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...

i really do hope that people read those papers rather than the 'news'papers.

"BEnefits" of breastfeeding is a marketing ploy. There are no "benefits" because breastfeeding is the biological norm.

There are, however, negative effects to formula feeding or early weaning

Lots of cultures BF until 4 or 5. I couldn't be bothered weaning my first or my second until well after 6 months because of all the faff involved with mixers and the like. If babies needed weaning from breastmilk before they were ready for solids women would be born with electric mixers on them

Just wondering if anyone was planning or has already written to the newspapers about their irresponsible articles? was thinking of doing so, not that they are likely to get published! might be worth a try though to get our views across?

Just wondering if anyone was planning or has already written to the newspapers about their irresponsible articles? was thinking of doing so, not that they are likely to get published! might be worth a try though to get our views across?

I posted a comment on the SUN website, but it never came up on screen. Hopefully someone at the SUN may have read it though - saying "Breast is not best" was irresponsible headline.

Aitch Thanks for the links. They make interesting reading. I am particularly interested in the allergy / intolerence questions. Exposure to allergens through breastmilk can trigger reactions (first hand experience) so unless the breastfeeding mother is excluding wheat, gluten, dairy, egg, peanuts etc, the majority of breastfed babies are being exposed to these foods prior to being weaned.

I weand all my 3 kids 16 weeks. weaning from 6 months did not sound right to me.

i think they should study something else and let us mums do what we think is best for our babies.

it's pretty simple imo. If you listen to your baby he or she will tell you when they are ready for weaning. This happens between the ages of four and six months depending on the individual child. I couldn't have stopped my dd1 from grabbing food from our plates if I had tried at five and a half months, she was telling me she was ready. To think I beat myself up for not waiting the extra two weeks til she hit six months!!!!
That was last year...in a few weeks I've another allegedly 'ready' to wean and if i leave it past 16 weeks I've another guilt trip coming.
No way.I'm not listening.
You are the expert because you know your child best. I say trust your instinct not the white coats.

This is another way of making women feel guilty. I have children born between 1997 and 2007. The guidelines for virtually everything changed in that time! If I took everything I was told as true then all 3 of the children should now be scarred in various physical and emotional ways...

What I find most insulting is that one of the experts quoted in the Guardian article said that the recommendation should remain the same as otherwise it would encourage women to wean before 4 months.

Would this be the same expert who said that pg women should have no alcohol at all because we are none of us able to work out what a unit is?

Pah. I have never wanted or needed a nanny. Yet I constantly feel as though I have a nanny making all my decisions for me. And then judging me when I don't necessarily agree with everything I'm told.

I'm quite happy for them to study something which might help my children's health or the health of the population as a whole - much research, such as that into SIDS, has saved lives. And I'm quite happy that there is information out there for me to consider - I don't get that instinct is necessarily so universally wonderful - or am I the only mother willing to accept that I don't always know best?

And (once more and with feeling) this is NOT a change in guidelines, policy, or even, in fact, research. It's a speculative position paper suggesting avenues for further research. And that's it.

"and if I leave it past 16 weeks I've got another guilt trip coming"

That's interesting trixie, maybe it's a typo but what makes you think that anyone is recommending that babies need to by weaned at exactly 16 weeks?

I'm betting that this is how this media coverage will be translated into public consciousness though: all babies must now be weaned at 4 months. Despite this message being in neither the literature nor the press.

According to "analytical armidillo" the paper says there are other things which could reduce the risk of low iron levels in babies, such as
"delaying cord clamping" at birth.
I remember this being suggested 10+ years ago when DD1 was born. Why is the umbilical cord clamped so early ?( while still pulsing ) Are they stealing our DC's iron rich blood ?! Do hospitals sell placentas, or is this just a rumour and urban myth ?

Just something sad I heard yesterday at a family do... "And now the guidance has changed and says you shouldn't breastfeed after 4 months"... so clearly people are easily misled by headlines, and this WILL have a negative impact on bf, surely?

And this was a sane, intelligent woman. (And she didn't say it when she thought I was in the room as I had been feeding 18mo dd minutes earlier!)

Exatly, loopy. I do hope UCL's press office are proud of themselves.

The newspapers grabbed the breastfeeding headline but the whole study is really about weaning age not breastfeeding. It infers that it's perfectly fine to continue breastfeeding (or indeed bottle feeding) for as long as you like as long as you mix it with food, surely?

Also, two other points:
I am confused. Does the report suggest that bottle feeding is better than breastfeeding? It doesn't seem to mention it at all in the papers I've read.

Breastfeeding has been around millions of years and not killed of babies through lack of iron. Formula only since the beginning of the twentieth century. Obviously they need food too.

It implies there's more work to be done, as far as I can see, and makes some suggestions about possible benefits to weaning before 6 months, but with not a whole lot of evidence at this stage. It's not really a study, just a shortish review.

my ds was exclusively bf til about ten months. tried all manner of things but he didn't want to eat. mw said this is normal.

he is very healthy

According to the How Breastfeeding Works blog, the BMJ has tweeted about this to the lactation activists The Leaky Boob. I quote: "It admits that the article recently published that suggests that exclusive breastfeeding may not be enough for babies was ?interpreted differently in press? and that it is an ?opinion piece?."

Lisa Lactivist also shared this: www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955/reply

Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been answered but why were the guidelines revised in 2003 - when I had my two in 1988 and 1991 the advice was start weaning at four months, which I did (DS was actually 14 weeks) and neither child suffered. They were on three meals a day with a morning bottle and evening bottle at 6 months.

Because weaning at prior to 17 weeks has been shown to massively increase risk of various allergies etc, and delaying further has various benefits for both baby and mum (in breastfed infants). Milk should form the majority of a baby's diet until 1yr.

as a mum of eight born between1993 and 2010 ,i have experienced the variations in weaning age first hand.all dcs bf until at least 18 months.
dc1 6 weeks prem i was told in no uncertain that if i didn't introduce solids at 4 month i risked harming her being in my mid 20's and afirst time mum i naively thought hvsand drs new best . i felt strongly she wasn't ready but did wht i 'd been advised to. it was a disaster and neither of uswere happy . she is now ahealty non allergenic 18 year old who eats awuide variety of food

after this experience i avoided hv's from 4monts to 6 months with dc2 to dc6 (94 to 01) around 51/2 months they seemed ready for solids eg reaching for food ,bf constantly during the day that is every 1/2 hour or so having previously gone 3 to 4 hours beteen feeds .they were obviously not satisfied post bf .weaned on to homemade pureesas with dc1 .again all eat a variety of foods no allergies etc

by the time dc7 arrived in 2006 recommendations had changed to 6 months and was then harangued by the same hv when i suggested dc7 at 51/2 months`was ready for weaning again reaching for food and not satisfied post weaning again he eats anything and has no adverse reactions

dc8 happy and content to 6 months probably would have been happy to exclusively bf until well after 6months .introduced baby led weaning at 6 months agin hv was not impressed with the idea of blw but it felt right to me and she has thrived on it eats a wide variety etc
if we should have dc9 i would love to try blw agin as it just feels right but i will guided by my instincts and listen to my baby and their needs not the inconsistent mutterings of so called professionals

i feel so angry with this report and the way it has been reported no mention of the fact that bf as opposed to ff babies to get exposed to different tastes through bm prior to weaning and thus often take to new foods more easily thjan there ff counterparts

also the itn coverage there reporter was stategically placed in front of jars of baby food which imho do not expose a baby to new tastes but to an incredibly bland and tastless much

mush not much