Would IBU to get consistent advice? "Babies 'need solid food, not just breast milk'", headline from today's Times.

[clams]

The changing guidance really bugs me. So does this headline which might have been created to irritate MNers. The Times paywall bugs me too. AIBU?

Yes...stop reading the bloody thing

What babies?

A nine day old baby? A nine week old baby? A nine month old baby?

Well, getting advice from newspapers is always a risky business. Paying to get dodgy advice therefore pretty pointless... And the guidance hasn't changed, has it? It doesn't change very often, just newspapers report small studies A Lot.

Yes, guidance rarely changes. It tends to be developed using the best available evidence which is systematic reviews/meta-analysis, preferable incorporating large, well conducted studies.

Newspapers tend to report on tiny studies, mostly (if you read the original study) concluding that more research is needed rather than drawing any definite conclusions.

Just my observation. Don't know about this though because of paywall yawn.

I'm lumping in a lot with that term guidance but it has been irritating me for a while as my mum, MiL and basically everyone I knew whose youngest child is older than 15 was very insistent that my DD should be weaned at 4 months. Now they might (and yes I know I mustn't believe everything I get from a newspaper splash) revise the age back downward.

I've no idea why people are so desperate to see other people's babies weaned early, but you're right it can be quite relentless.

My aunt was desperate for ds to get sausages of all things when he was 5 months old. Banged on and on and on about her two being weaned on chips & gravy or somesuch at 8 weeks. She took every opportunity to tell anyone who'd listen what a sin it was that I was starving the bairn.

Ds didn't care and was happy with milk until 6 months. Which was what mattered really.

Story available on BBC website www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12180052

OP -Ds2 is 11 (just) and the age for recommended weaning was 4 months.
I'm not sure when it changed to 6 months

Thanks suzikettles, haven't seen any mentions of gravy in the article but it's probably there...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12180052

Not just the Times! For those calling this a "tiny study", it's drawn from the same data that originally informed the 6 month weaning guidelint, and it stems from an article in the British Medical Journal - hardly small fry.

The World Health Organisation DID state, when this advice was first issued back in 2002/2003, that it largely applies to developing countries where access to clean water and safe weaning foods is limited. However, I also think that we need to take our cues from our children - some babies show signs of readiness for solid food earlier than others.

So many physical developmental milestones happen at vastly different times for individual children (sitting, crawling, walking just a couple of examples) - why shuoldn't a readiness for solids be another that changes from child to child?

Ultimately, we all want to do what's best for our children, and if there's evidence that delaying the introduction of solids can contribute to anaemia and food allergies, then surely it warrants discussion at the very least?

BTW, it's important to note that they are still advocating zero solids under 4 months (for those who've mentioned days/weeks etc)

oh so glad to see its not just me who finds all this irritating. have just listened to bbc news on the subject and as an up-every-2hours breast feeding mummy, i am afraid i personally agree with the midwife who said that babies are not designed to sleep through the night, its not the norm or the majority that do sleep through, and yet mums are led to believe that their baby is not doing the right thing if their tiny little tummy cannot support them for at least 4 hours at a time.
my opinion is to weigh it all up, find out who is paying that person for their research and do what YOU FEEL IS RIGHT FOR YOU AND YOUR BABY.

and i would like to add that it specifically mentions BREAST feeding, so if it is about earlier weaning, why single out breastfed babies?

Maybe we should all read all the studies and make informed decisions about infant feeding and not crow, lecture or nag anyone else about theirs being different to ours.
Wouldn't that be nice....

who knew?? different babies need to be weaned at slightly different ages. Is it really so shocking that there is not ONE answer to this? I think it is a great pity that mums feel so unsure of there own common sense that they are thrown by this sort of thing, When DS was about 4 months he stopped sleeping through and seemed hungry so we started weaning. When my DD is born we will keep an open mind and follow her lead. The dark haired one who was on BBC breakfast just now really doesn't help with such a strongly expressed "this is right" approach (for exc. bf for 6 months) and trying to pass this latest off as a formula milk co. conspiracy is just ridiculous. Horses for courses, there are million different ways to parent, not one RIGHT way.

LiTR: They're saying breastfeeding because the guidelines used to say
"only breastmilk til 6 months"
and now they are saying
"well actually maybe not quite that long, but definitely nothing else under 4 months, you got it?"

They are not recommending that anyone use breastmilk substitutes at all, which is why they are not mentioned.

The headline is even better on my BT / Yahoo home page: 'Breastfeeding not always best'

I'm sure the study is very interesting and I'm sure that there is an argument for babies being ready for solids at slightly different stages but headlines like this just give the anti-breastfeeding lot a nice big stick to bash us with

They are singling out breast-feeding (as opposed to ff) because of the iron thing - suggesting that bf babies may lack in iron if bf exclusively until 6 months.

The best advice is to ignore ALL advice and do whatever works for you and your baby.

You mean there isn't some magic thing that happens to all babies when they are exactly 182.5days old that means the are ready for solids ?

we've all been conned...

I just want to add that I think a lot of people are missing the focus point here. The issue being discussed is not about stopping breastfeeding/using formaul or anything else at all - it's about HOW SOON TO INTRODUCE SOLIDS.

As a previous poster mentioned, they're talking about breast-feeding because the current advice is to breastfeed exclusively (i.e. NO formula)! You can't have it both ways...

Nowaynohow is right. The focus is on bf is because that's what WHO (in their wisdom) currently advocate.

If this new research is correct, then ff excl for 6 mths would be as bad (according to the Guardian article).

It's all about solids , not bf vs ff (for a change)

I agree with NoWayNoHow

My mum just sent me this article, all chuffed because she'd been telling me to give DD solids for months.

I can see a lot of "I TOLD you so"'s coming from the Mums/MILs!!

Like we haven't had enough already growing up!