Responses

Download PDFPDF

Impact of a modified version of baby-led weaning on iron intake and status: a randomised controlled trial
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Response to ‘Baby-led weaning and iron - looking good but not clear-cut’
    • Anne-Louise M Heath, Associate Professor University of Otago, New Zealand
    • Other Contributors:
      • Rachael W Taylor, Research Professor
      • Jillian J Haszard, Biostatistician
      • Lisa Daniels, Postdoctoral Fellow

    Gill Rapley makes some useful points about our recent paper (Daniels, L., Taylor, R.W., Williams, S.M., Gibson, R.S., Fleming, E.A., Wheeler, B.J., Taylor, B.J., Haszard, J.J. and Heath, A-L.M. (2018) Impact of a modified version of baby-led weaning on iron intake and status: a randomised controlled trial, BMJ Open, 8: e019036).

    In particular, she points out that:
    (a) While our Baby-Led Introduction to Solids (BLISS) intervention group was given specific advice on increasing iron intake, the Control group received only standard care.
    (b) It is not clear whether the infants in the BLISS group would have had equivalent iron status to that of the Controls even without the additional advice.
    (c) Infants following a traditional approach to infant feeding may also need advice to improve their iron intake, particularly now that complementary feeding should ideally be delayed to 6 months of age.

    There are many interesting questions that can be asked about baby-led approaches to complementary feeding, and their impact on infant nutrient status. Each of these questions would need a different study design. In our case, we were interested in answering the pragmatic question – Is it possible to follow a baby-led approach to infant feeding instead of traditional feeding without negatively impacting on iron status? This required that we have an intervention group (our BLISS group) and a group representing the status quo, i.e. what is happening in the commu...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Baby-led weaning and iron - looking good but not clear-cut

    It is reassuring to learn that a modified version of the approach to the introduction of solid foods for infants known as ‘baby-led weaning’ does not lead to an increased risk of iron deficiency (Daniels, L., Taylor, R.W., Williams, S.M., Gibson, R.S., Fleming, E.A., Wheeler, B.J., Taylor, B.J., Haszard, J.J. and Heath, A-L.M. (2018) Impact of a modified version of baby-led weaning on iron intake and status: a randomised controlled trial, BMJ Open, 8: e019036). However, before drawing firm conclusions it is important to note that two variables were at play in this trial: One group – the BLISS (‘modified BLW’) group – followed a self-feeding approach and received specific information concerning the method, which included an emphasis on the importance of offering iron-rich foods; the other (control) group spoon-fed their infants and received only standard care, with no extra information regarding iron.

    While it is indeed possible that iron levels in the BLW/BLISS group would have been lower, had the parents not been given additional dietary information – as implied by the authors’ cautious conclusion – it is equally possible that drawing their attention to the need for iron either had no effect, or had a negative impact that was offset by the infant being allowed to feed himself. Without a comparison between a self-feeding group and a spoon-feeding group, where both groups have the same information regarding iron, or between two BLW groups, only one of which is advise...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.