Apparently the latest advice is NOT to delay introducing solids until 6 months??

[phdlife]

Took dd to be weighed today and the nurse said I could start introducing other foods. I rather snippily said that wasn't the best advice I was aware of, did she have any research?

Surprised (and I must say, impressed) when she dragged out a bulging folder and showed me two articles with sections highlighted etc. Alas, with dd trying to suck my thumbnail off and ds falling asleep on the floor I did not have the wit to take down the references - am rather hoping some MNer with PubMed access can check for me?

Here's all that I can remember: One article was 2008, the other 2007. The 2007 one was a position statement; Peter J. Smith was one of several authors on the 2008 one; they were both about "complementary foods" (or feeding?); iirc one of the journals was something like "Paediatric Immunology and Allergies"???

Am sorry to be so vague - I was pretty floored by this info and a few other things she said, but she seemed pretty cluey, would really like more info if anyone can help!

Formula contains more iron, but it isn't so readily absorbed as the iron in breastmilk. So the baby makes better use of the iron in breastmilk

Makes sense. Breastmilk more easily digested. What I meant with the WHO guidelines is that they have to be valid for the entire world, so they have to take into account the fact that in the Third World breastfeeding can be a matter of life and death, and weaning too early is positively dangerous as unclean water, etc. In the developed world it's merely not advisable.

Mouette, the WHO are explicit on their website that their GLOBAL feeding guidelines, and the growth standards which correspond to these, are intended for developed AND developing countries. They don't spin the message based on a bias towards one are of the world over another. They report their findings and produce recommendations - either global, because the data supports the applicability to all nations, or they tailor their advice to specific nations as to best fit.

No, mouette, the WHO guidelines were written for all children, including those in industrialised nations. It says so explicitly in the guidelines.

The biggest study showing the hospitalisation/infection risk of stopping exclusive breastfeeding was conducted in the UK. They weren't half-starved and drinking filthy river water, they were the baby next door.

hullo welliemum!

sorry mouette, I cross posted with lots of people, others have already answered. Didn't mean to make you feel ganged up on!

hey vlc, good to see you!

's all right, of course WHO guidelines are valid for the entire world. Was more thinking about an article I read re weaning in the Third World and the attendant risks, because of the lack of sterilisation, etc it can be dangerous for babies to get weaned before 6 months. Here at least we have more of a choice.

Mouette, WHO sometimes do split their guidance rather than using a "one size fits all" approach. So, for example, their recommendations for breastfeeding in relation to HIV+ mothers is two-fold, depending on the environment of the mother and child (which basicaly equates to one set of guidelines for developed countries, and another for developing)

They would do the same for their weaning guidelines if evidence suggested that different nations would benefit from different advice. The fact that they are so explicit in suggesting that rich countries wean at the same time as poor countries is because the evidence is that our children face risks by not doing so (or benefit by following the guidance, depending on which way you look at it)

Sorry to bang on, but it's a bit of a bugbear of mine, as it is sooooo common a misconception that the WHO guidelines were never really intended for the likes of us.

They really, really were!

what is perhaps most depressing of all, is that my nurse is here in Australia, so the bs rumor that things are about to change (or in my nurse's case, already have ) is clearly universal.

remember me?

psst, tiktok, should I start a whole nother thread with some of my questions about bfing and allergies??

phdlife, that's interesting that you've heard this in Australia - they've had the 6 months guideline for longer than we have in the UK, haven't they? I had the impression (from when I lived there) it was more accepted there.

I also got the "baby's running out of iron" story - at least that (and a few other bits of her "advice") I knew was bs!

Mouette - I have a friend who is a midwife and she actually said they had been told the same as you are saying, that the WHO guidelines of 6 months are much more important in undeveloped countries.

What my HV said was 6 months is recommended but no earlier than 17 weeks. The gut isn't ready until 4 months but if my baby was showing interest in food then we could start him. We did at about 20 weeks as every time we ate he sat there making a chomping face and he also tried to eat things off my plate!

NoHotAshes I don't know how long they've had it in place - had ds (2.3) in the UK. But bfing is certainly much more the norm here.

I've long thought it is appalling that there are so many HVs giving shit advice, that directly contradicts the WHO guidelines, and even peddling myths designed to cast doubt on those guidelines. WTF is going on? Do none of them ever read a journal?

No other health profession would merrily carry on with out any continuing professional development - so why do HVs? (Although to be fair you do get midwives talking crap about b/f too.)

I once worked on some awards for NHS people. A team of HVs were given a national award because they had set up a lunchtime club to discuss the latest news from the journals. Staggering that this was seen as so incredibly unusual it won an award. (Although well done those HVs.)

edam, the worrying thing here (afai can tell) is that the nurse giving me this advice did read a journal - but then (apparently) made up her own advice based on that, telling me it was the "latest" research.

Hi!!! Was shy to say hello before as seemed like conversation too serious to interrupt! Hope all going well over there. Our conversations about breastfeeding and fertility seem well in the past. I'm expecting again on October 7th!

sorry for interruption!...

One (or even two, even three and even four or five or more) articles in journals can never tell the whole story, interesting as individual articles might be.

That's why all public health recommendations - which affect millions of people - and policy should come from systematic reviews of all the robust, peer-reviewed studies.

All HCPs should be aware of that but I know for certain many are not

Thanks woozlet, sounds like sensible advice.

I have heard about this new research but have not seen the articles myself.

Really all hcp's should be following current guidelines as they are at risk of litigation due to malpractice if anything were to go wrong.

The 17-26wks age range is a big enough range and as all babies are different I believe the parents have to take the initiative as to when their baby is ready and if they are not sure they should speak to their HV (if they feel confident in them)!

I have heard and read about baby led weaning but don't know anyone who has done it, But i am interested can anyone give any advice.

There is NO new research, Aidensmama. None at all.

Lots of BLW info in the weaning folder

Really all hcp's should be following current guidelines as they are at risk of litigation due to malpractice if anything were to go wrong.

Well this isn't always the way it works, for doctors at least. Guidelines often take years to be developed so frequently following a significant publication, practice changes well before it is officially a guideline. This can sometimes be years before.

For legal situations for doctors, there is this thing called the Bolam/Bolitho ruling which means that if you can show that there is a group of doctors who do the same as you (this doesn't mean ALL doctors have to do it, just some) and also that you acted reasonably then you are not negligent.

So as long as you can show that what you are doing is recognised and reasonable, you don't have to follow guidelines.

I assume there is a similar thing for other HCPs.

Plus always remember that guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are not set in stone and can and should be adapted to individual cases.

It's true that if you just read an occasional journal article here and there you could get a very skewed picture - especially if you're not in a position to read the paper critically and reject poor quality studies.

But it bothers me enormously that people are so removed from the research world that when a controversial issue pops up, it doesn't even occur to them to go and read up stuff for themselves.

A lot of info nowadays is right there on the internet for anyone to read. But HCPs are not accessing the up-to-date stuff, and parents are even more cut off.

You get this spectacle of people arguing furiously about what some guidelines say when none of the arguers has actually read the guidelines in question. (Let alone the research that informed the guidelines.)

It would be funny if it weren't so awful. It puts us parents at risk of really terrible advice from people who've got hold of a garbled version of the facts and never checked it out.

Jimbobsmummy Drs are usually a law unto themselves but other hcp's such as HV and MW should be following their trust/pct and national guidelines/policies in place at the time until they are changed properly. This would have everyone saying the same the thing and preventing all this confusion.

Tiktok thanks for letting me know this is not new research as I've not done much reading since being on mat leave, but it was a hot topic with other mums at baby yoga, don't know they had heard maybe from their HV!

I would imagine one of the reasons HCPs don't read the research is because they think they ARE keeping themselves current by going on formula-manufacturer sponsored study days