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...

Brock:
There is a large and respectable literature about infant feeding and cognition/IQ. This s quality research that controls for confounding factors.

If you want I can post references.

It is perfectly plausible that a method of feeding that usually involves very frequent social and emotional contact between mother and baby and which delivers a substance which has 'ingredients' known to promote neurological and cerebral growth and development, would have significant effects.

You are right that anyone saying there is no point in bf if it it not done exclusuively for 6 mths is very wrong, and displays their own ignorance (and if they say it to a mother's face, after she has stopped bf at 5 mths, then they are rude and unkind as well as wrong!).

Surely BFing would facilitate the IQ a child is supposed to have genetically as regardless of what anyone thinks the fact remains irrefutably that human babies are supposed to be BFed.

Habbibu I agree with research being necessary but when it is interpretted by someone else then presented to us in this way it stops being helpful. The fact that the iron study used over 2000 babies but only 136 where ebf means it is a study that cannot be applied to my children.

Well, yes, and if you see my earlier posts that's exactly what I've been banging on about!

Here here Brock, common sense and trusting our instincts and own judgment,well said.
Idlingabout, my dd was also of the age to be advised to wean at 4 months. When I had another baby 9 years later I saw that the advice had changed but I went with what seemed right for my baby.

Apricot, chicken and sweet potato makes a lovely puree too :)

My DS is 26 weeks tomorrow. We started giving him bits and bobs of food to play with over Christmas and got started 'properly' about 2.5 weeks ago, so he was 23.5 weeks old. I agonised and agonised about this and eventually was worn down by family over Christmas who all told me he was definitely ready. It's true, he was, he has taken to it like a duck to water and really loves food.

Today I saw both my mother and my MIL for the first time since then, and with both I talked about this survey. To their great credit neither of them said "I told you so"!

oh sorry Habbibu, my DS2 was crawling all over me yesterday so I did skim a bit. Great minds and all that.

"common sense and trusting our instincts and own judgment"

But what if your instinct says to put baby rice in formula at three weeks? What if your common sense says to wean on pureed Chinese takeaway at ten weeks? These things happen.

Because these things happen, I feel that guidelines need to be in place. We can only do so much to inform etc but it's important to let people have access to the information.

I'm not sure the "my baby loves food at four months" argument holds much water actually. I mean, my dcs adore chocolate buttons. It doesn't mean they are good for them or that I'll let them have them very much.

It's all about what the body can handle and process.

I've never understood the rush to wean.

And the media blowing out of proportion unfounded reports like this one, upsetting mothers, making them feel guilty for absolutely nothing is bang out of order.

There is no science in this paper. There may be but not yet. I doubt there will be proof.

I left DD to 6 months as per the advice but to be honest she didn't show any interest till about then anyway.

A bit different to 1971 when my Esteemed Mama was instructed by health professionals to start wacking the baby rice into me at 4 weeks old! I kid you not. Oh, and apparently I screamed and screamed and screamed from around the same time on till I was about 6 months old. Hmmmmmm..... How times change.

in 2009 stuck to the 6 months advice and all is well with ds1 so doing the same for ds2.

Am not appreciating the timing of the article as ds2 is 4 months but in 12 month clothing (both big boys) exclussively breast fed so getting very funny looks when out as if I don't know that my 7 month looking child should be tucking into a roast by now.

oh gosh yes lenin that IS a good piece.

"It's all about what the body can handle and process."

Yes, itsgrimupnorth but as we've seen, the guidance from the all-knowing "powers that be" on this issue seems to keep on changing leading to people not knowing what to do or think.

What someone thinks is "doing things by the book" today, will no doubt be changed in a few years time.

I know because I've seen it. My DS wil be 11 this year and now it's 6 months to wean and when he was a baby it was 4 months.

It really doesn't take that long for ideas to move on.

This is what I'm trying to say, is it really worth people "holding out for a couple of weeks to wait for the 6 months to be up" when we all know that it won't be that much longer until they've moved the goalposts yet again?

Can it really be the case that a baby who was weaned at 4 months in 2000 (by the book according to the guidelines in place then) will be any less healthy than a baby who is weaned at 6 months in 2011 (by the book according to the guidelines in place now)?

And would all the people who have done things by the book today and weaned at 6 months be willing to accept that their children will be any less healthy than a baby weaned at 8 months in 2021 because you can sure as hell bet that the goalposts will have been moved yet again by then.

And so it will go on.

It's really not worth getting het up about.

What's that supposed to mean LeninGrad?

There is no need to sweat about a baby having first tastes at 23.5 weeks - honestly, there isn't.

Obviously babies are not all ready for solids at exactly the same age.

The WHO statement about exclusive to 6 mths, which the UK adopted, was never intended to be an instruction to mothers about individual babies. It was scientific guidance to policy makers and governments who need public health guidance - the best health outcomes are likely to be seen when policies are in place that enable this to happen. So mothers are supported to breastfeed exclusively to this age; maternity leave and other employment practice allows it; baby foods are labelled accordingly.

There is no evidence at all that this statement needs to be overturned. There always was provision in the WHO and the UK guidance for flexibility - both before and after 6 mths - to meet the needs of individual babies.

Oh, OK

apols, gen, i was joshing with len, i wrote that piece she linked to.

No problem.

did you not? lol, what on earth did you think i was talking about then? and of course thanks.

right you bastards, go read it now Lenin's given it such a good review.