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...

Genevieve, btw, we certainly haven't evolved out of being mammals. With mammary glands.

duchesse - email back with the summary (you'll find it linked upthread) and draw his attention to the bit where it says it's possible there's an issue with waiting to 6 months, but says it's pretty much certain it's very bad to wean before 16 weeks.

I wasn't talking about that piece in particular - I was talking generally.

Can't breastmilk be subject to rigorous scientific analysis and would anyone be prepared to accept any negative findings about it even if it were?

Edam to be fair, your anecdote about your DH is no less anecdotal than anyone else saying they were weaned early and are fine healthwise is it?

It puzzles me why it seems to be such a constant source of annoyance to some people to hear that people were bottlefed/weaned early and are prefectly OK healthwise? Why do they find it so hard to believe?

An account of that happening always seems to have to be countered or rebutted with a "my DH was bottle fed and weaned at two months old and has asthma, eczema, allergies to fur, feathers, grass, pollen, absolutely every substance you care to mention" story?

I only bf for about a week so am not going to get in that particular debate, but with regard to weaning - I did start when lo was around 4 months, very very slowly but I started all the same.

What did strike me as odd was the HV's rammed it down my throat about delaying weaning and waiting till 6 months and then as soon as she reached 6 months of age they kept saying how important it was to provide finger food else I may slow down lo's ability to talk as the mouth movements used for eating will develop the skills for speech! It was almost like she reached the age of 6 months and the order was to "rush rush rush" lo onto solid/complex foods rather than taking it slowly. I feel more comfortable with the fact she had 1-2 months of purees and a gentle introducton to food and then finger food/meals from 6 months, this worked well for me and lo.

I can imagine that bf isn't necessarily best from some women who may have poor health/diet and that this could impact on the quality of milk maybe? For example, if a mother has low iron levels woud this affect the iron content in breastmilk?

I honestly can't see what the negative findings about breast milk possibly could be- after all breast milk has proved its worth over the last 2 million + years, whilst formula has been around for ten minutes. I'm sure breast milk can be judged against made-up criteria that make it look bad though.

Had a bad moment when i read those articles today. Ds has SEN and I thought about how I breastfed until 8 months and he had loads of allergies when i introduced foods and 5.5months and because of the allergies I could only give him root veggies until he was nearly a year.
and then I remembered that I also introduced formula at 3.5 months and that the breastfeeding tapered off pretty rapidly from around five months.

There is a good point hidden in the research about not monitoring iron levels in the UK.Ds was four before he got his bloods tested and he does have anaemia despite having spent the previous three years eating red meat and green veg in pretty large quantities so it is possible that early screening could have helped minimise his SEN.

I had absolutely no intention of making you feel like a bad mother Genevieve. Sorry if that was the case. And yes, since in the 1970s I understand the guidance was 3 months, I can see that the two things are equivalent in the way you meant it.

Later babies- I did exactly what I wanted as I had the confidence to know my own baby. But for my first, the guidance guilted me in to trying to follow it (trying and then feeling guilty if it didn't work out).

Sounds to me like it's not really well researched.

Load of rubbish is what I thought. No idea why they are on about breastfeeding to be honest. Surely the point is about weaning, not much to do with what sort of milk they get when they are on milk only.

PotPourri...'the guidance guilted me in to trying to follow it (trying and then feeling guilty if it didn't work out). Sounds to me like it's not really well researched.' For me this sums it up. Inconclusive research is presented as fact, members of the health service present it as 'truth' and women try to follow it/feel bad if they fail/feel bullied/worry when they take their own path. If someone (anyone?) treated mothers as intelligent/capable of judgement it would be... just amazingly refreshing.

"please can we stop the horrible "breast is best" brigade and support each other as mothers"

And can we also please stop the insidious, horrible, multi million pound marketing lies peddled by the infant formula companies and support each other as mothers too?

Because bottle feeding is so entrenched in our society that breastfeeding beyond six months is actually seen as a remarkable and weird thing in RL? The media are so very reactionary when it come to breastfeeding - it's quite quite wrong and wicked to undermine mothers like this.

You talk of breastfeeding mafia - perhaps there is - but the formula propaganda has been far more potent because it has a lot of money behind it.

Read The Politics of Breastfeeding. No money to be made from breast milk.

Duchesse, you are quite right. The human race has erm, done rather too well on breast milk!

Good post.

Please can we stop this horrible breast is best/not beat bollocks as the effects on childrens lives and life chances are much less than those of, for instance, poverty, social exclusion or family breakdown.

Maybe we should put our efforts in to those kind of things instead of this. But they are much harder problems.

If you want to improve your childs start in life, don't worry about BF/FF. Just Don't Be Poor.

Formula feeding advertising is always there on the television.

I'm glad my midwife and HVs had a chance to tell me about the best way to feed my baby.

And I'm glad that they weren't sponsored by Cow & Gate or whoever. At least, they didn't seem to be.

I don't think the authors of this paper can claim such impartiality.

Breast is always best unless you're on drugs or drunk or fat.

Don't give solids until six months until otherwise proven - it hasn't been proven it.

CArry on and stop beefing.

Ah, I meant obese and co-sleeping. God, I've been to the pub and I'm obviously deeply offensive after four lagers. Sorry.

Fat? I didn't mean that with regard to breastfeeding. I'm overweight myself.

Oh bugger

Sorry.

@suzikettles yes, 'second-guessing' what will have a big impact would be the issue though your 'sixth sense' point is good. Would be interesting to see if it was workable.

I think what I was trying to express [badly!] was that I find it frustrating that they come along with their calm, sensible analysis after the media horse has well and truly bolted and the fur is flying (to mix metaphors). I doubt we will see any of the more sensationalising media admitting any time soon that they misrepresented this and recommending the BTH version!

Could I sue the Sun for their appalling headline that "Breast isn't best"?

After all, I manufacture breastmilk and they have just made disparaging and scientifically unproven claims about my product.

I went on a weaning course and was pretty much told that exclusive bf was recommended by the WHO to avoid food (or formula milk) being prepared in unsanitary conditions (in other parts of the world). But, by 6 months iron levels would be low and in need of boosting. I believe formula milk can be fortified, but next to nothing gets through the breast milk.

Doesn't all the conflicting advice over the years show just how sensible mothers can be, in spite of all the guidlines, and how tough an animal we are to have survived it all?

Having thought about this more in terms of my reaction to it, I think I'm mostly annoyed at myself for not following my instinct more.

I was pulled in three different directions - my mother encouraging me to wean early, my keenness to ebf to six months as per guidelines and my son sitting up from five months.

If this research had come out then, I probably would've weaned at five months, though I have to say he hadn't quite reached nicking food off me stage then! Instead I did it at 5 and a half months, which isn't too much later but I still feel bad - I think it's just what many mothers do, find things to feel guilty about. I don't know how much difference two weeks can make, I just hope he isn't damaged as a result.

My dad's side of the family all have allergies (both food and asthma/eczema). I have animal/dust/hayfever allergies and feel there's a high possibility that I will have passed my allergic tendencies on :(. I had thought that it was best to wait until six months for things like gluten and dairy and so I did - but now I learn it could be the other way round! Whatever happens, it could simply be that he was destined to have or not have the allergies anyway though. sigh

Beveridge - we should start a class action against them!!

I was only talking about iron not getting through when BF - everything else about the stuff is brilliant.

Guilt is the gift that keeps on giving. Your family has a history of allergy, in spite of the range of weaning advice around when they were tiny. It's no one's fault. OK?