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...

princess- I was weaned at 8 weeks and went to Cambridge but I can guarantee that I am not fine. I have a raft of gut problems and intolerances to basic food stuffs. It's good that some people survive unscathed being weaned very early though.

I think that what most people have to realise is that science is fluid. Research always leads to new discoveries, species evolve, technology changes, the earth adapts.

Advice will always change as science is progressive. This is a good thing.

This is also why it is so important for people to do their own research into things, read all you can, listen to others opinions, look at how scientific guidlines have changed through the years and make your OWN decisions about parenting.

Each child is a unique individual as is each parent. No one set of 'rules' will suit everyone and as intelligent human beings it is our job to make decisions that suit us and our families the best.

I do not think that this is a bad thing in any way but I also think it is very important for parents to understand that just because some sort of gov't guidline is given it does not make it the only 'truth', nor does it mean that it will not evolve and change again.

You know what worries me? Not that the media have reacted to yet another non-story, but that already so many mothers are doubting themselves because of the opinion of a few scientists. Opinion, not scientific fact.

Won't some of you please grow a bloody backbone.

I think one massive problem here is nothing to do with breastfeeding/formula and everything to do with both the woeful reporting of science and our relationship with the media. I've already had a comment this morning from someone saying "oh, you can get on with weaning now then" as if everything in the news is A Message From the Government. Then there's the irresponsible reporting of these "findings". I won't comment on that given that I've not looked at the write-up of this story in any papers, but I'm guessing Ben Goldacre could give it all a good doing...

Well, I've read it now, and just wish the media hadn't picked it up - kind of blame UCL's press office, I think, as it's likely them who released it. It's a bit of a nothing as yet, speculation heaped upon speculation and although some things are interesting, I just don't think this piece itself is worth all the hoo-ha - it just doesn't really say anything beyind "more research needed" which in the current climate of academic cutbacks is pretty bloody unlikely.

I'd be much more inclined to rail at the media than at this group of scientists, though - it's not unreasonable to collate recent research and present it to the BMJ - it is unreasonable and some might say irresponsible to take this little piece and turn it into something it most assuredly is not.

x-posts, Moth!

In fact, would like it if Justine could say that on MN's behalf!

completely misleading headline or what?

I'm feeling quite 'i told you so' because i haveargued about this particular point in many online discussions. but am still annoyed at the presentation of this information - 'wean at some time between 4-6 months' is not a huge change from the current situation anyway - in which only 2% EBF to 6mo anyway.
and i don't see how giving a baby mudge first stops you from doing BLW later.

This an opinion, not research, not evidence, not even a proper conclusion drawn from looking at existing research.

Iron in BM is much more bio-available than iron from other sources, including formula. So please don't start doubting yourself if you are BFing.

Makes me so bloody angry to read things like this, it just undermines breastfeeding so much

I just posted this as a separate thread, but I doubt anyone will read it so:

"Am I being unreasonable to think that if scientific journals/researchers/institutions send out a press release about a subject which provokes huge media coverage (I'm thinking of the "6 months EBF will harm your baby" headlines), that the original article should be put in the public domain, at least for a period of time, for the public to read for themselves?

I've read the BMJ article because I have access and some of the reporting, presumably from a press release, is extremely inflammatory. Most people wouldn't be able to do this which just feels very wrong."

But the whole thing isn't about breastfeeding, is it? It's about giving foods earlier than the current time frame that they advise now.

There is no need to plaster "breast is not always best" all over the media. It's simply not true. They say in their article that it's not true.

There is, of course, a connotation of using formula because of the iron bit, but the study is more about giving food/weaning at 4 months rather than 6 months. Take the breastfeeding bit OUT of there. This is causing all of the problems.

Edgar, the article says a lot less than the BDA one you've posted elsewhere - it's a bit "meh", tbh. 4-6 months wouldn't really preclude BLW from the start, if you went by the usual BLW cues of waiting for them to grab for and then chew and swallow it. No, of course you could spoonfeed first and then go to self-feeding, it just wouldn't have to be essential either, iyswim - which is good if you have spoon refuseniks like mine.

DS was 12 lbs at about 3 wks old. 10lb at birth. Weaning at 12lb is crazy. I assume Claire Byam-Cook means not before 3 months, but it could cause confusion.

I'm sorry but who the fuck is Claire Byam-Cook and why has she become a bloody expert on infant feeding? Isn't she just another talentless hack?

One of the scientists on the radio said, "We're not naive. We knew this would set the cat amongst the pigeons."

So why didn't you keep your trap shut then until the research had actually been done and it is proven that exclusive bfing up to six months is harmful?

How incredibly unprofessional.

All they are basically doing is recommending a review on the research that has not been reviewed since 2000. But they had to add in, "We think it's harmful to exclusively bf for six monts," with absolutely no scientific background to back up their statements.

yy, suzi. UCL should make it available - quite possibly it is, via institutional repository, but if you don't work in unis you don't tend to know that.

Its not about backbone, its about being undermined yet again!

While my other child was in hospital a few weeks back, I stayed in with my then 6 month old. I had to fight even then as to why my 6 month wasnt eating food! Until someone sensible came along, at which point they then started giving me all my meals!

If that was now, I would have been on very shaky ground!

iron absorbtion from breastmilk

Yep, as I thought- much more easily absorbable than from food/formula.

The 'virgin gut' thing has always been dubious after they are on the move. My first was crawling at 5 months and eating carpet fluff, sand, soil, wrapping paper, a small bead and random bits of food on the floor - mostly peanuts. Advice was 6 months for me but thought it was far too rigid to be sensible and went with giving them a taste of stuff if they seemed interested. Around 5 months with each.

I think we need to offer guidelines which are more flexible and give room for interpretation. Of course confident parents do this anyway, but it's not surprising that info overload in many cases weakens perfectly good common sense instincts for less confident parents. And to remind people that there are no guarantees about allergies etc - just a possible alteration in risk.

I think it is problematic to say things like,

"It is good that some babies survive early weaning unscathed".

By current guidelines, my dses were weaned early, and so were all their contemporaries - so are the sixthforms now full of kids who are only there because they were lucky enough to survive?

I have a 6 month old who I have exclusively breastfed for 6 months and have just (slowly) started weaning.
This really pisses me off because you do as you are advised, think you are doing what's best for your baby and then something like this comes out.

Fuckity fuck. I was all contentedly hunkered down for six months exclusive breastfeeding for DS2 (13 weeks) as DD has several allergies and now I have to start thinking about it again. Bollocks.

It's not a backbone I need it's more sleep!! Couldn't they have delayed this article by 3 months and then I would have done it!

I really struggled to exclusivly BF DD for six months and now I have no idea what to do.

Sorry, but does anyone know whether these researchers have discredited previous studies that have shown that iron in breastmilk is much more easily absorbed and it is very rare that a excusively breastfed 6 mo baby is anaemic?

Have a look at at the link 4 posts upthread.

This obsession with iron seems very 1970s. A bit of apple and baby rice (the only foods that a six month will really eat) won't have much iron in.

Of course, lovely formula has plenty of the stuff stuck in it. That's if a baby can actually absorb it into their tiny, immature stomachs.

Why is BFing always bashed? The media hates women BFing. It is natural, lovely to witness and produces beautiful babies.

Equally, the media is always keen for women to wean early. The media seems to have odd feelings about women's breats; they are not for feeding (too discusting) but for waving around on page 3 (a bit of fun!).

No, Winnybella. These scientists have done NO medical research themselves. They have reviewed very few studies and recommend reviewing more and yet have already trotted out this sweeping declaration based on not much.