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?

Dd is 5.5 mo,has lost her tongue thrust ages ago,puts everything stuff in her mouth accurately but can only sit unaided for about 30 secs without a wobble. Is she ready for food? She has grown huge (ebf) but I don't want to get it wrong (pfb) and it is all a little confusing...

altinkum - have you read this paper? It's an analysis of the literature, NOT a 'clinical study'.

Altinkum - it is a pre-emptive discussion of old data. That is not hte same as a study.

NinkyNonker - possibly not hte best thread for that sort of support. Search for 'baby led weaning' or 'BLW' on here for laods of threads on how to know your baby's really ready for solids.

ILoveIt - I think even more than that, people who want to continue to BF and delay weaning onto solids until their baby shows the actual physical signs of readiness, will be pressured to switch to formula, because all the media focus has been on weaning BF babies early and very little said about weaning FF babies early.

For some reason the iron issue has been seized on, and awareness about iron in BM being more bio-available is not widespread.

altinkum - this is NOT a study, or 'true scientific evidence', it is opinion.

In fact all that has been said is that a review of the current research is overdue, and then they have thrown in a few off the cuff opinions which have been seized on by the media and almost presented in the light of new recommendations.

True. I'll pretend to pass my query off as a pastiche designed to show how confusing this is and find the right board!

yes i think you are right Ali. my own personal experience was that anyone who chose to comment, also believed i was being precious in not weaning at 10/12/14 weeks etc because 'it never did them any harm'. it got to the point where i was trotting that line out before the person even said it. this will make it a lot harder for anyone who is choosing to wait til later to wean.

also, and i am no expert, but i always thought that babies were born with enough iron supply to last them til 6 months at which point it began to decline.

Agree with 2cats

Ninky

ILove - we had a few daft comments from the ILs when DS was about 19/20 weeks.

SIL - 'OMG are you going to make him sit here and watch us eat without giving him any food, poor boy'

Me - 'No, I'm going to BF him in a moment once I've sat down'.

SIL - 'Oh, er'.

DH -

altin - yes I agree that proper evidence should be taken seriously. Very hard to know what is a real and unbiased study though - every organisation funding such things will have one agenda or another and that bias has to be taken into account when you are looking at the results.

The main problem is that the media are so bloody poor at reporting on anything scientific or medical.

YANBU but the word bf is included in all of the headlines which is making people assume that ff is better as it's not included in the headline.

Altinkum - I agree to a point. However speaking as an academic, if a company such as Nestle fund a study they also usually stipulate that they own the findings. If the findings do not match their research agenda then they do not publish them.

So perhaps they suddenly publish a study where weaning at 3 days old has fantastic results - thats not to say they havent funded 37838584737 studies that show otherwise - they just haven't been published.

That's where it all gets a bit dodgy and angrey area...

In the actual article there are studies which raise questions or challenge the 6 months yes. What the authors are saying is that we need many many more studies to understand this properly. One or two studies do not make evidence.

Right, what study would you like me to do then

Is a big problem. Especially with government cuts to funding...academics needing funding to do the studies and keep their jobs...so the companies jump in on things.

I always find it interesting that some countries wait until a year or even two to wean. Are their maternal instincts worse than ours? I always thought that as breastfeeding is what everyone does they know and understand it better than us. Even in the UK 100 years ago weaning was done at a year old. CMOT has posted some interesting extracts from ancient parenting manuals she has to show how weaning has changed.

No study is ever definitive.

I agree with those who say every child is a little different and you have to feel your way. I think mumsnet would have half the postings it does if people felt a little more confident about trusting their own common sense and judgement rather than driving themselves crazy reading books and articles they say different things. Its baby food, not rocket science, and if you do get it a little bit wrong and have a day of upset tummy its not the end of the world.

the mbj article
Not sure if it's the full report, because i haven't read it fully.

mbj ???

BMJ !

Hear hear Trixie!

20 years ago you weaned at around 12 to 16 weeks, not sure why or when it changed to six months but that makes no sense to me.

If a baby is bottle fed and gets to 8oz and it is not enough you know that it is rice/rusk time.