etc.). What's more, several digestive enzymes aren't formed until six months:

"The pancreatic enzyme amylase does not reach adequate levels for digestion of starches until around 6 months, and carbohydrate enzymes such as maltase, isomaltase, and sucrase do not reach adult levels until around 7 months. Young infants also have low levels of lipase and bile salts, so fat digestion does not reach adult levels until 6-9 months. "

On a food level, spinach, broccoli and carrots contain nitrites that cannot be converted in a 4 month old's gut into a safer substance and can (and have) cause(d) nitrite poisoning. What's more, most people use rice cereal as a first food, which is linked to food protein induced enterocolitis syndrome (symptoms typically include vomiting, diarrhea (sometimes bloody), dehydration and low-blood pressure. The child or infant can appear lethargic, and over time can have problems gaining weight. Hospitalization for possible severe infection in common in children with FPIES).

While it's the BMJ itself that warns against rice cereal, it has not received the media attention that this is receiving and it's irresponsible to recommend early solid introduction (which, btw, they're still not recommending before four months) when most people are still using useless and potentially dangerous rice cereal as a first food--because it's still recommended by many 'authorities' and most pediatricians.

On a personal note, I got solids at 3 months old (from my mom's plate) and I have food allergies, a strong distaste for leafy greens, and used to have chronic anemia... the things that this article says happen because of waiting six months. So, on a purely personal anecdotal level, I have to call b.s. (admittedly, anecdote =/= science).

My first grabbed her first solid by reaching over and just biting my nectarine while I was on the phone, lol, right about her 6m birthday. That is a clear display of solid readiness. My second's tongue-thrust reflex didn't vanish until almost 9 months, though she had access to the food starting a little after she turned 6 months and she did try. She choked constantly and just wasn't ready. A good rule of thumb is, "If the parent needs to use a spoon, it's too soon." If your child cannot feed him/herself, they aren't ready for solids. Most six month olds can even use a spoon if shown how to properly, if you insist on pureed/mashed foods. It's better to just start with soft, whole foods.

While I agree with not waiting to introduce allergens into the diet (another recommendation within their article), it should be done through breast milk first and first foods should be what the family is eating anyway. Exposure reduces allergens--once the body is ready for exposure. However, a child who has shown a clear allergy to a food (from the telltale red 'ring' around the anus to full out anaphylactic shock) should not continue being exposed to that food in the first year. Both of my girls had early food intolerances (my oldest was strawberries--this vanished around 14 months and my youngest was to spinach and broccoli--which also vanished between 13-15 months... my youngest presented with signs through breast milk exposure and my oldest had no signs until she ate a strawberry at 8 months).

Finally,the following organizations recommend that all babies be exclusively breastfed (no cereal, juice or any other foods) for the first 6 months of life (not the first 4-6 months):
Will these recommendations change now? Only time will tell, but in the end, the science supports waiting at least six months for the protection and optimal health of our children.


(original content having been moved):

So, bloggers are up in arms against an article from the Guardian "Six months of breastfeeding alone could harm babies, scientists now say". It's based on an article written for the British Medical Journal by people whose research was paid for by formula companies and babyfood companies. Conflict of interest much? They defend themselves by saying that they are recommending real food, such as fresh food and meat, and not baby food, but so few people give their babies real food from the get go that if they believe that, then they're deluding themselves. However, the study doesn't really say as much as the article indicates.

They are flying in the face of their own World Health Organisation's recommendation of: "exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life is recommended and breastfeeding for 2 years and beyond (with the introduction of solids from 6 months) is beneficial."

So, most bloggers are tackling discrediting these guys for their affiliations (and at least this one tried to take them seriously) or talking about the signs of readiness for introduction of solids. (Which you can find here as well)

Now, personally, I do baby led weaning, which is giving baby real foods from the start based on physiological signs of readiness and age-based readiness. However, what's bothering me and prompting me to write this is that while everyone's pointing out why it's better to wait, an important reason why it's dangerous not to wait it being left out.