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...

ive been mad all day about this!
but now i am loving the response from unicef about this

www.babyfriendly.org.uk/pdfs/unicef_uk_response_to_BMJ_article_140111.pdf

DD1 was "weaned"/ introduced to solids from 4 mths in 1999. I introduced baby rice first the veg and fruit ( often from jars . I continued BF'ing, actually until she was 4.5 yrs She has always been really good at eating everything offered, is very healthy, and a very healthy (if slim) weight. (I think BF'ing seems to really help with regulating appetite, and lower levels of BF'ing in the west could be contributing to higher levels of obesity ) Maybe I'm lucky with my two, but they eat when, as much, and almost whatever they want ( not offered loads of sweets) and they look very healthy.

DS1 was introduced to solids from 5 mths, then I tried to hold out with just BF'ing til 6 mths (after advice on this being possibly best from HV) As he was the youngest and I was busy with toddler, and influenced by ideas I'd heard about "baby led weaning" ( just becoming talked about) his first foods included lots of rusks (probably too sweet, even though used reduced sugar ones) and easy real foods like mashed banana. I had gone off jars as by now felt not very appetising. I also made my own veg purees and put in freezer in ice cube trays ( but could have done this more ) DS has always had more of a sweet tooth, less good at eating veg, though enjoys fruit. His teeth have suffered ( needed some extractions of baby teeth unfortunately ) However he is like his sister in being very fit and healthy and able to regulate his own eating pattern with some basic support from us - fairly regular meals, not too many sweets, cakes, or puddings. DS continued with BF'ing even longer than DD1. Perhaps he had got slightly over used to it as a form of nourishment ?
I probably feel that I got things more right with DD1.

Hope some of this is of some interest to others. I think my main thoughts are that there are various factors influencing our experiences of introducing solids with our DC's. Official advice always varies, but often mother's have good instincts anyway.

From my experience introducing simple solids, first baby rice, and later veg and fruit (usually pureed) somewhere between 4 and 6 mths, as seems right for your baby, would be my suggestion. At the same time continue with breast-feeding as long as it suits you both. If not BF'ing then some sort of follow-on milk would obviously seem appropriate instead/ as well.

Best of luck to all at this lovely stage in your baby's life - all those great smiles !
Enjoy your babies, and don't stress about introducing solids. IMHO there is way to much fuss about it ! Don't forget to play and talk with them too ! That will make much more difference to their happy development in the long run !

Observational studies are fine. Not the best evidence but often the best you'll get. Fancy trying to randomise a population for bf or ff?

They did mention that the WHO evidence was all observational though (like this was a weakness, which to be fair it is...and then suggested new evidence...which was also observational.

Thanks for the BTH link BaconFlavour. They are a national treasure, IMO. Going off on a bit of a tangent, but I've often wondered how they work and assume they react to the day's media health stories. It would be nice if they could have research like this before inaccurate media reports are sprayed around so that their sensible take on things could appear at the same time as the 'simplify and exaggerate' reportage [with a bit of added distortion for good measure]. Perhaps embargoes would make this difficult? Something like this could make for more informed and balance public discussion of health matters, IMO.

LeninGrad - Are they against introducing green veg now ? My DD loved her jars of spinach - I think I mixed them with cream cheese. I think this was one of our successes, and may have contributed to her love of all veg later !
In any case fortunately neither of my two have any allergies. Though as a science graduate I realise a sample size of two is hardly statistically significant !

Just wanted to say garrrrr after a day of being harangued by about 4 or 5 people asking what I thought of this, in my role as "the only breastfeeder they know"....

Am Pg with no2 having done blw with dd1 (startingon precisely the day she turnEd 6mths )!, this time round I will be mainly leaving it up to baby!

The key point though is the the WHO evidence was a systematic review of evidence. This is a "narrative review" which is much, much weaker. To be fair to the authors they are suggesting that there should be a new systematic review possibly including the evidence they're highlighting (depends of course whether the research is robust). No conclusions can be made from this paper.

Claire, they react to whatever is making a big splash in the media. Hard to second guess this, although I wonder if they have a sixth sense for what's going to hit the headlines now.

Are they seriously suggesting babies should be having red meat before 6 months. Personally I found my milk was all my boys needed for 10months. DS1 was a reluctant feeder and DS2 loved solids but was not really taking un substantial amounts until then. Both are good strong boys and don't seem to be brain damaged by the lack of iron in their diet...oh that's right my BM is chock full of the most bioavailable source of iron known to man!

Seriously can we stop with all the alarmist crap and stop eroding women's confidence in their own instincts.

Not sure what Baby Milk Action are on about to be honest .

1. It's not a new study, it's a re-examination of studies to date, including research done since the WHO guidelines were introduced.
2. It isn't talking about weaning as giving up breastfeeding, but the gradual introduction of other foods alongside breast or formula feeding.
3. As an examination (not new research) there will have been no grant or other funding issued and so could not have been funded by manufacturers. Where funding was given to any of the studies considered in the review, this will have been taken into account.
4. The authors of the studies are not challenging or questioning the WHO guidelines. Their role is to periodically look at the available data and see if it continues to point towards what scientists think is the case, or whether it challenges those views. This is what science is essentially about and for.
5. It is not an attack on breastfeeding. All sources agree that breastfeeding is the best option for babies.

The hysteria about this is just nuts!

Funtime have you looked at some of the headlines, the reviewers may not have meant it to be but that's exactly how many of the headlines are painting it.

But vagola the journalists write the headlines. The BBC's website has something stupid like 'breastfeeding may not be best' although they appear to have changed it now.

Most of the journalists who cover such stories have no science background, it's a bit like a cabinet post in that respect.

AArrgghh! I have two DS aged 15 and 13. The advice when they were weaned was to look out for "signs" that they were ready to wean and to begin from 4 months, especially as they were gaining weight well. DS1 took to solids like a duck to water but I continued to breast feed as well. DS2 was less keen on solids so I left it a while and tried again at about 5 months with more success, although he was never as keen and was much fussier. Fast forward to today and I now have DS3 who is 12 weeks. I was prepared to follow the new advice and exclusively bf til 6 months even though it was a daunting prospect as I am somewhat older than when I first had children! I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I will suck it and see with DS3, as DS1 and DS2 both reacted differently to solids. I might add that DS1 is now a healthy 6 footer and DS2 is catching him up.
I think that all this conflicting advice is unhelpful to say the least and just goes to show that mums should be given "guidelines" rather than "rules" as they are made to be broken. Babies are little people and not little robots and a one size fits all approach is never going to work!

I am so fecking angry about this I cannot breathe. The patronising bs I was given when DD was a chubby 4 and a half months and went from sleeping though the night to waking every 2 hours... it nearly killed me, I was so exhausted I thought I would throw her or myself into a Thames. And every fecking MW 'no you mustn't feed her, breast mild is enough' ra rah rah. The child was flippin starving. I know you're thinking 'why didn't you just THINK' and I cannot answer except they were so bloody sure. Finally I landed sobbing on the floor of my wonderful Russian GP who told me I was mad and to take her home and feed her but not tell anyone she had said so. This is MADNESS. Stop with the reports and the bullying. Let us bloody well think. Please, being a mother of a baby is hard enough without being banned from making a decision.

"it's a re-examination of studies to date, including research done since the WHO guidelines were introduced..."

I thought that is was they were proposing to do, rather than what they've actually done? They've only reviewed 33 papers or something, I heard.

"The authors of the studies are not challenging or questioning the WHO guidelines."

They absolutely are, I felt. Which is a good thing by proposing reviews of studies and papers which should be continuous.

What they should not do however, is make statements like "...and that failing to start weaning babies on to solids before six months could be harmful," until they have more evidence to prove this. Especially since this is such an emotive subject with so many differing opinions.

This has really upset me. My DD had a very low birth weight, nobody ever thought to warn us about the risks of anaemia. Nobody checked, nobody suggested supplements, frankly nobody gave a fuck.

I breastfed her exlusively until she was six months, she was extremely irritable, it almost killed me. And now I learn that I may have damaged her, in trying to do my best for her.

"Please, being a mother of a baby is hard enough without being banned from making a decision."

Eh? Why are you so angry you cannot breathe? Absolutely nothing has been proven yet. No new studies have been undertaken and neither have a significant number of established studies been reviewed to change guidelines.

You can make all the decisions you like as a parent. Just research and read for yourself and decide for yourself what you think is best for your children. Read the guidelines - they're only guidelines. You don't HAVE to follow them if you don't want to.

I think these researchers want lots of publicity and that's why they released this information. And the fact that 3 of them work(ed) on a consultancy basis for baby food and formula manufacturers simply cannot be ignored.

Shocked to read the Sun's headline on this

"Breast may not be best "

Check out TikTok's link about 20 posts back.

Their Health editor should be ashamed of misleading women in such a way.

They also say it may increase risk of allergies and iron deficiency.

I thought the evidence was that the iron in breast-milk was so easy to digest/ assimulate
that there was little danger of any deficiency. Also that BF'ing reduced chance of allergies developing, and also importantly reduced gastro-intestinal illnesses.

I think the research is quite interesting, and earlier introduction of solids at 4 to 6 mths may be beneficial for some babies.

But the mis-reporting of this for other agendas by the newspapers etc. is really shocking, and a disgrace !

Unwind, I'll try to find the US paper on anemia for you because I'm betting the risks were very small.

Re. finding TikTok's link from The Sun -

Sorry it's more than 20 posts back now.
Look for time 17.24 if you'd like to see it.

I'm not saying that their work is flawless, just that any time that science is reported in the press, it's whipped up into a frenzy. Don't get me started on the role of the press in the MMR debate!

Some research isn't worth the paper, some is good but gets noticed by unqualified reporters who mis-report. If the researchers release the information, it may or may not be accurately reported.

And the public is left wondering what the hell is going on.

Initially I was interested in this headline as my DS is 21 weeks and I am at the wean or not to wean stage, but after hearing the actual story behind the scare mongering headlines I realise nothing has changed.

My DS is 21 weeks and he has been ebf until only earlier this week when he started taking fruit and veg off my plate and eating small amounts of it. I am not going to stop him from eating what he grabs hold of, nor am I going to have a guilt trip that he is not 26 weeks. I am going to continue bf him and this will remain his main source of food for months to come and the solids he choses to eat will be secondary food until I believe he is old enough to wean off milk. Hopefully still a long time away as I do enjoy the bond of bf

Every Mum has her child's best interests at heart and so I firmly believe that all you have to do is follow your child's lead and they will let you know when they are ready.

I don't think that anyone who ebf until 6 months has harmed their LO in the slightest and so I think we should all ignore these headline hunting media types and go back to doing what we do best.....knowing what's best for our own children.

suzikettles, I'd be grateful for that

I can't find anything about the level of increased risk of anaemia that low birth weight babies are subject to.