To hate the conflicting info re when to wean your baby(11 Posts)
My friend posted this on her FB page yesterday.
Personaly i dont know what to beleive anymore re weening because this is what this is saying that you should wean earlier isnt it, i fed for 4 months and weened just before 6 months and DD2 will eat anything. I suppose some babies ae just different.
But i hate all the conflicting info its so hard to know what to do for the best.
Breastfeeding exclusively for six months is not necessarily best and may put babies off some foods, experts have said.
UK guidelines are for women to breastfeed for the first six months of a baby's life before introducing solids.
But experts led by a paediatrician from University College London's Institute of Child Health said babies co...uld suffer iron deficiency and may be more prone to allergies if they only receive breast milk.
In 2001, the World Health Organisation announced a global recommendation, adopted by the UK in 2003, that infants should be exclusively breastfed for six months.
The experts said the WHO recommendation "rested largely" on a review of 16 studies, including seven from developing countries, which found that babies just given breast milk for six months had fewer infections and experienced no growth problems.
But, another review of 33 studies found "no compelling evidence" to not introduce solids at four to six months, they said, while some studies have also shown that breastfeeding for six months does not give babies all the nutrition they need.
One US study from 2007 found that babies exclusively breastfed for six months were more likely to develop anaemia than those introduced to solids at four to six months, and researchers in Sweden found that the incidence of early onset coeliac disease increased after a recommendation to delay introduction of gluten until age six months.
The authors said exclusively breastfeeding for six months is a good recommendation for developing countries, which have higher death rates from infection.
But in the UK, it could lead to some adverse health outcomes and may "reduce the window for introducing new tastes".
"Bitter tastes, in particular, may be important in the later acceptance of green leafy vegetables, which may potentially affect later food preferences with influence on health outcomes such as obesity."See More
Breastfeeding 'not always best'
Breastfeeding exclusively for six months is not necessarily best and may put babies off some foods, experts have said
Interesting response to the article here
I found the bit about the iron very interesting in particular.
A friend of mine too posted this on fb yesterday "is annoyed at the misleading info re weaning" so almost the same - do we have the same friends
3 out of the 4 "experts" were funded by baby food companies (which are notorious for undermining breastfeeding)
This "new" information, AFAIK is not from new research, it is rehashed from over the years.
I haven't read anything to make me feel that bfing is anything less than best for babies, but sadly yesterdays headlines will probably put more people off bfing.
Its Possible Stoppin .
It does annoy me tbh its just so hard to know what to do for the best. My DD2 is 8 months now so not a big problem for me unless i have another DC.
I feel for all those mums with small babies who need to make the decision and have all this conflicting info flying about.
In that link it says "more rapid maternal weight loss after birth", this is actualy crap because thee was a thread on here where alot of the women who BF didnt lose the weight easily so even WHO get it wrong.
Faverolles - This isnt about whether BF is best for your baby because we all know that it is, this is about weaning and when to wean your baby onto solids.
Of course they have a motive because people will buy baby food so they profit, but alot of mums will make their own food so its counter productive i think.
There is nowhere in the article that says women shouldnt BF at all.
The best advice is always to trust your judgement rather than slavishly follow the experts. The official advice is still 6 months and I think the way to read this latest study is that rather than a single cut-off date, treat it more as a 'weaning window' and then go with what feels right for your baby. Could be 5 months, 6 months, 7 months...
Weaning window sounds good to me, and tbh this is what the 4 months weaning used to be like: you went very slowly and gave tasters, following the lead of the baby.
I don't see why reverting back to a possible weaning start of 4 months rather than 6 is denying the benefits of breastfeeding: surely even the most fanatical breastfeeder agrees that babies are going to have to taste solids at some stage, so why shouldn't one be allowed to discuss when that should be?
Well, I have a 17week old so could officially, according to guidelines, be starting him on solids but I don't think he's anywhere near ready yet.
I won't let this opinion stop me from EBF my ds2 until he's ready to be weaned, whether that be next week or right up until 6months.
The fact os that the guidelines for weaning state that it should begin by 6months but not before 17 weeks so this new opinion doesn't really change those guidelines does it.
However the media have really played on it and implied that BF is not best and your child could suffer from EBF until 6months which really really could cause some damaging situations in itself if people only go by headlines and not take the time to read the full article.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.