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...

Sorry if I'm repeating anything anyone has said on this thread - i just can't get through all the posts!
I saw a midwife on the news who said that she'd read through the report, and could pick holes in it - so she just didn't rate it.
Incicentally, I stopped BF my daughter at 4 months - she'd spent the last month waking me every 2 hours at night , and it was doing me in. My health visitor suggested formula, and after torturing myself with guilt, I decided to stop BF. Better to have a happy mum than a stressed one, I thought.
I then started weaning her at 5 months, with no problems at all, and I just tried to trust my instincts about this, instead of the guidelines. She was always a hungry thing - still is at 5 years old!
My husband had lots of allergies (including some foods)as a baby/child, which he eventually grew out of. I also have allergies, although none to any foods. Our daughter, so far, has no allergies at all, and is possibly one of the most robust kids I know!
I don't know if we'd be this lucky if we had another child, as how she has managed to avoid being allergic to things so far with allergy ridden parents is, quite frankly, a bloody miracle!
It's horrible for parents when you get all of this contradictory advice - I remember the fretting I went through deciding about the MMR jab.(I made that decision based on the fact that I'd rather have a child with autism, than one that had died from mumps).I think you just have to try to make sense of your gut feelings on something, and go with what feels right for your child.

I had my child some six years ago. They didn't thrive on breast milk - and the heath visitor, realising I was worried about their weight loss, first suggested mixed feeds (such a relief: less stress, less tiring, and more breast milk made as a result in better quality I'd guess) THEN when they were four months, she quietly suggested light weaning. At that point they ate everything they were given without stopping, piled on weight and went back to their original quartile, and was very very well.
Since I was a child of the 60s I'd been weaned at much the same age - have no ashtma, allergies, illnesses etc etc.
I would guess there is no danger in doing it at the stage it was done in previous generations - I mean we kids of the sixties are going to live to our late 80s so that early weaning hasn't hurt us!
BUT, as with all this it's to an extent a personal choice. And one study proves nought.

I said 'flapping' because we were talking about MMR not because it was women concerned. I consider the whole MMR 'thing' to be a scare with no basis in fact and I'm not going to characterise the ill-informed and knee jerk reactions of my female acquaintence from that time as anything other than a 'flap'.

I received this statement from the WHO via the NCT this morning: (apols if someone has already posted this and I missed it)

WHO's global public health recommendation is for infants to be exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health. Thereafter, infants should be given nutritious complementary foods and continue breastfeeding up to the age of 2 years or beyond.

WHO closely follows new research findings in this area and has a process for periodically re-examining recommendations. Systematic reviews accompanied by an assessment of the quality of evidence are used to review guidelines in a process that is designed to ensure that the recommendations are based on the best available evidence and free from conflicts of interest.

The paper in this week's BMJ is not the result of a systematic review. The latest systematic review on this issue available in the Cochrane Library was published in 2009 ("Optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding (Review)", Kramer MS, Kakuma R.

The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4). It included studies in developed and developing countries and its findings are supportive of the current WHO recommendations. It found that the results of two controlled trials and 18 other studies suggest that exclusive breastfeeding (which means that the infant should have only breast milk, and no other foods or liquids) for 6 months has several advantages over exclusive breastfeeding for 3-4 months followed by mixed breastfeeding. These advantages include a lower risk of gastrointestinal infection for the baby, more rapid maternal weight loss after birth, and delayed return of menstrual periods. No reduced risks of other infections or of allergic diseases have been demonstrated. No adverse effects on growth have been documented with exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, but a reduced level of iron has been observed in developing-country settings.

Francesco Branca
Head of Nutrition at WHO

jules thankyou for posting that

1. You can call a group of people stupid without calling all people in that group stupid. Watch...

"MPs who fiddled their expenses are dishonest" does not mean I think all MPs are dishonest

"Ben Goldacre thinks mothers who refuse to vaccinate despite repeated reassurances are stupid" does not mean he thinks all mothers are stupid.

Incidently - could you show where he's said that? I've never seen it.

1. If you think that sub-group of mothers are flapping, rather than worrying, you should be able to say so without being considered sexist. That's the thing about English, you choose the most appropriate word.

Oh look, let's leave this though. If the thread derailed into a vaccination argument it would be a real shame

Jemjabella: "Science moves on and we evolve as a human race. "

Except we haven't really evolved, as any science bod will tell you"

Would really love to know what you mean by this statement...

There's a whole nine weeks between 4 months and six months. It doesn't have to be one or the other !
How about more mention of 5 months ?

Perhaps introduce some baby rice at around 5 months, or as led by baby, especially for reassurance about keeping iron levels topped up, or possibly for some supplement BF'ing with a follow-on milk.

Then later in the month introduce small amounts of vegetables and/or fruit. One flavour at a time to start with ?

• To encourage their developing interest in different food tastes, and encouraging good eating habits as they grow.

• My suggestion after weaning my two at 4 and 5/6 months respectively ( with continued BF'ing ), and thinking about both the WHO guidance and this new research.

We haven't evolved out of breastfeeding. And evolution takes millions of years. Formula has only been manufactured for what, 50 years? (People used other artificial milks before that but no-one would have claimed they were 'better for baby'.)

Winkywinkola

Thank you for your acknowledgement of the "breastfeeding mafia" because very few of us breastfeeding mums will acknowledge it.

I have not read "The Politics of Breastfeeding. No money to be made from breast milk." It would indeed be interesting to see how balanced a view it takes.

What I do know to be a fact is that infant formula companies are NOT allowed to advertise formula for babies under the age of six months In addition, formula (for under six months) is not allowed to be on sale or subject to any promotional price and, wait for it, the government (aka "Big Brother") does not allow Tescos to give clubcard points on baby formula (for babies under 6 months).

In addition, the government is stopping chain cafes and restaurants providing jugs of hot water to warm babies bottles under the guise of health & safety. Health professionals are not allowed to advise mothers to give up breastfeeding. In some cases, this might be a good thing (we all know that the early days of breastfeeding can be tough) but in cases where it is just not working out - this is just so wrong! This undermines and totally demoralises bottle-feeding mothers (some who have chosen bottle-feeding and some who had no choice in the matter). I think that this is wicked.

Bottle feeding was, historically, "entrenched in our society" but I would assert that this is certainly no longer the case.

The "breastfeeding mafia" have all the power because they are prevalent among health professionals and absolutely dominate the evermore powerful parenting forums. All the time in the press, more and more unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims are being made about breastfeeding. These claims are just not necessary and are, in fact, damaging.

The formula companies do market formula but ONLY and I mean ONLY for follow-on milk (infant formula for babies over the age of 6 months).

I think that the hype in the press is a backlash to the "breastfeeding mafia" and it has been coming for some time.

For goodness sake; for some breastfeeding is best, for some bottlefeeding is best, for some weaning at six months is best and for some weaning at four months is best. Mothers know best!!!

Hot water in jugs in cafes is an undeniable health and safety issue. The water in such places comes from boilers (which do what it says on the tin). Jugs need to be open or you can't put the bottle in. The recipiants of said jug are accompanied by at least one child. There is a good chance the child is tired/hungry/crying and that mum or dad is all of the above as well. For the jug of water to be 'safe' you need to be sure that the person handing it over adds some cool water too and that mum or dad won't try and do two things at once. I have no faith in either of those safeguards! Jugs of water are not safe. Bottle warmers are and I've seen one in most cafes etc.

Why do you think the govt wants to promote breastfeeding? Because it has proven long lasting health benefits which ultimately may save the NHS money in the future. Yes they are proven - read the research.

Everyone knows that big business backs formula companies and they put profit before anything else. Why are there evermore claims about how harmful BF is or how the advantages have been overstated? Who will profit from less breastfeeding?

BTW - the term 'breastfeeding mafia' is soooooo insulting and very misognyistic IMHO. I am dismayed when women use it to describe anotehr group.

This breastfeeding mafia, who are they exactly? Oh, are those the ones who stalk the cafes and bundle bottle feeding mums into a black car at gunpoint? Or perhaps the ones who fund all the massive poster and TV campaigns that persuade women into breastfeeding against their will.

Given the amount of money that could apparently be saved if more babies were breastfed, it's a real shame the Govt doesn't see fit to fund proper breastfeeding education and support.

Well they do fund it to an extent with specialist feeding consultants in some PCTs etc. I know what you mean though.

At least in the last 5 years or so something has been done to promote it. Still a long way to go though.

What they need is b/f consultants/supporters in the postnatal wards. That's where the damage is really done IMO.

Brockbaby: Can't speak for England but bottle feeding is STILL "entrenched in society" here in the Westo fo Scotland :(. How else would you explain that the amount of breast feeding is directly related to post code?

Or are people in poorer post codes somehow less capable of breast feeding than those in wealthy areas?

@Brock, "All the time in the press, more and more unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims are being made about breastfeeding. These claims are just not necessary and are, in fact, damaging. "

Can we have an example of this? I don't know of this happening.

Hi TikTok !

Absolutely.

Could it be that some mention is being made of the proven health benefits of breast-feeding ?

Brockbaby If bottle feeding is not entrenched in our society, then why are only a quarter of Scottish babies exclusively breastfed at 6-8 weeks?

www.isdscotland.org/isd/1761.html

What else are they fed with after this if not bottles?!

Purely anecdotally, I was really surprised to find myself in a very small minority still EBFing DD at 4 months when I started to go to toddlers groups.

Naively, I had thought being in a relatively affluent area of Scotland especially this wouldn't be the case, but it was....except at La Leche League!

haven't read the thread all the way through but I would say this proves that we should trust our instincts rather than following blindly along with the recommendations of some enormous health body.
I weaned mine earlier than 6 months because it was obvious they were ready and I got very well flamed about it on here!

Ok I waited until 6 months but even then she barely managed a mouthful of porridge or banana.

She had the tongue reflex, even though she could sit great and grab things with ease... it took quite a few weeks to really eat

So how in the world could I have gotten her to swallow/eat at 4 months?! Especially meat? how would one mouthful be enough iron?!

Brockbaby you are aware that formula companies developed follow on milks with the express purpose of having something to advertise which was outside the guidelines. They are completely unnecessary and personally I think the addition of sugar in them is a bit dodge. They have a high iron content, but most of this cannot be absorbed by babies. Also when asked in surveys many women don't realise that the follow on milks advertising is aimed at 6month + baby feeding, so not newborns. They also make unsubstantiated claims about the immune boosting qualities of their milks. I have to say like Tiktok I am unaware of any unsubstantiated claims about BM and would be interested to hear.

Oh and just for the record being a supporter of breasrfeeding does not make me anti formula, or part of some mysterious mafia.

Any mention of meat at 4 months is surely unrealistic !

But I do speak as a veggie (almost)

Surely there is enough iron in breast-milk. It's just difficult to measure as it looks a small amount when measured, but is a type that's so easy for babies to digest.

Nevertheless I think there could be advantages for some babies in introducing tastes/ small amounts of baby rice and pureed veg sometime between 4-6 months - both from experience and from this research.