Advanced search

Just a note re "I did x and mine are fine"

(333 Posts)
hunkermunker Fri 24-Oct-08 23:14:40

If the children to whom you refer aren't 85 (at least), it's not all that bright a statement.

That's all.

FlameThrowersKillZombies Fri 24-Oct-08 23:15:37


RedOnHerBeheadedHead Fri 24-Oct-08 23:15:52

well said!

mazzystartled Fri 24-Oct-08 23:16:28

quite right

PsychoAxeMurdererMum Fri 24-Oct-08 23:16:58

very true

Twinklemegan Fri 24-Oct-08 23:17:18

Hi Hunker. Long time no see. You work so bloody hard on here, you should be on the payroll. (I'm still on the wagon - haven't touched a breast/bottle thread in months). grin

Cadmum Fri 24-Oct-08 23:19:37

Valid point. I must repent. I do try to avoid the whole topic but I have offered some potentially dangerous advice lately and my children are not 85...

RottenOtter Fri 24-Oct-08 23:20:02

not sure

is this saying the effects of weaning/not may not be evident until then?

SecondComing Fri 24-Oct-08 23:21:40

Does it really matter if they are fine? Even at eighty five?
That's like saying 'I got hit by a car/stabbed in the chest/took ten grams of heroin and I'm ok' yeah, you might be, but not everyone is that lucky.

hunkermunker Fri 24-Oct-08 23:22:37

RO, I'm saying nobody knows, so don't use it as a debating point, because it's meaningless.

I don't say "I weaned mine at 26 and 28 weeks respectively and they're fine" because I a) don't like to tempt fate and b) don't have a clue what the future holds for them.

TM grin Suggest it to MN, will you, please? grin wink

wannaBe Fri 24-Oct-08 23:25:57

surely that works both ways though?

Equally you shouldn't say "I weaned mine at 4 months and they have alergies" because there's no way of knowing whether they would have developed alergies anyway?

SecondComing Fri 24-Oct-08 23:27:49

Before 6 months they do not have the enzymes to digest solid foods, and some babies do not have closed guts which relates to a food being seen as a foreign protein, therefore fought off and establishing an allergy. This does happen, you cannot say for sure it's the reason behind your child's allergy but you can be sure it does cause some allergies. Why risk it?

wannaBe Fri 24-Oct-08 23:29:34

Well personally i find it strange that babies are being weaned latr and yet alergies are on the increase. hmm

RottenOtter Fri 24-Oct-08 23:31:25

'why risk it'

well i could say earlier weaning = less allergies therefore 'why risk it' by leaving it later

works both ways

i go with government guidelines but agree with wannabe

SecondComing Fri 24-Oct-08 23:32:20

In babies?
Allergies have been on the increase for years. Starting with the lowering of breastfeeding rates and higher early weaning rates.
Plus it's not the only way allergies can be caused.

SecondComing Fri 24-Oct-08 23:33:35

But earlier weaning does not equal less allergies. hmm

wannaBe Fri 24-Oct-08 23:35:31

Well there has recently been a lot of suggestion that one of the reasons for the increase in certain alergies is that these foods are actually being introduced too late, and that they should be introduced earlier.

There is iirc quite an extensive study going on atm re nut alergy, and the suggestion seems to be that the guidelines are going to be changed the introduction of nuts and women eating nuts in pregnancy.

There certainly were not the amounts of children with alergies when i was growing up that there are now, and bottle feeding was very much the norm back then.

edam Fri 24-Oct-08 23:36:05

wannabe, allergies have been on the increase - hugely so - since the 1970s. Nothing to do with later weaning - the guidance hasn't been properly implemented for long enough to see if it has had any effect yet. Potentially an awful lot to do with early weaning, though.

Ivvvvyygootscaaared444 Fri 24-Oct-08 23:39:20

my grandfather lived till he was 93 and he smoked all his life - does that mean smoking is ok?

edam Fri 24-Oct-08 23:41:28

look at the stats, Wannabe. B/f lowers the risk of allergies, formula certainly doesn't offer any protection.

If you look at a graph showing the rate of increase in allergies in the population, the curve starts to get really steep in the early 70s, when formula feeding become really popular. These two facts may not be cause and effect, of course, not enough evidence to say conclusively yet. But it sure as hell isn't b/f that is causing allergies!

ewwwmy2shoesarefullofblood Fri 24-Oct-08 23:44:22

I have never understood these threads.
we did what we did as that was what we were advised back then(ds is 16) I have to date met one girl with an alergy nt and one sn.

hunkermunker Fri 24-Oct-08 23:48:53

Wannabe, most babies still aren't weaned at six months. 1% were exclusively bf at 6m, I think, from 2005 study. Lurk on practically any other parenting forum - ALL the mainstream ones - and you'll see loads of babies being weaned incredibly early still.

And only one third of babies are exclusively breastfed by the end of their first week of life (although that's because they're having formula, not solid food, in most cases).

RottenOtter Sat 25-Oct-08 00:08:12

hunker i NEED more of these facts to make me carry on feel proud of myself!

TinkerBellesMum Sat 25-Oct-08 00:14:56

Weaning was 9-12 months before the war and dropped down with the introduction of formula. So allergies have been on the rise since early weaning started, unless you think that there were more allergies before then hmm

SecondComing Sat 25-Oct-08 00:29:45

When formula was introduced it wasn't of todays standard. It caused a lot of scurvy and rickets as it was not up to the job nutritionally, so by about 3 months the baby's stores had gone. That is why early weaning started, and since then allergies have increased.

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: