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...

Blimey Mrs Weasley - eight!

Sorry haven't read entire thread, but, how do we know that it isn't the mums who are anaemic and therefore either not passing on sufficient iron in their breastmilk, or were anaemic when pregnant and baby was born with insufficient iron stores?

I sometimes have a problem with medical studies which fail to report the adequacy of their controls, or which have a very single focus to an issue which needs to be viewed wholistically.

The paper does mention improving iron levels in mothers during pregnancy as one thing which could help with the possible issue of low iron levels in some babies at around 6 months.

Butterfly, the reason for babies needing more iron before 6 mths would be some underlying, congenital condition (which would be spotted before this age, normally), or chronic undernourishment (before and during pregnancy) in the mother leading to anaemia.

This was investigated during the systematic review which led to the 2001 and later 2009 statement on guidance . The phenomenon is called the 'weanling's dilemma': Do you introduce solids and risk undernourishment because of less breastmilk, or do you introduce solids and get the baby's iron content normalised? They found 'no evidence of the weanling's dilemma'.

That's not to say it can't be looked at again, if there are new studies to assess.

There are ways (like not cutting the cord straight away after the birth) that are well-researched and show iron stores are protected.

The vast majority of women in the UK are not anaemic and not chronically under-nourished before or during pregnancy.

But if it's thought it might be an issue for some babies, of course it should be addressed.

I'm quite cross re. cord cutting actually. As it goes, my midwife allowed the cord to pulse and DD got the lot. But I'd wanted to donate (the only reason I didn't is that I gave birth out of hours and the cord blood donation midwives weren't there) and in my antenatal discussions about it no-one spelled out the disadvantages, in fact I was told there weren't any

When I was in labour and reminded them I'd wanted to donate I picked up that my midwife wasn't entirely in favour, but it was a moot point - as I say, it wasn't possible. I couldn't work out why she wasn't positive about the idea (I said, what a shame and she didn't quite agree) - now I know.

Slight tangential question. If I am iron deficient is my baby very likely to be iron deficient when I BF. I'm 32 weeks and cannot tolerate Ferrous Sulphate. (Trust me, you don't want to know the details.)
I'll go hammering for alternatives is this is a likelihood.

TIA

missorinoco - you can ask your antenatal clinic for alternative ways of boosting your iron.

Sorry, I don't know if it is inevitable your baby will need solids before 6 mths - you can ask. If it's thought he is at risk he can be given supplements, anyway (and see the stuff about not cutting the cord too soon).

Thanks, I'll remind DH to mention about the cord when I deliver. All rational thought leaves me at that point.

Shall speak to midwife later re alternatives for me., I guess to find out if the baby is deficient they may need to do a blood test on him/her and I would rather avoid that if possible.

Sorry for thread hijack.

I haven't read all this but I started my first DD on solids at 4 months, she didn't like it much and was a really fussy eater up unitl she was about 5, now she eats all kinds. With my youngest I didn't give her solids until she was 6 months and she loved her food right from the start, she has always tried everything and loves all kinds of tastes.

I can see no difference health wise in either of them, neither have any allergies.

I think all babies are different and so the timings may be different. There is no point in trying to start them on solids if they show no interest.

im really confused now i bf til 9weeks but had to stop as had medical complicaions but she is nw 18weeks and she is displaying all the signs of needing to be weened even her weight gain is starting to drop off!!! but hv says that i shouldnt be inroducing solids yet and that her digestive system wont be ready til 6 months!!! ??? any opinions?

shylahsmummy - stick with the HV's advice or at least hold out longer would be my opinion. Before 6 months there are so many foods you should avoid that you basically have to stick to fruit & vegetables as weaning food which, in general, actually have less calories in them than formula not more. So you could end up filling up your baby with less calorie-dense food, effectively putting it on a diet!

If your HV was in any way worried about the drop in weight gain she would refer you to your GP. More formula is the way to go for the moment.

HTH

shylahsmummy - slowing of weight gain is absolutely normal at this age, and could well be a good thing in a ff baby as long as the baby is healthy and thriving in every way.

It's not a sign a baby needs solids.

What other signs are you seeing?

Some babies do benefit from solids earlier than 6 mths, of course - there is no one size fits all.

Your HV can see your baby and if you trust her and feel she is well-informed, then it would make sense to follow what she says.

in the end i think as what i have done with both my children is gone by what they want my oldest i breast feed for 11 wks he wasnt that interested and turned out to have a milk intolerence so now only drinks goats milk he is five now and is fit and well has asthma and plays all sports
my second child is nearly five months i breast fed her untill 3months she is a very hungrey baby so she was on me all day none stop also i had to go in to hospitall when she was 3 days old as i was very poorly so she had to have bottles so when i came out i contiued both bottle and breast in which she decided to go to bottles herself all the time i have been weaning her since she was fourmonths old and she is doing very well healthy and happy she has also slept through the night from 2 weeks old so clearly she is also a happy healthy baby so to top it all iam trying to say is that all mothers should go on there own instincs you know ur own child u have ur childs best intrests at heart

I think the word 'weaning' is misleading here, as lots of people would think that means stopping breastfeeding, not starting solid food. For most of us there's months of years of overlap between the two, surely? What we're actually talking about (and not even the interview I heard on the Today programme really made this clear) is that ONE study has suggested that there MAY be some advantages in offering the first tastes of mush IN ADDITION TO breastfeeding on demand at 4 or 5 months not being rigid about waiting till 6 months. Which is what my health visitor suggested to me anyway with DD now 4, as she was a big active baby and her growth had slowed at 5 months. As she said, 'we suggest 6 months so mums will wait till 4 months, when we used to suggest 4 months some started solids at 10 weeks, which is definitely too young!'
Unfortunately the media is being a bit crap on reporting this as usual so it's being picked up as 'so now breastfeeding is reckoned to be bad for them', at least at our nursery gates.

Before any "expert" is allowed to pontificate on the media about child-rearing (or anything else for that matter) I think they should have to tell us in detail where their funding comes from. Let's remember, BF doesn't make a profit for anyone.

But don't you want formula/babyfood to be well-researched and as good as possible? And besides, the current research funding situation makes it bloody difficult to survive on govt funding alone - child nutrition researchers are bound to have done some consultancy work for private companies from time to time - that in itself does not devalue their other research.

I do think this subject is very interesting as I did my own thing but did notice that the HV and other info i recieved at the time pushed down your throat that weaning before 6 months was a no no. I did it at 4 months as my daughter would have bitten my hand off otherwise. By then I gave her both breast and bottle and it never seemed enough so she had cereal with mashed banana etc and loved it, cried for more after the first mouthful.

My mum weaned me at 3 months, nothing wrong with me either! that was back in the day that you would put rusks in with the milk, no problem. Most men & women my age were weaned at 3 months as they were the guidelines then.

I was given nuts at a young age and have never had a nut allergy, same as the rest of my family, we're all very healthy. No allergies in the family at all.

I was also so anaemic that i had to have a blood transfusion after birth, my daughter didn't have anaemia even though i EBF....go figure!

My daughter is strong and healthy, eats all her veg and fruit other than peas I'm also fit and healthy and weaned at 3 months, I was bottle fed not breast fed like my daughter and nothing wrong with me either. I don't have IBS, Coeliac or Chrones.

My view like quite a few here is that yes common sense prevails and wean your babies when you feel the time is right and not when a survey dictates to you. I also don't see what all the fuss is with breast feeding and bottle feeding, why do some women feel the need to get so het up about it? If you can't breast feed or don't want to then that's fine bottle feed - your kids won't grow up malnurished they'll be absolutely fine. If you breastfeed and feel adament about the benefits then great express your feelings but don't push them onto others as that's just not fair and it's none of your business. None of us love our kids more or less depending on whether we've breast of bottle fed them.

I was shouting at Reporting Scotland (BBC's regional news) last night, "THEY DIDN'T!!!!"

They were doing an item on a new information campaign just started by the government on healthy baby feeding (includes pre-conception advice to get plenty of Vitamin D, promoting breastfeeding, not leaving lumpy foods too late, nothing too controversial) and then finished the piece by saying that people might be confused about expert advice becasue last week experts said in a report that children should be weaned before 6 months.

I was shouting at the TV () that they only said that more research was required to explore the possible risk.

I wish that I had heard this when my son was 4 months - I felt pressure to breast feed exclusively until 6 months but I had a big boy - birthweight 9lbs 1 and by 4 months he needed more but everyone was telling me that it didnt matter if he dropped from his scale a bit because I needed to preserve my milk supply - I am an advocate of breastfeeding but people can take it too far -

He needed food and as soon as I gave it to him he grew incredibly and started crawling!

I think you have to look at the child and people shouldnt be so ridgid in their opinions being gospel! either way - 2nd time around I am going to do my own thing!!

Lol Prettybird - I posted on the Site Stuff thread about that report. I was shouting at the TV too!