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 hope I wasn't starving him. He did have a lot of feeds.

Star, you could get him a blood test but quite honestly I wouldn't worry, my third daughter wasn't weaned properly until nearly 12 months in the three meals a day sense and she's the brightest, fittest, of the lot.

But equally Giddy they no doubt are still on the pay roll of the baby food manufactures and as we all know once you start slowing down the breast feeding the next step is that follow on milk that is supposed to be full of iron and suitable from 6 months

Worried here too now Starexpat. I worked really fucking hard to just bf him for 6 months, thinking i was doing the right thing.

Its the bit at the end where they say 'its ok, probably no babies harmed, because no one does it anyway' that gets me.

StarExpat if your dd was anaemic or had coeliac disease (an allergy to gluten when she would be agony when she ate bread for example) you would know. If she seems to be in normal health everything is fine. All the studies say that bm provides a baby's nutritional needs.

But I'm so angry that you have been frightened by this article. It's a storm in a tea cup!

Star - if they did a blood test on your DS now it would only show what his iron count was now, not what it was at 23 weeks.

The iron in breastmilk can't be compared to the iron in formula as it's much more easily absorbed.

TBH it's the iron thing that has the smell of formula companies about it. Because they know it's one of the things that makes people give up breastfeeding.

From Kellymom:

Healthy, full-term babies have enough iron stores in their bodies to last for at least the first six months. The current research indicates that a baby's iron stores should last between six and twelve months, depending upon the baby.

mamatomany - as child nutrition experts it is not surprising that the researchers have previously carried out research on behalf of baby food companies.

The lead researcher, Fewtrell, conducted a ten year follow up to a previous study into the effects of polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in premature babies, which I believe may have received partial funding from a baby milk manufacturer, for example.

Thanks for the reassurance. I had no worries before this article, well, normal PFB worries about whether or not he's doing things as he should..etc.

Pootles that is exactly the part that got me... I just read that and my heart sank to my toes because I thought, "well, I did that... so is my baby in the low % that have been harmed?"

I'm going to try not to think about this. Are they suggesting giving food at 4 months? If so, that is 16 weeks, so I was 8 weeks off of that. Hopefully he wasn't harmed in those 8 weeks.

We've only just started weaning, literally first meal was on Monday, and we're doing blw - i'm wondering about stopping this now, or at least supplementing with purees, as he's not able to swallow properly yet, and most of his food ends up on the floor. I thought that was ok, but if they're saying he should be getting food from 4 months...

Given that you don't introduce protein (for iron) or gluten until 6 months, how can EBF be the problem? Surely it's late weaning?

I was weaned at 7 months - no food allergies. Weaned DS around 6 months (not on the day like some) and he's got intolerances but they were apparent before he was weaned.

This will just add fuel to the fire of the weaning argument

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.

This, with bells on

I started weaning DD at 16 weeks on HV advice. Looking back, it was too early - she wasn't that interested and it was hard work, but I felt I must persevere. By the time DS came along, I'd fallen in with a good crowd of BF mothers including a few HCPs who advised 6 months (can't remember what official guidance was as I didn't see much of HV second time around). Tried to go to 6 months but DS helped himself to DD's banana @ 5 1/2 months. Felt very guilty but just went with it and started giving him a few bits. Continued BF both til they were two. They're now 18 and 15 and both in good health. Neither have had any gastric problems or food allergies (anecdotal, I know).

If I had to do it all again, I'd pay a lot less attention to all the conflicting and rapidly changing advice and focus on the baby in front of me and my own common sense.

a little bit of perspective:

• we've been weaning babies for tens of thousands of years - one way or another

• every single one of our ancestors has produced a reproductively viable descendent - one way or another

• traditional diets around the world vary hugely yet babies have been weaned successfully on all these diets throughout history - one way or another

It's so frustrating the way that the media is turing this story into a one about breastfeeding. It's just about what stage to introduce solids... whether a baby is breast or formula fed, surely?

I've got 4 DC, the first 2 I introduced solids somewhere between 4 and 5 months, the 2nd 2 I waited until 6 months. Less because of the advice changing in-between the births of DC2 and DC3, and more because I was busier and wanted to put off the hassle and mess for longer.

My younger 2 DC are less fussy and bigger eaters than the older 2, but I think that's because I changed to BLW rather than spoonfuls of insipid pureed much.

The issue with standard guidance (esp global standard guidance) is that all babies are different and that's why WHO piss me off with their "one size fits all" guidance, especially as they are often wrong

eg We're all going to die of AIDS, swine flu etc.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a definitive line though. No-one really knows and they're not going to find out without a large controlled study for which I imagine there will be very few volunteers.

Personally I'll just be looking for signs that DS is ready (he's nearly 4 mths), but I'm not going to stress if he's not weaned by then.

regarding BLW, i personally subscribe to the notion that as soon as the babies can eat, they should eat, iykwim? dd1 grabbed and ate at around 5 and a half months, if memory serves, and for seven weeks prem dd2 it was even earlier, corrected.

here's the abstract from a recent paper that used figs from the gateshead study. that 56% reaching out before 6 mos is interesting i think, it may be that we should be more confident about letting them eat when they reach out.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-8709.2010.00274.x/abstract

"The baby-led weaning philosophy proposes that when solids are introduced, infants should be encouraged to self-feed with solid food, as opposed to spoon-feeding purees. We used data from the Gateshead Millennium Study (GMS) to define the range of ages at which infants reach out for and eat finger foods and related this to developmental status. GMS recruited infants shortly after birth and followed them prospectively using postal questionnaires. Of the 923 eligible children, 602 had data on when they first reached out for food, and 340 (56%) had done so before age 6 months, but 36 (6%) were still not reaching for food at age 8 months. Infants who had not reached out for food by 6 months were less likely to be walking unaided at age 1 year (85 out of 224, 38%) compared with those who did (155 out of 286, 54%; P < 0.001). For the 447 parents who completed a diary of the first five occasions when their child ate finger foods, the first finger food eaten was before age 6 months for 170 (40%) and before age 8 months for 383 (90%); foods offered were mainly bread, rusks or biscuits. Of the 604 with information at age 8 months about current intake, all but 58 (9.6%) were having some finger foods at least daily, but only 309 (51%) were having them more than once per day. Baby-led weaning is probably feasible for a majority of infants, but could lead to nutritional problems for infants who are relatively developmentally delayed."

When I weaned mine (not that long ago) advice was to wean between 4 and 6 months but that they should be on a variety of solids BY six months as their iron stores are depleted by then. Apparently waiting until later could also affect development of muscles required for speech leading to problems there. I believe that idea is still bandied about.

This report doesn't sound like it contains anything new to me.

Can their ever be a definitive answer? For every baby? Can you really say that 26 weeks, 18 weeks, whatever, is the optimum time for weaning EVERY baby? I really think it's about time we placed a bit more emphasis on common sense and instinct.

To me readiness for weaning is a physical development much the same as being able to, for example, sit. Some can do it at 5 months, some 6, some not until 7 months. How about a bit of investment in educating people on how to recognise the signs that a baby is ready?

For those stressing - please don't. The advice changes every few years anyway....

It took two weeks to establish blw, which I started at 6 months as I thought I should. Shitey mcshote hope all ok

If your baby was iron deficient, he'd be pale, sleep loads etc etc. Not happy and healthy.

If you're weaning around 6 months and worried about iron (I was) then get protein introduced.

I'm sure that there are reasons for not introducing meat and other iron rich foods earlier (how do fruit purees help? ) - has the paper touched on that?

But he could eat earlier. My dp gave him a carrot at 4 months to eat, I told him off! But he was holding it, having a good chew, so maybe he was ready.

Agree with checkmate. Breastfeeding isn't harmful ffs - the way it's reported suggests this is the case!

As others have said.........it's about when to introduce solids! So much evidence and counter evidence is not helpful, not is it helpful that health professionals are so keen to stick so ridgidly to the current guideline.

Mothers - use your common sense! If baby seems more hungry than usual after 4 months, is more or less sitting up and your milk doesn't seem to be enough anymore,,,,,well give him some baby rice or something. The world won't end. Or let the baby decided and do a bit of blw too.

A paediatrican I know tells me that if you did a blood test on most babies/toddlers, their iron would be lowish anyway, due to the fact that they usually have quite limited diets, fussy eaters etc. It's not life threatening, as a parent you just have to encourage iron rich foods.

When I was a baby they weaned at 3 months. I have absolutely no allergies or gastric problems.

Lets all get a sense of perspective.

StarExpat - iron deficiency anaemia makes them constantly tired, irritable, slow growing, with other symptoms like brittle nails and cracks at the corners of the mouth. If he's been generally healthy then you can probably relax and be sure he doesn't have it!

The media headlines over this have been bloody ridiculous (e.g. Guardian front page "breastfeeding may be harmful" )

Baggedandtagged -"I wouldn't hold your breath for a definitive line though. No-one really knows and they're not going to find out without a large controlled study for which I imagine there will be very few volunteers"

Actually, someone is trying for a large controlled study: EAT study.
Although you may be right about volunteers, I have been sent mailings a couple of times to invite DS to join, and he would be eligible; I was just too freaked out at the thought of potentially giving him peanut butter from 3 months

The researcher says that we should give babies fresh food for their iron.

Show me a 4 month-old baby who will eat enough steak and pulses to get his daily iron

If people wean the babies earlier they usually start with jars of fruit and veg or they do BLW where babies chew on pieces of bread and banana.

So, unless you feed your baby formula and jars supplemented with vitamines and iron, the baby will not get any significant dose of iron from 'fresh foods'.

FWIW DD had some fruit/veg purees v.occasionally from 5 months- maybe 5 or 6 times in a month, then we moved slowly with BLW. She can speak 2 languages, do 16 piece puzzles , throw and catch a ball and was had one cold in her 23 months on this earth.

Also I thought iron from bm is much more easily absorbed?