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...

Gah. My son is six months old.

Yesterday I felt guilty for weaning him at 5.5 months.

Today I feel bad because I probably didn't start early enough. And now he actually is six months but I very much doubt he's getting much iron from the stuff he actually is eating (though I am introducing more each day, etc etc).

My mum nagged me to start weaning my DS for ages, to get him 'to sleep better'. I felt quite entitled to ignore her advice and consider it pressure - now she could think she was right and that I've potentially put my child at risk by ignoring her!

And I hate the way the research is being reported. I am assuming that the research was done on bf babies, which is a logical reason for not mentioning formula, but because all the headlines say 'bf' is not enough, it implies that if your baby is ff there's nothing to worry about (which, hey, might be true for all I know).

This is hardly going to introduce bf take-up rates is it?

I do think every child is different and that's the best way to decide re. weaning. In the meantime, bf or ff should take care of most (all?) needs for the first six months.

Civil - I know! it really seems there is a huge body of people who want to demonise breastfeeding. I bet Nestle et al are rubbing their hands this morning.

I am so glad that my children are now 10 and 7 and I don't have to care what 'advice' is now being forced on people. Both mine were huge babies, both had had their frist taste of baby rice at around 14 weeks. Both nearly bit the spoon in half. There was no such thing as 'BLW', they just grabbed various things and mashed them up/slobbered on them. I was positively encouraged to give them purees by my HV. I know that at the time these seem like huge issues, though, and that there will now be new mothers tying themselves up in knots over the 'right' way. And that makes me mad. Because mothers will be judged and made to feel miserable and blamed again.

Like what cleanair said on page 3, go on Mumsnet.

iron sources

I liked my mum's approach to weaning, which was the same one I used - wait until baby can sit upright, and has lost the tongue-thrust reflex, then go slowly for a week or two before pretty much letting them eat what you're eating. Only difference is she pureed our food, I went down the BLW route. DS started on solids at about 21 weeks because he was sitting then, and reaching for food. I was weaned at about 6.5 months apparently. I have no allergies that I'm aware of.

there was another article in the Gurdian this morning which was more balanced (and thus less read!) - see here

Yes I think headline should be
"it may be beneficial to start giving freshly prepared foods before 6 months in addition to breastmilk or formula milk"

The whole "breast is not always best" crap is deceiving.

Yep, non-haem iron is absorbed in 2-8%. You would have to feed your baby a lot of apples!

Didn't like the assumption from the RCM that it would boost sales of baby-jars...nothing but home-cooked, organic crocheted food here & not a whiff of bulking agent [sniffs]

But wise words once again from MNers

no you need to add vit c to non haem iron to assist absorption so you wouldn't need to eat lots of apples

Funded by formula manufacturers you say?

That makes me really angry actually. They shouldn't be allowed to spew out such nonsense. They've really got the bit between their teeth re iron haven't they? That's their tagline with follow-on milk too.

Bugger I'm going to have to join this Nestle boycott aren't I?

Agree with CIVIL who said
''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. ''

My own experience was similar. I had 6 months on my radar. Firstly for DD's likelyhood to be receptive to the process. Secondly because of the iron level at this age. I started gradually a few weeks before.

Prior to that DD was EBF and although she liked playing with anything she could grab she clearly couldn't sit up straight or swallow easily so I waited until 6 months. It was a breeze; lumps, chunks, purées nothing was rejected. Sleep fine, few minor adjustments to pattern required. Took two weeks of extra washing up, laundry, buying more fresh food etc....

At 4 months I would have found it hard to do this, especially when out and about. Hopefully DD will always be a good eater.

I found the NHS weaning information very helpful. The books were too complex and had rather too many recipie ideas that were labour intensive. I have found common sense works best in terms of what to feed and how much.

Interestingly though the NHS website states this:
??Vitamins-
Vitamin D is naturally present in only a few foods such as fortified margarines, eggs and fatty fish. It is also made naturally in the skin when it is exposed to gentle sunlight.
It is sensible to give all children vitamin drops with vitamins A, C and D from the age of one to five years old. Breastfed babies and babies drinking less than 500ml of infant formula milk per day, should begin vitamin drops at six months, or earlier if advised by your health visitor or doctor. ??

I was not advised this my NHS heath visitor. I see her monthly and she is aware of EBF

I've just watched this on TWS and they inferred that it isn't actual research but is an opinion. If that is right they shouldn't of released it yet. It will send a lot of mum's into a panic and if they find out this 'opinion' is wrong what then?
I remember when I bf dd1 (14 years) I was told that through my breastmilk she would get tastes of food and it would help her defend against allergies. Heyho she has no allergies.
For the record I will continue bfing dd3 till 6 months then we will see how she is with the BLW approach. I did the same with dd2 and she has no allergies.

The problem is not really with the research or the guidelines, but with parents desire for definite answers and outcomes.

Life isn't like that unfortunately. We focus on the small % of things we think we can control (breastfeeding/diet/SAH/WOH etc.) and look for definitive answers on what to do in these ares when the effects are so small and/or complex that you aren't going to get one.

Many of the things we CAN control have much smaller effects than the things we can't control such as genetics, social class and poverty, where cause and effect is much clearer.

My son was BLW at 6 months and he won't eat any food from a spoon now. He seems to be allergic to strawberries and tomatoes. He was fed on both formula and breast milk up until then - who knows ?

I assume that the reason that the article talks about ebf for 6 months, rather than late weaning, is to do with the composition of formula milk - maybe it acts on the gut in a different way to breastmilk. And it has extra iron added, doesn't it? But if this is the case, then the article should have made this clear, as it does give the very damaging impression that ebf is harmful to babies, which is not the case, and is a stupid thing to imply.

I would be interested to know how much the iron content of breastmilk is affected by the mother's diet - I wonder if there is any research on this - because if increasing your own iron intake would boost the iron in your breast milk, then mothers who wanted to ebf for 6 months could do so without worrying about anaemia.

I would also be interested to know the incidence of food intolerances/coeliac disease etc amongst babies in third world countries - if I recall correctly, one of the reasons behind the WHO guidelines to wean at 6 months and ebf if at all possible until then, was to promote breastfeeding in third world countries. If more mothers are ebf until 6 months in third world countries, surely there would be a corresponding rise in anaemia and intolerances there, and I don't see any suggestion of that in the article I read.

All three dses were weaned at around 4 months, because that was the advice then - and all three seem to have thrived on it. I do remember being slated on here for saying this once, and saying that it had done them no harm - the inference being that my children were just lucky not to have suffered due to my cavalier behaviour.

The article in the BMJ is not research it is an opinion article. The study in question is still ongoing and not completeted. It also is not including formula feeding, so will not be accurate in determining wether it is the early introduction of foods or not that makes the difference in allergy rates or wether the type of milk feeding in the early days also makes a difference. Thus it is already a flawed study.

I, like most i would imagine, read the information available and then applied it to fit my own children as best possible but above anything else took my cues from my babies.

dd was spoon fed from 17 weeks, ds1 BLW from 21 weeks and ds2 wanted food from 22/23 weeks but due to physical problems didn't really take much food until he was closer to 8 months during which time we attempted spoon feeding and BLW. ds1 actually initiated BLW of his own accord by taking food from my plate so there is absolutely no way i would have refused him solids for another month just because some guidelines told me too, he was almost as heavy as my 2 yo dd at that point so i would have been mad to try and stop him!

dd had a milk intolerance and a severe wheat intolerance, ds1 had a very mild milk intolerance that he grew out of at 2 and ds2 has never had any problems with any food at all. The boys are also far better eaters than dd who is as picky as hell. So based on my own anecdotal experience; the later the wean the better for their health.

dd and ds1 were huge babies, ds1 especially so and were bigger than many 6 months old when they started solids, I have no regrets other than wishing i'd known about BLW with dd as it might have made life easier and possibly lessened her intolerances as she wouldn't have eaten much for the first few weeks.

While i wholeheartedly agree every baby is different and should be treated as such the guidelines were put in place to deter the idiots who pour rusks and baby rice down the throats of 2 and 3 month old babies, unfortunately not everyone has the intelligence to realise that a baby who can't hold it's own head up simply does not need food

Parents and Health Visitors need to understand and read their green book that the whole breastfeed until 6 months old is a GUIDELINE ONLY! Many babies will how signs of teething as well as wanting to try to eat food as early as 4 months old.

My son refused to feed from me at 4 months and lost 2lbs. HV said to see the GP and GP told me to start weaning him. 1 week later he had gained 4lbs! When she asked me what the GP told me to do she was angry at both the GP and me for weaning far too early and "giving bad advice to parents". My son GAINED his weight back and an extra 2lbs in just 1 week, he was happier and feeding properly (tho sadly cos he refused my milk my body stopped producing so I had to give up breatfeeding earlier then I would have liked).

End of the day if your GP suggests to begin the weaning process earlier than 6 months old then do it, specially if there are clear signs they want to eat.

pencilmein - so far as I'm aware that's mainly advice for those in northern areas with low sunlight exposure/higher likelihood of poverty. If you're in the affluent south, and your child eats a decent diet, vitamin drops are pretty much unnecessary. This was what my HV told me, and makes sense to me too.

I fell out with my hv with dd1 over weaning age. She was bf to demand but at 4 months was demanding an hour feed with less than 2 hours between. My mum told me to try weaning and hv said to wait - I went with mum's advice and dd was much more content.

Just shows, advice constantly changes and yet, amazingly, we survive.

Mum's should be led by their babies - they are all so different!

How much difference does any of this really make?

Are babies weaned earlier 20 years ago any unhealthier than those weaned now at 6 months? Probably not.

My oldest is now 18 so we startd at about 4 months, which in those days was actually considered quite late among his contemporaries. He has been the healthiest of the 3 throughout childhood.

The youngest was weaned later and is the asthmatic one.

It really is not something worht feeling guilty/worring over. For most children, the age will not make the tiniest bit of difference.

Do what works and feels best for you and your baby.

I do feel that if you wait until around 6 months there is less need for jars, puress as babies can handle a few lumps and textures more easily. Since 'real food' is what you are aiming for longterm, to me that is a good enough reason to wait.

I thought it was odd how the story got so much airtime. The story deserved some attention, yes. But outside of HCPs working with young children, and parents with babies, who actually cares? Maybe those groups are bigger than I imagine, though.