Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Exclusive BF for 6 months may be harmful

713 replies

Longtalljosie · 14/01/2011 07:02

Oh bloody hell Hmm

The problem is it's only one study but will be seized on even if later it's put into context.

The other problem is the way it implies that breastfeeding is in some way a problem.

The third problem is the possibility they might turn out to be right, because I loved BLW and want to do it again...

I can hear certain members of my wider family from here...

OP posts:
belgo · 14/01/2011 07:04

Clare Byam-Cook has already seized upon it and suggest weaning from three months or 12 lbs in weight Hmm

belgo · 14/01/2011 07:05

As usual I agree with Justine's common sense comment at the end:

'Justine Roberts of Mumsnet said women needed clarity after at least three changes of policy in her own child-rearing years. "A lot of mums work quite hard, and it is quite hard work trying to exclusively breasfeed for six months without introducing solids. If that turns out not to be correct advice, we'd like to know as soon as possible."'

Original poster
Longtalljosie · 14/01/2011 07:19

They'd better bloody well be right, causing all this upset. I had to stand my ground quite hard with my in-laws. I'm dreading speaking to them tbh.

12lb? For my cousin's fourth, that would be practically from birth then Shock

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 14/01/2011 07:21

Those of us who had children about 10 years ago and who were advised at the time to wean from 16 weeks onwards have had to spend the intervening years hearing (sometimes very nastily) that we put our children at risk. Mothers of much older children were advised to wean even earlier, of course. This study, I think, reassures mothers past and present that there is a 'weaning window' rather than a rigid cut-off date. It doesn't underplay bf in the slightest

Original poster
Longtalljosie · 14/01/2011 07:24

Well, if the study doesn't the resultant coverage certainly is - someone just said on the telly "it was thought you should breastfeed for 6 months, but now people are saying that could be harmful"

OP posts:
MrsDrOwenHunt · 14/01/2011 07:32

i did what i wanted to do with my ds, didnt do what others imagine i should do as i am not a sheep, ds started solids at 4 mths and still bf until he was nearly 3!!

StrawberrySam · 14/01/2011 07:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Blatherskite · 14/01/2011 07:39

I think what Justone was trying to say (very much more elegantly than I could have managed) was that they need to make thier bloody minds up! I know things change and new evidence come to light but seriously, the advice changed dramatically in the 2.9 years between my two children!! Going to have to make sure I pay as little attention as possible now as I'm sure something else I was advised to do will be outed as harmful very soon Sad So far we have avoiding peanuts - and now gluten too), breastfeeding, how to make up bottles - just off the top of my head!

Blatherskite · 14/01/2011 07:40

not enough sleep last night - Justine obviously.

Chil1234 · 14/01/2011 07:42

"Before I start advising new mothers to start weaning at 4 months....."

That's the point. The advice shouldn't be 4 months, 6 months or some other distinct date. "From 4 months onwards".. perhaps and crediting mums with some commonsense? What many people did (and probably still do) was offer tastes of food on spoons and, if the baby wasn't interested, left it a few weeks before trying again.

Abr1de · 14/01/2011 07:46

Hear, hear Chil1234.

misdee · 14/01/2011 07:46

Do you know. I am happy to read in that article that the advice changed in 2001 as spent years defending weaning dd1 at 16weeks. Some people tried telling me that weanings has always been from 6months.

purcellfan · 14/01/2011 07:48

Heard the today prog report also. How does this effect blw then? We did that with ds and he eats mostly well, no allergies and still bf at 18 mths. Isn't there something in the Rapley blw book that suggests babies will naturally avoid foods they're allergic to until they're bodies can cope better? (may have misremembered that). What a minefield!

Who did fund this study?

Original poster
Longtalljosie · 14/01/2011 07:49

Oh and Chil I do quite agree - some posters do definitely owe people who weaned earlier than 6 months an apology... some posts on the subject were, as you say, downright nasty

OP posts:
kittywise · 14/01/2011 07:49

The thing is these things ALWAYS change. I knew this 6 months thing would be discredited at some point. Then a new idea will come along and that will be discredited and so on and so forth.
It always happens. I have always though that 6 months is a bit extreme tbh. Never waited that long myself. My babies have wanted 'solids' alot earlier than that. They have done BLW at around 4 months when they could reach over and grab the toast out of my hand etc etc.

Original poster
Longtalljosie · 14/01/2011 07:49

Hang on - where does the virgin gut theory fit in to this?

OP posts:
purcellfan · 14/01/2011 07:49

Or I suppose if they are ready blw would work but wouldn't if they aren't!

Original poster
Longtalljosie · 14/01/2011 07:52

Ooh hang on - coming on the Today prog now...

OP posts:
GooseFatRoasties · 14/01/2011 07:56

It makes sense as there is such a wide variation in the growth and development of babies with eveything else. I hope people don't misinterpret the headlines as meaning breatfeeding is harmful.

GiddyPickle · 14/01/2011 07:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Longtalljosie · 14/01/2011 07:59

On Justin Webb's point to the midwife that maybe this is why there are so many childhood allergies... This can't be the case because it's a very small percentage of children who are actually excl-BF for 6 months. If all children were, it might be more of a point.

OP posts:
GiddyPickle · 14/01/2011 08:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Longtalljosie · 14/01/2011 08:10

I know it made that point about peanuts being a weaning food. but it made other points as well, didn't it? About gluten as well, for a start.

OP posts:
Northernlurker · 14/01/2011 08:12

What we need 'official' confirmation of is what many parents have been doing for years - that the best way to wean your baby is a at a slow and steady pace after 17 weeks watching them carefully and acting on their cues not your wishes. Then perhaps everybody could do their own thing without being nasty. I have seen so many posts lambasting people for wanting to wean before 6 months.

LTJ - you can still do BLW, nobody is going to be able to design a study that says the best way to wean is using puree - it's just not going to work because exposure to finger foods and self feeding is plainly a Good Thing. What we need to have is a less polarised debate so that nobody feels guilty!

Megglevache · 14/01/2011 08:14

Oh it's getting ridiculous , everything changes every two years roughly as a guide.

I got such a slating from other peers (friends at NCT etc) for weaning mine at four months, I only wish I still knew them now- I'd practise my smug face hehe.

Best thing- use your common sense...no?