Exclusive BF for 6 months may be harmful

[Longtalljosie]

Oh bloody hell

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...

Formuk may take longer to digest but it does not make for a better sleeper. I have enough ff feeding friends who took ages to sleep through. Including one who stopped bf at 6 weeks so her child could sleep better and she then developed milk end egg allergies.

StrawberrySam no way! Did she just put it in his mouth? I didn't think 8 week olds could eat something that solid, even if it was healthy! I'm just

all I can say is that everyone seems to think their own particular methods/views are gospel, resulting in some very nasty comments to anyone who has an opposing view. None of us can really know what is what and I think the best is to take the current advice (whatever it is) on board, but to also temper it with your own instinct about your own child. FWIW I breastfed solely for 20 weeks and then started using some formula, and also started weaning with veg and then fruit, working up to introducing fish and meat at 26 weeks. It worked for my children who are both extraordinarily healthy. I don't feel particularly "vindicated" by the latest research as no doubt something else different will come along one of these days. I just feel so glad that I had/have the confidence to do it "my" way without worrying too much.....

I have 4 DC's, ranging from 16 to 4. I breastfed them all and followed their lead with weaning. They all started mixed feeding around 4 months when they positively showed me with their actions that they needed solids...ie: their interest in my food, licking lips etc, more unsettled at night and weight up take drifting slightly down. I did what felt natural and have 4 kids with no allergies. They have always eaten well and had a balanced diet. I followed my instincts and when I felt a little under media threat, I would say to myself,'if I was alone in a jungle what would I feel was the right thing to do.' There are folk who need guidelines...the ones who feed 8 weekers mars bars but surely most of us can use our own sense?

The most important thing to remember is that almoat ANYTHING you do will PROBABLY not make any significant difference in the long run.

onebatmother thank you that's reassured me no end...

Blimey. UNICEF response to BMJ report: "it should be noted that 3 of 4 authors have declared an association with the baby feeding industry."

I haven't had chance to read the whole thread but I think one of the main issues is that they are really not sure when the best time to wean is so they are calling for more investigation into it. There is a massive increase in childhood food intolerance and allergy and there needs to be further investigation into whether earlier introduction of known allergens could result in tolerance rather than intolerance. For example the Government withdrew all advice on whether to eat nuts in pregnancy as it did not know whether having them or not was best FFS!

There is this research study running at the moment which hopefully will help give some answers into earlier introduction or food but as it will run for several years we are not going to get answers quickly.

From what I can gather the stuff in the press today is that they are calling for more investigation, not a chnage to the current guidelines.

I found when I was pregnant/breastfeeding/weaning that I was given so much conflicting advice it made me doubt everything I was told. In the end I took an evolutionary approach to BFing and weaning and thought that our ancient ancestors were very unlikely to have pureed and spoon fed their babies? and as with other living primates, infants were much more likely to have just copied adults feeding once they were ready and would BF for as long as their mothers let them! We are animals after all and our biology has evolved over millions of years to provide the most successful ways of rearing our young.

But I am a biologist so I would think this way!!!

Thought the comment about early cutting of the cord in that Unicef report to be very interesting?. Basically a 3rd of iron stores can be lost through this! I had a home birth so had complete control over this but I know many friends who have had hospital births where the cord was cut immediately as a matter of course?

"It might be responding to the phenomena whereby BF babies are generally weaned later than FF babies."

Perhaps SugarPlum. But the official advice for FF babies is still wean at six months isn't it?

And the point of the report is to question the official advice. Or do they just want to question the WHO's recommendation ref exclusive BFing?

I am not usually a sceptical person but the more I think about this the harder I'm finding it to ignore the fact that three of the researchers have worked for baby food manufacturers.

And FWIW I totally agree with TheCoalitionNeedsYou. It probably won't.

The 4 authors are independant onebat. Clearly they have to have an association with all industries and bodies to give a balanced view non? I am sure they have linked with pro breastfeeding groups too.

info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease14jan11

Here we have it - article on baby milk action entitled: WHO breastfeeding recommendations under attack from industry-funded scientists

This puts the report into an interesting perspective.

Whether they are independant or not is kind of beside the point. Are their conclusions valid or not? Are their flaws in their methods?

"Well you would say that wouldn't you?" isn't really sufficient rebuttal.

I saw that too Welsh Cerys. three of the four authors of the study are funded by the baby milk industry.

And the BBC just swallowed it whole. Not once in their coverage did I hear the source of funding mentioned.

I was really pleased to see this; I read all the WHO literature, including the underlying data, before weaning my baby at 17 weeks. Having looked at all the evidence itself, I decided to go along with what I felt was the best thing for my child.

The WHO research is based on collated data from both developed and developing countries. It is based on the premise that malnutrition is a significant cause of infant death, particularly in the first year of life. As far as I recall, it didn't look at allergies etc. but purely at infant death. To me, it seemed obvious that children in developing countries, where they don't have access to clean water supplies, a range of weaning foods etc, would be much better served by being exclusively breastfed for 6 months.

On the other hand, Western babies, whose feeding utensils are sterilised and anti-bacterialised and whatever else, and who have access to clean water, organic food, etc. are at far less risk of getting gastro infections which kill them, which is what the WHO is trying to prevent.

So I didn't feel like I was forever damaging my child by ignoring the WHO advice and doing what I felt was right, although I was often made to feel that way by other mothers who thought it was their business to criticise my decision. I hope that this will help to stop the savaging that some people get for deciding to wean their babies when they feel the time is right.

(PS I continued to breastfeed along side weaning and I hope that this study isn't misinterpreted by people as saying that breastfeeding is harmful; that's clearly not what it concluded).

I love that when the news reporter I just saw on tv talked about introducing solid foods earlier, she turned and gestured at a shop display of cow&gate etc jars of puree - like that's the only type of solid food we could possibly go on to!

I BFed exclusively until my DS was 26 weeks (21 corrected) and he was discovered when having blood tests for something else to be severely anaemic - of course in part that's down to the prematurity.

If I was doing it again, I think he was ready to be weaned at about 5 months - which is 4 months corrected.

Every baby is different and once they start showing an interest in food/needing more frequent milk feeds after 4 months, that's the time to start.

Bearcrumble you just can't say that needing more milk feeds means your stomach is ready to process solid foods. Babies can go through growth spurts, have unsettled periods requiring more food etc at any time. How to tell that your baby is ready for solids is just going to be guess work, unless you go by some kind of guidelines.
Given how few people actually do ebf until 6 months, you wonder at the fuss. No studies about the affects of giving a mars bar at 8 weeks!

I think this does not necessarily contradict what has already been said. The WHO report says that babies are ready to wean in their own time. Most will be ready by 6 months, some will be ready as early as 4.

This new evidence seems to suggest that babies need to be weaned as and when their development reaches that stage.

I think what has arsed this up is the "need" to give a simplistic answer which has led to the "wait until 6 months" mantra.

onebatmother thanks for the link to the UNICEF response. I urge more people to read it!!!

It's here

Well it is done now, I don't feel any guilt or regret for BFing exclusively for that long. I actually felt a bit sad when we started introducing food. He would probably have been anaemic anyway and at least we had the tests which meant we could start on iron supplementation.

crapbarry thank you for linking that Guardian article - was a lovely piece. My ds is 6mo on Friday, we have over the last week introduced some purees and finger foods, he doesn't sit brilliantly and isn't massivly interested in much - I worried about feeding his sister too early and now I worry about feeding him too late.
It does make me sad that so much of the media seem to see this as an opportunity to knock breastfeeding. I also find it frustrating that the advice to exclusively breastfeed to x date is interpreted as don't breastfeed beyond that date - I bfed my daughter until she was nearly 2, I'm sure it did her good, for her it was calming and reassuring, not just nourishment, but if she was ill and went off food then it was fab to be able to breastfeed her. For us it was a good thing.

Anyway i think that maybe what this does is reinforce the message that these are guidelines, not set in stone rules, they are based on the evidence the researchers had, the researchers didn't have my baby in front of them.

SkiingGardener - I agree. It's the headlines the report is getting that are awful IMO.

I heard on Radio 4 that 60% of the news in our newspapers is based on press releases, not investigative journalism these days. Then Radio 4 news apparently goes and does the same thing. Shame.

Interesting that the link between delayed cord cutting and increased iron gets practically no media attention whatsoever!