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 was going to mention the EAT study. I was asked to take part. I didn't but sort of wish I had.

Mmm...sorry, it sounds like I'm bragging about DD-didn't mean it- just that I very much doubt that me not feeding her loads of red meat at 5 months has done her any harm.

blw babies don't just eat bread and banana, though, that's silly. i can show you pics of both of mine happily chomping on steak at six mos... and broccoli, spinach, apricots, other good iron sources.

FWIW there is iron in some fruits - eg apple, banana and advocado. It's not just found in red meat.

x post

Aitch- yes, a 6 mo- but the researcher said we should feed them iron-rich food BEFORE six months- and I still think that most 4 and 5 mo will not eat significant amounts of foods like steak etc.

If you will look at what a baby/child needs to eat to get their daily iron you will see that it's very unlikely a few month old will be able to eat that.

Molly- yes, but I don't think there is a lot of iron in an apple and also it is of the kind that is not easily absorbed-unliked the one in meat (which, afaik, is still not as easily absorbed as iron in breastmilk)

WHO reviewed 3000 studies before coming to this conclusion.

This recent study reviewed 33.

I know which one I'm going to take seriously.

Plus three of the four authors of this study have done consultancy work for manufacturers of infant formula and baby food. It couldn't really be described as impartial then, could it?

Stop knocking breastfeeding.

'The paper acknowledges that three of the four authors "have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past three years"'

I fucking knew it

Well I'll be taking it with a large pinch of salt.

Am bloody angry at the deliberately inflammatory headline. They could have phrased it "It may be more beneficial to start weaning bf babies before 6 months" But noooo that isn't attention grabbing enough.

With DS I started weaning at around 23 weeks as he was grabbing at my food and sitting up unaided for short periods. I took my cues from him, offering him pieces of cooked veg and fruit to chew on.

He eats everything put in front of him at preschool not at home

And is very very healthy.

I will probably the same with DC2.

I was so annoyed at the title on Sky News' home page this morning.

"Breast 'not always best' for baby"

FFS, that's not what the article says at all and gives completely the wrong idea.

BTW I haven't any problem with offering food to a 5 month old, if they seem ready/reach for it etc- but to say that exclusively breastfeeding to 6 months can cause horrid damage to a baby-

I heard this on radio 4 this morning. But didn't pay too much attention as I'm sure they reported it like "exclusive breastfeeding BEYOND 6 months". More like this article has: "Breast is best for babies, but delaying the introduction of solids beyond six months may lead to the development of unhealthy eating habits later in life."

Sorry for reposting what I have already said on another thread....

Don't know whether I can post full text of this article, probably will infringe copyright.

The take home message for me basically is that for some babies weaning before 6 months is appropriate and weaning before 4 months is definitely risky. It goes on to say that mothers should respond to their babies cues as to when to wean.

This is hardly new information and as usual the media have managed to twist it to try and say that breastfeeding isn't as good as you thought so na, na, na, na. The article does say that the evidence of the benefits of BF over FF are clear and not in dispute.

However as a caveat I would like to post the paragraph on competing interests and make of that what you will!

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that no external funding was received in connection with the preparation of this manuscript; MF, AL, and DCW have performed consultancy work and/or received research funding from companies manufacturing infant formulas and baby foods within the past 3 years

We can't win, can we
Whatever we do, someone will tell us we are wrong!

that's why getting sad about it is a waste of time, tbh. is your kid bouncy, wet of nose and shiny of coat? yes? then they are fine.

Weaning window - bollocks

It is always suggested that if you don't do stuff at a certain time, your child will

never eat
sleep
learn to read

etc.

Children aren't that simple...they grow up, their needs change and things that got off on the wrong foot often sort themselves out.

My youngest was difficult to wean - she didn;t really eat anything until 7 months but she is a unfussy eater now. (although doesn't eat a great deal)

My oldest was slow to 'potty train' but is utterly reliable now.

I don't mind research, but this piece seems to have been seized on to suggest that BFing is wrong when it's obviously not.

I found waiting six months was the easiest option - you're in the swing of babies then and enjoyed a long period of just doing one thing before having to introduce a different thing (e.g. food).

Plus, it's much nicer seeing a baby actually sitting in a high chair rather than lying down receiving food.

When has weaning ever made babies sleep?

Surely every baby, like every person is different? My DS was trying to grab my food from 4 months so I started letting him have some purees/fingerfood. My DD wasn't as interested so didnt start weaning until 6 months. It is only advise after all, but I do wish they would stop contradicting each other! Also doesn't weaning really mean starting to introduce solids, not stopping breastfeeding?

my dd1 is 18 and advice was to introduce solids at 4-6 month, my dd2 is 12 and same advice. It was WHO that came along and changed that advice and without it appears much research, then the UK changed the advice two years after WHO introduced it to fall in line.

megonthemoon speaks sense. To paraphrase what she said a couple of pages ago, babies do all kinds of things at different times to each other, so why would they all start eating solids at the same time? Wouldn't the advice be better if it stated how to read the signs to see if a baby is ready or not?

I didn't do BLW because I was terrified that he would choke. But I freshly pureed healthy foods and I know he got a lot of nutrients that way. Just 8 weeks late.

It does seem that the British media wants to stop people BFing..,why?

sorry x a lot of posts - that took forever to post!

When I had severe aneamia, I wasn't advised to eat apples

I do wonder how my poor little children survived at all. DD3 didn't eat anything but my milk until pretty much a year, and even now mostly lives on the stuff. She seems to be thriving, but it just goes to show how deceptive appearances can be...