WHO and research when it comes to weaning within this country.

[Martha200]

Someone I know told me (they work with informing parents on parenting things) that there is no research to show that babies should be weaned exclusively at 6mths. WHO give the guidelines and the UK just adopt the same thought, which is why HVs say you can wean from 17wks.

This has thoroughly confused me, does anyone know what she might mean?? Wish I had the chance to ask more about this as it had me curious.

I meant no research to say exclusively bf/ff until 6mths then start weaning

They're talking bollox. Lots of links on there to relevant studies.

the WHO and NHS weaning leaflets i picked up recently all said exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is best...

I met the leaf from breastfeeding in the area and she inists that "as weaning should begin in the middle of the first year, it is acceptable for HCA to encourage weaning from 16 weeks" Personally I thought 'middle of the first year' meant around 6 months, whereas 16 weeks is only 1/3 into the first year ?

leaf lead

I think the message that most HV's should be getting across is that babies can go a full six months (or there abouts) on milk alone and that this is best - best because it's simply unnecessary for babies to be given solids before this time.

However - my understanding is also that there is no good evidence to suggest that weaning after 17 weeks is linked to signficant health disadvantages for the majority of babies and that the evidence on delaying weaning for longer than 6 months for babies who come from families with a history of atopic disease isn't conclusive.

I keep encountering people who think that the advice for 6 months exclusive breastfeeding means that one should breastfeed for 6 months and then stop. Or, perhaps not that one must stop then, but that 6 months is enough and any more is an optional extra. The "exclusive" bit gets lost. Anyone else noticed this?

dramasequalzero, that's what my HV thinks. LOL

dramasequalzero - this was exactly my understanding from everything I'd read when pregnant! I assumed I would breastfeed for 6 months, then ds would go to solids instead of milk! need to go back and reread those books to see if it's my misunderstanding or unclear writing

Sabire: increased risk of hospitalisation for GI infections , lower resp tract infection for babies weaned between 4 and 6 months

everyone i discuss this with about me wanting to bf for 6 months exclusivly always say that if you leave weaning til after 6 months you get a fussy baby and weaning is harder. its hard to know what is best to do

alright, it's not that hard to know - go with the research, which shows the 'window of opportunity' to avoid fussiness is a total myth, and ignore people's anecdotal opnions. You can be confident that excl bf to 6 mths does not lead to more difficult weaning.

bf for as long as you can! My 2nd is 5m old and is having little tastes of solids because she was obviously hungry.( up 3x night previously once) constantly eating her hands/ anything within close proximity. I grudgingly started giving food but if she had been content with bf i would have happily continued to only bf for as long as she was content. Every child is different and you know when your child is ready for solids. Also the kind of food will make a difference, try and give your baby home made food, not food out of jars then they get the nutrients.

Waiting to 6 months (or beyond - both of mine have been started, very gradually, at 6.5 months) has no detrimental impact, whereas starting before 6 months can have detrimental impact - and the earlier you start, the more likely in very general terms) a detrimental impact is. Plus, starting after 6 months means less money lining baby food manufacturers' pockets faff with pureeing and so on.

hEAR HEAR bERO.

and remember that a few teaspoons of pureed apple has less calories than milk, so if they are hungry, feed more milk!

There is a great thread on netmums about why they say six months and it is a very important reason. I will try to remember it right, if anyone wants to check it out it's a sticky on the weaning section.

When a baby is born there are openings all through the digestive system. These start to seal up usually between four and six months, not before but sometimes later. As we don't have anyway of seeing into our LO's gut to find out what is going on, advice is to wait till six months when most babies have already had that change happen to them.

There are external indicators that this change has happened as that is what Gill Rapley based her study and book (due out 6th November, preorders can be placed at Amazon ;) ) on. If you choose to follow Gill Rapley's ideas then you will know for sure when your baby is ready.

alright and mrscoo, there is a growth spurt shortly before the six month mark and that is when a lot of parents start the solids because they miss read the growth spurt as being hungry. I think that is where some of the idea of a fussy baby at that age comes from.

As lackaDAISYcal said, puree doesn't have as many calories as BM (or FM if that's what you're giving). It's the same as a diet, you don't drop the vegetables in favour of icecream or pour full fat milk on your cereal!

ffs - the fussy baby theory

I had my first baby over 19 years ago - we were told to wean at 12 weeks, what a palarva spooning wallpaper paste into a baby who wants to spit it out - he has asthma

I had my second 8.5 years ago - we were told to wean at 16 weeks - spitting out and the transition to lumpy food is not fun - he has asthma and exzma

My last was born 20 months ago and she has neither so far, I waited until 6 months, went straight to finger foods, have had no problems with gagging when you move to lumps, she eats pretty much everything, and she has had her first D&V in her life this weekend. She is still partially BF, and this is so much better than the puree, lumps, "real food"

Wait would be my advice

Some HV's are still giving out the 4-6mth advice. A friend with a 3mth old mentioned that he'd soon be starting solids so I said I understood the guide lines were now 6mths. She said no, her HV had said 17wks on was fine.

Isnt the 17 wk thing that it is the earliest possible time for a baby to be 'ready', physically, for weaning but that many babies are not?

Sadly I know too many people who believe early weaning means their baby is sommehow forward compared to others and therefore better

A friend o mine weaned onto baby rice at about 8 weeks because her baby was 'hungry', then when she started crying all the time she fed her more and wouldnt even consider baby was crying because she was being fed so early and had tummyache!

HV just said if she weaned early to take it slow

what I don't understand about it all is the rush to wean them; they are only babies for a very short time; enjoy the oneness of your feeding relationship and the closeness and cuddles while you can as it's over with all too soon.

Yes, I thought this might be the case.. she works for HVs and I guess she is just going with what they tell her.

I was hoping to be the 2nd person she knew who made it to 6mths exclusively BF then weaning but atm can't really call it exclusive as in the early weeks a formula bottle did creep in, though back to BM completely.

Anyhoo.. I will look fwd to dutifully mentioning sometime about the research I have now read (pleeassse can I get through this horrid cracked nipple and pain again stage, it is REALLY testing my sanity )

Thanks for that brill study verylittlecarrot. Have added it to my list of useful references.

C&P'd from another thread.........

The guidelines for weaning changed to 6 months several years ago (not recently, last year etc as some people have been stating). As with all these guidelines there is a lot of research and science etc behind them yet all the accompanying research etc and so reasoning behind it isn't given out to everyone automatically. - but it is available, and it is given to the medical professionals as a matter of course (some don't read it, don't take notice of it etc but it is given to them). The actual results of the research and so the reasoning behind the recomendations have always said babies will be ready for weaning between 4 and 6 months BUT (huge but . . .) there is an actual physical change in their digestive system which makes it capable of digesting solid foods. Before this change has taken place solid foods can not easily or safely be digested and so if solids are given before it happens then the baby is open to problems (many of which appear only much later in life not in baby hood). This physical change occurs at some point after 4 months but before 6 months - and there is no way of telling when it happens in any baby. So because we can not look inside our babies and see if it has occurred yet, but it is known that it will have occurred by 6 months old and that all a baby actually needs nutrionally for the first 6 months is milk, the line was drawn at 6 months and the advice put out as do not wean before 6 months without medical advice and guidance as if weaning is done before 6 months old there is a real risk that this physical change has not yet occurred.