in thinking the bf story in the news today....

[headfairy]

isn't really about bf v ff, but more about the introduction of solids. It seems that everyone's getting in a tizz about bfing, and the real story is not what kind of milk your baby gets, but at what age you should start to introduce solids.

Or am I missing the point?

YANBU

Actually, it is about what milk your baby gets, as the study says that ff until 6months is ok. Part of their point is about potential iron deficiency in exclusively BF babies.

I can understand why people are getting in a tiz. Just what the fuck are you supposed to think when the 'advice' is so so contradictory.

YANUB - I thought that too.

firsttime i think you are being a bit naive thinking that a mother's instinct is best WRT weaning. a mother cannot see inside a baby's gut to tell if it is mature enough to handle solids.

No, you're not missing the point but the reactionary, attention grabbing headlines that have sprung up all over the place as a result of the study are missing the point and unfortunately an awful lot of people won't read the whole report or won't understand it and will just take snippets and headlines to be truth and fact. The result is even less belief in our bodies' ability to nourish our children.

2cats, that doesn't seem to be very well communicated then, I don't think I've heard anyone say clearly that formula feeding to 6 months is fine but bfing isn't. It's all very unclear.

and i still don't understand the iron-deficiency argument. surely if you BF that just can't happen ? you've got the right amount of iron needed - cos it's all about absorbable iron, and FF has a lot more iron in it because it's not animal iron and therefore isn't sp absorbable.

Japers, that's what I worry about...

I agree. Both my babies were EBF but one weaned at just under five months and the other didn't really eat much Till 9 months. You know when baby is ready foe food as a mum

i was flammed by my hv for introducing solids, a little baby oats and rice at around 16weeks and it was clearly recorded in my logbook every time that I have clearly been adviced this is aginst health advice to stop. was also flamed for ff topups and that to was recorded that I contue to ff top up despite advice to stop. I did not feel like a failure etc as I had made a decission as a mother to this child to so. and then at 1 year it was recorded contunued to bf, advice about cutting breakfast feed like i should stop when they think it is appropriate.

I think it just shows that throughout time trends around feeding children as with any parenting advice happens.

I would agree that it is mandatory advice and guidence and not complusery rules, but that is not always conveyed by hv.

the advice in the media however does paint the picture that children exclusivly bf may have iron deficiency therefore bf is not better fopr baby. when in trueth it is about the age of weaning and not bf or ff.

The point is that the stuff in the papers is not based on a study, so it's opinion, not fact.

The second point is that some of the people involved have a conflict of interest, in that they are involved with formula manufacturers.

So it's all a load of bollocks anyway, and shouldn't be paid attetion too!

iron in breastmilk

Much more easily absorbed than in solids/formula.

yes but you only see taht they are not ready once you have tried it and seen teh dirty nappies. in otehr words you didn't actually know tehy were ready you just guessed, got it wrong and introduced something to their gut that they aren't ready for. that isn't instinct is it?

Great link wynebella

YANBU but CBC "breastfeeding counsellor" rather confused the matter on breakfast news today

xfirsttimemummyx - it is naive, because a lot of the things we've been told are 'signs of weaning', that you interpret as your mothers' instincts, are actually myths.

So you're 'listening to your instinct' when, what your real, unconditioned by culture, instinct would actually be telling you to breastfeed as long as you can get away with because offering other food, from an evolutionary perspective, is dangerous too young for many reasons.

If mothers' instincts often told them to wean that young, why were babies never, ever weaned that young unless there was no choice, until formula milk became widely available?

YANBU, but the media in their infinite wisdom have of course latched onto the 'ooh you mustn't BF for too long' aspect of it.
Predictable, but depressing nonetheless.

xfirsttimemummyx - could your baby sit up unaided (ie. no cushions) at 15 weeks and had they lost their tongue-thrust reflex?
You don't need to use instinct, Mother Nature has given us clear, physical signs of readiness to eat solids.

"YANBU, but the media in their infinite wisdom have of course latched onto the 'ooh you mustn't BF for too long' aspect of it.
Predictable, but depressing nonetheless. "

i agree, unfortunately tehre will be alot of people using this opinion to justify early (and by early i mean before the 4 month mark) waening without actually looking into why they are doing it.

2cats - where does it say that formula milk til 6 months is fine, because I've read the entire article and I haven't seen that