Could all the good of breastfeeding be outdone by giving a 7 week old rusk in a bottle of formula?

[imdreamingofawhiteKITTYmas]

Sorry just have to share this, saw friends 7 week old today, doing reakky well she is BFing but giving her a bottle of formula at night. Today she said she was having half a rusk in it as well.

Now I know HVs and MWs don't recommend it now but I was still when she said it. I said you aren't supposed to now and she asked why and I said I think theres a risk of choking didn't go into the allergies thing and basically you are grinding up a sugary biscuit into your babies milk.

Think it's another one of these things that people don't believe a baby can survive on just milk for 6 months.

Wisteria, obviously I was not intending to be taken literally when I said 'nothing makes me madder' than someone answering an OP without reading the conversation....I mean, war, starvation, poverty, homelessness all make me a teensy bit crosser!

But actually, in the context of mumsnet, it's high on the list - and no, if you can't be bothered to read/skim the previous posts to get a flavour of what's been going on, no, I don't think you should post at all, frankly. It's bad manners, if nothing else. It can be worse than bad manners when (for instance) someone says something stupid and offensive and ignorant, and then regrets it and apologises in the light of replies. Someone then comes along, reads the OP and the OP only, and starts sounding off and we go through the whole thing again.

It's just like being at a party, and overhearing an ongoing conversation, and butting in with your own opinion before getting a flavour of what has already been discussed by listening a little first.

Wisteria, you say 'according to people in the health care industry who work extensively with children (very close friends) they are noticing more and more children lately being diagnosed with intolerances/ allergies to foods and they are children born within the window of time when the advice guidelines have been increased."

And your point is? This is scientific rubbish, you know, and your health care industry friends should know it.

Advice about weaning changed about four years ago. But the actual practice of giving solids earlier than 6 mths has not changed at all - or not very much. We will not know for sure how much it has changed until probably the next infant feeding survey (due to be published 2012).

Also, higher numbers of diagnoses could easily be the result of greater information and knowledge, not actual higher numbers (a bit like autism, dyslexia, postnatal depression...conditions which were poorly understood or not known about at all and which now seem to be more common, but are probably not).

It's just daft to dismiss research as if it was a whimsical comment or trend, like ankle boots or pashminas. I have heard mothers express the most bizarre preferences and beliefs and misunderstandings, and to go with mothers just because they are mothers is perverse.

I think it's irrelevant TBH. Breast-feeding is still good for the baby regardless of whatever other stupid things the parents choose to do.

OrmIran, have you read beyond the OP?

No.

So what. I still think it's irrelevant. It would still be a bad feeding habit if she was exclusively formula fed.

Personally am fairly shocked at OP's friend's decision but also not sure how this thread helps as OP is absolutely unwilling to broach it with her again - just an opportunity for us all to say how outrageous or otherwise it is?

But Wisteria's point is an interesting one... By Wisteria on Mon 17-Dec-07 12:53:06
What astounds me though, is that allergies and digestive problems are on the increase and yet we are still being told to keep our houses spotlessly clean, bleach and dettox is being ruthlessly advertised and we are all told that early weaning is the cause

Seems to me that in a financially driven society we are far more happy to blame parents for their irresponsibility than look at the way marketing is used to push these kinds of products and the damage they could be doing.

Oh - just read that it p*sses you off tiktok. Sorry.

FC, Wisteria's point is erroneous though - not many babies remain unweaned by 6m. Not many at all.

I know, I was thinking more about the rise in antibacterial household stuff, which we also know has a detrimental effect. And parallels between how that is marketed and the ways formula is also aggressively marketed - taking myself off topic rather but it seems that capitalism always overrides children's well-being; people's well-being. Am rambling a bit, just following my own train of thought. Sorry!

Am fleacircus, by the way!

Oh, don't apologise - it's a good point - as you might know, I'm not that big a fan of commercial interests being put before infant wellbeing... [understatement of the decade]

hello - again - am obviously Mrs unpopular today!

I think what I am trying to say is that IMO the research into all these problems would be better aimed at the rise in chemicals/ pollutions and cleaning to cleanroom standard (or not) is probably far more responsible that whether or not you wean your child at 2-3-4-5-6 or 7 months.

I take your point tiktok - and agree to a degree about the practise not having come up to speed with advice but it is strange that all children were weaned very early by today's standards until about 15 years ago and certainly when I was younger I didn't know anyone with allergies or food intolerances, there are more and more intolerances etc than there used to be and yet people are still fixated on weaning as the cause.
Another interesting point is how many adults are now developing problems in their 30's and 40's. Surely that points to more environmental causes than 'owt else?

I typed a whole post out, and then though "fuck it".

Hunker - how are you feeling my lovely?

Sorry - that last post wasnt to you wisteria

However, this is:

There is research into genetics and asthma/allergies.

There is research into environmental factors (including cleanliness/exposure to agents/hormones in water supply etc)

There is research into human/infant development - pre and post natally.

The results so far indicate what tiktok, sabire, welliemum and hunker have already posted. There has also been evidence to suggest that excessive cleanliness can impede immune systems.

When there is further information ready - then I'm sure it'll be handed out.

Anecdotally - my DD and DS were both exposed to the same things AFAIK gestationally. Both exclusively b/fed to 26 weeks. Both weaned post 26 weeks.

DD had eczma from birth, cows milk protien (largely gone) allergy and peanut allergy (still present), asthma, glue ear.

DS has none of the above. There is more to it than we currently understand, but, making decisions based on what we do know seems eminently sensible to me, as a parent of a child with eczma, allergies and asthma.

Wisteria, clearly allergies and intolerances may have several different causes. I really don't know where you get the idea from that people are somehow promoting early weaning as 'the cause'.

There appear to be more intolerances and so on than there used to be - very possibly. This could at least partly be because people are looking harder for them.

Early weaning - pre-6 mths - is a late 20th century thing. Normal weaning age in the UK before (say 1940s-1950s) would be 6 - 9 mths for most babies, though there have always been individual and regional differences, and what people did. as opposed to what they were advised to do, is something quite hard to to pin down.

As I understand it, it isnt early weaning that causes it, per se, but, is more likely to trigger a reaction in a pre-disposed baby.

Or something.

Where do I get the idea from? - MN of course!! I've lost count of the number of times I've read "Weaning before x weeks is proven to cause x, y & z", I just don't think the research is conclusive and is generally thought flawed anyway!

Marry Christmas anyway

PS - Hate disagreeing with you tiktok as you are bf guru!!

or merry!

wow this has moved on as I said before I am not going to say anything more to my friend, I don't speak to her that often and I doubt it would make any difference anyway, even if IO presented the case against rusks in bottles and used articles from WHO etc she would still say "oh she is fine with it so I'm still doing it" I know that. She knows I BF my two exclusively to 6 months even DD2 who was a big hungry baby. Instead of asking why I chose to do this she would probably just think I am a loon.

NO ONE I know in RL waited until 6 months to wean their babies.

I also believe part of it is a competitive nature I have lost count of how many times I have heard "he was a big hungry baby he needed food at 10 weeks" as if their child is more advanced developmentally than other children if they are eating solids quicker.

I KNOW no matter how big a baby is their guts don't develop faster than small babies. We all make decisions for you babies based on the knowledge we have at the time.

I must be reading different posts from you, then, Wisteria - I have certainly seen that people proffer early weaning as 'a cause' but not 'the cause'......I was disputing 'a' versus 'the' , really

Actually you won't find much from me that links allergy with early weaning, at least not early weaning defined as 4 mths rather than 6 mths.

The research is not that great, partly because allergy is multi-factorial. However, very early weaning with known allergens eg gluten - before 3 mths - has got some pretty good evidence linking it to coeliac disease.

Merry Xmas to you

Wisteria, you say that people in their 30s and 40s are having problems.

"it is strange that all children were weaned very early by today's standards until about 15 years ago and certainly when I was younger I didn't know anyone with allergies or food intolerances..."

Well, no they weren't - many, many children weren't weaned till 9-12m - my great aunt was very surprised I was giving DS1 food when he was 6mo because it just wasn't done then.

"Another interesting point is how many adults are now developing problems in their 30's and 40's. Surely that points to more environmental causes than 'owt else?"

No, it supports what I'm saying - people in their 30s and 40s were born during the boom of formula and all that "science has made it easier for mums" guff. It also makes the "well, my kids are fine" posts people make a bit - gut problems often don't appear till adolescence/adulthood, so quite why people are so smug about their 5yo being utterly healthy beats me.

Oh, Kitty, the "well, he's a hungry baby" (oft-accompanied with an eye-roll and a martyring shrug) - give me strength.

Because mine only needed feeding once a day and sometimes I skipped that because they didn't need it, obv...

VVV, feeling a bit better, still nauseous, but less "ill" iyswim? Thanks, lovely

Don't get me started Hunker I have been accused of depriving my babies of first tastes of food because they only had BM. Was also told there was no way I could feed a 9lbs 3ozs at birth baby myself.

Apparently I was having rusks in a bottle from about 4 weeks (the hole on the teat made bigger by a nail so the rusk could get through) and was having potatoes and mince at 8 weeks old (I was a 34 week old premmie) now if I had listened to my Mother and not read up on things chances are my babies would have been weaned earlier.