Keywords
Traditional complementary feeding
Child development
Impact
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the impacts of Baby-Led Weaning (BLW) and traditional complementary feeding on child development, focusing on motor development, food preferences, eating behavior, and safety. Methods: Integrative literature review, based on research in the electronic database PubMed Central (PMC). The search terms included “Baby-Led Weaning”, “BLW”, “Traditional Complementary Feeding” and “Development”, encompassing a total of 14 articles selected for detailed analysis, between the years 2014 to 2024. Results: Recent studies address that children who initiate complementary feeding with the BLW method can benefit from the acquisition of some skills during their development and growth, such as motor skills, autonomy, satiety and language, compared to the traditional complementary feeding method. Regarding nutritional and energy intake and possible choking risks, most of the evidence analyzed demonstrates no statistically significant differences between the two forms of food introduction. Final considerations: The emerging importance that this topic has gained in recent years is evident. Therefore, it is necessary to develop further studies given the complexity of elucidating the real benefits and impacts of BLW on child development, growth and nutrition in childhood, in addition to evaluating possible risks of incidents compared to traditional complementary feeding.
References
ARANTES ALA, et al. The baby-led weaning method (BLW) in the context of complementary fedding: a review. Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 2018; 36(3): 353-363.
BOSWELL N. Complementary Feeding Methods - A Review of the Benefits and Risks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021; 18 (7165): 1-15.
BROWN A, et al. Early influences on child satiety-responsiveness: the role of weaning style. Department of Public Health and Policy Studies, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK; Department of Psychology, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK Received 30 October 2012; revised 10 July 2013; accepted 15 October 2013.
CAPRA, Maria Elena et al. Complementary Feeding: Tradition, Innovation and Pitfalls. Nutrients, 2024; 16(5): 737.
D’AURIA, Enza et al. Baby-led weaning: what a systematic review of the literature adds on. Italian journal of pediatrics, 2018; 44: 1-11.
DANIELS L, et al. Baby-Led Introduction to SolidS (BLISS) study: a randomised controlled trial of a baby-led approach to complementary feeding. BMC Pediatrics, 2015; 15(179): 101186.
DOGAN E, et al. Baby-led complementary feeding: a randomized controlled study. Oficial Journal of the Japan Pediatric Society, 2018; 60(12): 101111.
ERICKSON LW, et al. Impact of a Modified Version of Baby-Led Weaning on Infant Food and Nutrient Intakes: The BLISS Randomized Controlled Trial. Journals Nutrients, 2018; 10(6): 10.3390.
FERNANDES, Carla et al. Complementary feeding methods: associations with feeding and emotional responsiveness. Children, 2023; 10(3): 464.
MARTINÓN-TORRES N, et al. Baby-Led Weaning: What Role Does It Play in Obesity Risk during the First Years? A Systematic Review. Nutrients, 2021; 13: 1009.
MOREIRA PR, et al. Estimated energy and nutrient intake in complementary feeding methods in Brazilian infants: randomized clinical trial. Scientific Reports, 2024; 14: 13.
MOREIRA PR, et al. Estimated energy and nutrient intake in complementary feeding methods in Brazilian infants: randomized clinical trial. Nature Portfolio, 2019; 1; 1-8.
MOREIRA RP, et al. Adesão a diferentes métodos de introdução da alimentação complementar aos 7 meses de vida: um ensaio clínico randomizado. Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 2023; 41: 2021235.
MORISON BJ, et al. How diferente are baby-led weaning and conventional complementary feeding? A cross-sectional study of infants aged 6-8 months. BMJ Open, 2016; 6; 10665.
MORISON BJ, et al. Impact of a modified version of Baby-Led Weaning on dietary variety and food preferences in infants. Nutrients, 2018; 10(1092).
NEVES SF, et al. Brazilian health profissionals perception about the Baby-Led Weaning (BLW) method for complementary feeding: an exploratory study. Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 2022; 40: 2020321.
NUZZI G, et al. The weaning practices: A new challenge for pediatricians? Pediatr Allergy Immunol, 2022; 33: 44-46.
ORTEGARAMÍREZ AD, et al. Early feeding practices and eating behaviour in preschool children: The CORALS cohort. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 2024; 13672.
ROMERO-VELARDE E, et al. Guidelines for complementary feeding in healthy infants. Boletin Medico Del Hospital Infantil De Mexico, 2016; 73(5): 338-356.
STUDER-PEREZ E e MUSHER-EIZENMAN D. To feed or let eat! A scale of independence, exploration, ans family to measure baby-led weaning as a complementary feeding approach. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 2023; 36: 810-818.
WEBBER C, et al. An infant-led approach to complementary feeding is positively associated with language development. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 2021; 17(4): 13206.