Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Northernlurker · 14/01/2011 08:15

Advice doesn't and hasn't change that often! I have three dcs and the oldest is 13. 'Advice' has changed once in my time as a parent.

MargaretGraceBondfield · 14/01/2011 08:16

This reseach is based up[on one lots of data, as opposed to the WHO recommendation which was based upon 3000 pieces of evidence.

In addition this is not comparing ff to bf, but more exclusive bf. So perhaps we would be better to interpret the baby weaning signals. All of mine we weaned when ready, ds1...4 mths ds2 5mths
dd3 nearly 6 mths
ds4 4.5 mths. therefore one was exclusively bf.

jennymac · 14/01/2011 08:17

This has kind of concerned me. I breastfed my ds exclusively for 6 months and he does have a nut allergy and is a very picky eater. Dd, my firstborn, was bf for 4 months and then weaned and she is fine and eats anything. Maybe there is something in it?

QuickLookBusy · 14/01/2011 08:17

My DD1 is 20 and in those days we were advised to wean from 12 weeks onwards. She did have purees from about 14 weeks. By DD2 advise was 4 months. Both are very healthy, no allergies etc.

BTW when pregnant we also were not advised against cheeses, mayo, seafood etc, I ate all these foods.
Also the expert advise was NEVER to let a baby sleep on it's back-it would choke.

I can say this with the benifit of age and experience, but parents should have the "expert's" advise at the back of your mind, but do what is best for you and your baby. Have confidence in your own instincts!

Megglevache · 14/01/2011 08:17

IT does Northern, I'm talking about the whole bundle, pregnancy/birthing/sleeping/weaning.
If I were to get pregnant now it would be totally different and my eldest is 6!

QuickLookBusy · 14/01/2011 08:18

Sorry "benefit"

megonthemoon · 14/01/2011 08:18

I just can't see how babies all smile, giggle, roll, sit up, crawl and walk at different times but then they are all ready for solids at 4 months or 6 months or whatever the guidance is. So many people seem to either wean the day they turn 4 months or the day they turn 6 months and I just don't see how babies fit neatly into those two dates. I think it is because weaning to solids is the only thing we impose on our babies - all the other stuff we have to wait for them to do themselves. We need to wait for them to show the signs f readiness rather than imposing food on them to our timetable.

So I think the advice needs to be something like "these are the signs to look for, and they are likely to occur somewhere between 4 and 6 months, never before 4 months" - so emphasising the signs first and the likely timeline later.

Re BLW, I did BLW happily with my DS at 21 weeks - he was an early sitter, self supporting at that age, could put food in his mouth and chew it so we went for it. So you don't have to wait until 6 months to do BLW although it is definitely likely to be closer to 6 months that they are ready. Again, it varies by baby and we all need to learn to take our baby's lead on this as we do on all the other developmental stuff.

Northernlurker · 14/01/2011 08:18

Oh and there is no need to be smug about weaning at 16 weeks any more than there is a need to be smug at 24 weeks!

This study is a review of the evidence isn't it? It's not advice, it's the work of one team and it's clearly suggesting that the emphasis in the advice may be misplaced but that doesn't make some of us 'right' and some of us 'wrong'. It would be helpful to remember that because if your child is 6 ft tall and never ill it doesn't make you an ace mother and if your child has food allergies it doesn't make you a bad mother. It is what it is and we could all do with stressing less.

Now I must go to work!

bronze · 14/01/2011 08:22

Or Jenny of my 4 I did things differently but
dc2 I weaned earlier and he as eczema, dc3 weaned at 6 months and still bf a lot and he has no allergies.

Don't feel guilty.

I feel no guilt even though mine have had different approaches according to advise

LornMowa · 14/01/2011 08:23

I would like to know where they got the idea that babies who had been exclusively breast-fed for 6 months are likely to be anemic. I know of no babies who have had their bloods taken for a study and would like to know if yours have.

If they haven't done a widespread study (including those children who haven't presented to a doctor through ill health) then surely they have just guessed about the level of iron in infant's blood.

pagwatch · 14/01/2011 08:23

...this is why I pay very little advice based on current scientific research. My three children born over the cast 18 years have all apparently needed variable and changing yet amusingly specific advice upon what they eat, when they eat, how they lie at night etc etc.

I never bought baby books, never visited baby clinic after the first one.

I think if a lot of health experts fuckee off and we just had to rear the baby in front of us , we would be broadly in the same position but would have spent a lot less money.

fiveisanawfullybignumber · 14/01/2011 08:26

As a DM of 5, ageed from 18 to 8m I have always thought that all babies are individual.
6m may be ok for some babies but not for others. My own HV advised me to wean DD3 (8m) at 18w to try and help her severe reflux. I asked her about the whole virin gut, damaging to babies thing, she said people seem to have taken the research out of context and gotten all militant about it. IF your baby is happy to exclusively BF for 6m great, if not try weaning slightly earlier. NO earlier than 17w though as that was thought to be damaging to babies inside.
As I have said before on these types of threads, every baby is individual, they have different needs.
Coincidentaly, DD1 (now 16y) wasn't ready to be weaned till she was nearly 7m, and I was positively berated for that 15 yrs ago.

poorbuthappy · 14/01/2011 08:34

Lol at pagwatch!

Agree that there is no set time for any baby, loving the concept of a "window" for weaning.

My eldest was weaned around 5.5 months and looking back she wasn't ready, but was told that if she was on solids then she would sleep better (bollocks). Cue lots of temper tantrums from her and me and lots of stress.

The twins weren't anywhere near ready at 6 months and I recognised this so didn't push it. They tasted stuff of course, but it was nearer 9 months before I started dropping milk feeds because otherwise they would have starved! Whether it was to do with their weight, or being 6 weeks prem I don't know. But the main thing was that I was far better taking the lead from them, rather than listening to other people.

QuickLookBusy · 14/01/2011 08:35

Agree with *Meg"

If I had a 5 month old today, who was sitting in a high chair, watching us eat, I would find it very difficult not to introduce solids.

cjdamoo · 14/01/2011 08:35

wean at 12lbs? Haha as the mother of a baby that was 10lb 13 oz at birth that has amused me greatly

tellnoonesantaisnotreal · 14/01/2011 08:36

They just said on BBC breakfast that the authors were sponsored by formula manufacturers and that the study is an opinion piece, not evidence based.

So they got what they wanted, headlines and already mums saying that the guidelines have changed - they haven't, and the message is out that breastfeeding is bad.

I want to cry!

QuickLookBusy · 14/01/2011 08:37

cj that was the advise 20 odd years ago. Just goes to show what a load of bollocks these "experts* spewGrin.

scotlass · 14/01/2011 08:37

Personally I think the current guidance is not meaning to be so rigid - after all 'around' 6 months is what our advice leaflet says, also placing an emphasis on the other signs. If it said around 4 months there'd be people interpreting it as 12wks for example.

Changing advice and practise based on one piece of research is worrying >>>>>>>

cory · 14/01/2011 08:40

Even advice that seems tailored to individual babies (sitting up, giggling etc) isn't going to fit all babies. Dd sat up unaided very late: had nothing to do with being able to digest food, everything to do with her dodgy hips. And as babies don't eat with their hips...

HumphreyCobbler · 14/01/2011 08:42

This is just one review of ONE study. How is that better than the WHO review of ALL the studies?

I don't think this was sponsored by formula companies, they were quite clear on that on the Today programme.

cleanairplease · 14/01/2011 08:42

Two points

  1. We van only ever follow the advice given at the time.

  2. Tried to read the report on the bMJ but you have to pay - so I can't even read the damn thing to assess it for myself.

Such a shame - the abstract clearly says that bf is best, but question is when to introduce solids. Yet already headlines are 'bf may not be best'. A gift for nestle et al. Sad

mamatomany · 14/01/2011 08:44

The paper acknowledges that three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years".

That's all I need to know Angry

Lynzjam · 14/01/2011 08:49

Aww tellnoone I feel the same.
I have a 14 week DD.

How dare that wifey on bbc news say that about BF. Why are people obsessed with whether a baby is sleeping through the night or not. Why does it have to be convienent for mums! I'm sorry but at the end of the day you've had a bairn. It's not supposed to be easy and convienent!

cleanairplease · 14/01/2011 08:52

mamatomany if that is the cas then Angry x 1000. Have you read the paper?

MUMSNET HQ - here's something for you to make a fuss about rather than EE storyline - this could actually influence how people feed their babies. Use the might of mumsnet to find out if this research is valid or a pile of bf poo

StarExpat · 14/01/2011 08:52

arghhhh
We gave DS freshly made purees / solids at 24 weeks. Before that, he was gaining weight quite well (a lot, in fact!) on just breastmilk. I was back at work and working incredibly hard to exclusively bf.

Now I'm really paranoid that I've harmed him. :(

Is there a test I can do/get to see if he is iron deficient or it has caused any other disorders or mental harm?

He is developing normally... he started talking at around 20 months (only a very few words before then), so a bit slower, but he walked really early and seems to be like a normal 2 year old now...

I'm really worried now. :(