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...

Thank goodness for the British Medical Journal stating what both mums of bottle fed babies and breastfeeding babies already know. Most babies at four months start to get much hungrier and milk (whether breast or formula) is just not enough. I was very sceptical about the current advice to wait until 6 months until commencing weaning. I, like all other mums, wanted to do the best by my baby and decided to split the difference and start weaning at 5 months. What a mistake. I had a baby who went through the night from 3 months from 7pm to 7am. I did not start weaning at 4 months and surprise, surprise he started to wake in the night again. It then took until he was 7 months old and "sleep training" to break him from the waking up in the night habit.

My advice to mums: don't listen to the World Health Authority's current dogma (everyone should breastfeed exclusively for the first six months) - they give the same advice to mothers in the third world as in the first world - listen to your own common sense!! Failing that, listen to experienced mums! Remember that "health professionals" such as GPs, health visitors and midwives have to "tow the party line" and, sadly, there are a few "breastfeeding hardliners" among them. I have a friend who is a health visitor who regularly visits mothers who are utterly exhausted and depressed from lack of sleep, whose babies are clearly hungry and, my friend, as a fellow mum and a human being is desperate to tell that mum to give that child a bottle or start weaning but it really is more than their job is worth!!! I would like to hastily add that she also regularly visits mums who really take to breastfeeding.

This post is not intended to provoke a debate on breast v bottle - it is an impossible debate because there are obviously pros and cons with both. This post is to implore mums to do what is best for them! Down with World Health Authority dogma and up with common sense!!!

i was feeling pretty crap about this morning's headlines already and then read the kellymom link to make myself feel better:

"there is evidence that babies whose birth weights are less than 3000 grams - about 6.5 pounds - (whether term or premature) tend to have reduced iron stores at birth and appear to need additional iron earlier"

my ds was only 4lb at birth full term (i had pre-eclampsia), but i breastfed exclusively til 6 months - i really really really struggled to do it (despite pressure from family not to) but i did and thought i'd done the best i could for him since being SGA he's apparently going to have problems throughout his life anyway, and i was told that EBF for 6 months was the best thing i could do for him but no.

i hate this, yet another thing to worry about, i've badly let my baby down. crap.

This will only open doors for the pastie and crisp brigade mums to bring it forward!

Ive read some horror stories of what mums will wean babies on and IMO this is where all the food problems are starting. Fair enough to bang on about breast if best but there seems to be little proper guidence on weaning and how careful you have to be.

Weaning a baby correctly can only help development with leaning to instigate good feeding routine, good variation hence adjust well to all foods (less fussiness), which in turn should stop all these faddy children pilling on the weight.

Surely, If I remember the importance of a child being able to hold their head strong and have the ability to swallow hence 5 months. I have read before about babies being hungrey but when you later see that theey are not receiving enough milk and mums droping night feeds too young.

" they give the same advice to mothers in the third world as in the first world"

And the relevance of this statement is? Breastfeeding is breastfeeding whether you live in Uganda or Uttoxeter.

"Down with the WHO dogma"? Oh, ok then. I'll just dismiss their massive review of the science that's out there.

Sure someone has already linked and rushing but here is full www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full report on BMJ website - I couldn't find it at first.

Gah

HERE is report

When I had my first DD 21 yrs ago the advice was 12lb or 12 weeks.
For DS,15 yrs ago it was 16 weeks.
DD3,12 yrs ago,20 weeks.
DD3 5 yrs ago I pleased myself
None of my DC's have any bowel/stomach problems at all.

Fruty please remember that this is only one aspect of breastfeeding. Don't forget all the other benefits of breastfeeding such as increased immunity, less risk of gastroentiritis (sp?) respiritory disease, etc. Don't beat yourself up, there will always be conflicting advice, as a parent we just have to do our best to navigate our way through.

The relevance is that one of the reasons to prefer breastfeeding in developing countries is to do with access to clean drinking water and for that matter uncontamiated formula.

Literally millons of people were weaned "early" - my entire generation for a start (about 3 months was recommended then). Millions are probably still being weaned early. Some people have gut problems most don't.

There has actually been so little research on when babies start to eat and what is bad/good. 17 weeks appears to be when the digestive system is fully functioning in ALL babies (other than prem babies). The 6 months recommended by WHO was mainly because up to that age it doesn't do babies any harm to be EBF and to encourage mothers third world countries to BF for as long as possible as breast milk is sterile. There is in fact very little evidence out there that weaning between 17 weeks and 6 months actually harms any babies in the western world with clean conditions. Even the allergy argument is subjective.

Much media reporting of this study has been unhelpful, to say the least. The study authors themselves say

"...It is important not to confuse the evidence for promoting six months? exclusive breast feeding with that for breast feeding itself [my bold], which is extensive and is not considered here. ..." www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955 So by my reading they are not casting doubt on the vaule of breastfeeding/playing into hands of formula milk manufacturers or whatever but rather questioning the WHO six month exclusivity recommendation.

The hypothesis that early weaning onto solid foods could actually decrease the risk of food allergies in children (and, indeed other allergic conditions) is a current topic in paediatric allergy, given, e.g., evidence that the increase in child peanut allergy is not seen in countries where peanuts are used as a weaning food before six months such as Israel. This hypothesis is now being tested in the EAT Study. Until their findings are analysed and conclusions reported, they recommend adhering to the current government guidleines. They also state that they encourage all study participants to breastfeed for at least six months.

'Other evidence, they say, suggests that babies not introduced to certain foods earlier than six months may have a higher incidence of food allergies. "Countries where peanuts are used as weaning foods have low incidences of peanut allergy (Israel, for example)," they write.

The third potential issue is coeliac disease. The numbers of children developing coeliac disease rose in Sweden following advice to mothers to delay the introduction of gluten into their child's diet until after six months, and it fell when the recommendation reverted to four months.'

This can't just be about breastfed babies, surely it's about ALL babies. Unless there's gluten and peanuts in formula?

Why does the report say that breastfed babies may benefit from earlier weaning onto solids? The conclusion should surely be that ALL babies may benefit?

""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!).""

Agree with that Civil. I didn't really notice it so much thought until I started BFing.

My heart sunk when it came up on the Today programme this morning. The cynical part of me does wonder if a newly released piece of research about the benefits of breastfeeding would have received so much attention? And it also imagines all the ways which advertisments for 'baby food' might be able to utilise this.

Just thought I would add my two penny's worth. DS is ten months old - and I am still BFing twice a day. Origainlly, I was determined to hold out for the six months. In the ends I started BLW at five months and, luckily, DS has taken to food like a duck to water.

I admit that I was exausted by five months, but was lucky enough to have a very sensible and supportive HV who judged, by indicators such as ability to sit up rather than by age, that DS was ready to begin weaning and provided NHS material on BLW - which made me feel more comfortable about weaning early (i.e. surely if DS wasn't ready for food he wouldn't be eating it).

I get a bit depressed about how polarised the debates can become. Often 'new' pieces of research just seem to provide ammunition to one 'side' or the other to say 'ner ner ner ner ner - we told you we were right.'

I turned over from BBC Breakfast becasue Calire Byam-Cook was getting me so annoyed , sauing her experience is "evidence based" (no dear - it's anecdotal becasue you've seen a selecting group of people) and that weaning was "good for getting children to sleep through"

For the record, my anecdotal expereince is that my breastfed ds slept through from 2 weeks (had to be waken for a while for feeds), so that amount a child sleeps depends on the child.

I'm interested in the point that the study hasn't investigated FF babies - so that the conclusions being drawn by the media are (as usaul) totally uninformed. You might be able, when the study is finished to draw a conclusion that between 4 and 6 months, more flexiility might be requierec- but you can't say it is breastfeeding that is the issue if you haven't also studied FF babies.

they have misread the meaning - i think there is no negative effect unless you leave weaning until 7 mo. (in an av. baby)

and of course, in most cases, no negative effect even then.

Prettybird - They aren't saying breastfeeding is the issue.

That is exactly the point that was made on the Today programme this morning, ClaireOB. The interviewer was desperately trying to get the bf'ing expert to say that breast milk itself was the problem and it kind of implied that women are better off using formula. The woman that was being interviewed was able to rebut this point quite forcefully but it is definitely being reported as breastfeeding is bad rather than there may be issues with some children being exclusively breast fed for 6 months.

I breastfeed both my boys exclusively(3 and almost 2) till 6 months, and they are now the only children out of 11 cousins who don't have any allergies, coeliac disease, eczema or asthma....the ones with the worst allergies are the ones who were weaned earliest.... just go with your instinct on what is best for your child!

the results were the same for FF babies

once more, with feeling

I thought Coeliac disease was on the rise due to the shit new breeds of wheat compared to those of 500 years ago and our crappy modern way of making bread?

Whats happened to our instincts though? How has the population survived for thousands of years before government guidelines? I weaned my at 12 weeks and 15 weeks respectively because that's when I felt they were ready, irrespective of 'guidelines'. Why don't we trust our own parenting anymore?

The way the media is presenting it is that breastfeeding is the issue - particualry the point about the low iron.

Also at 8 and 4 both are totally healthy with no allergies etc (just to balance your statistics cherub)

it's not even a case of trusting your instincts - it's more a case of accepting that whatever you do, within a pretty wide range of acceptable limits, probably is not going to make ANY perceptible difference to your child at the individual level, even if there is evidence that it may at the cohort level.

Isore, it is sometimes difficult to hear what your instincts are saying in the noisy media age. (for me, anyhow)