Is the 6 month guideline to breastfeed unrealistic?

[GodisaDj]

Have just read this

I know it's the Daily Fail but it's irritated me.

I personally don't feel the target of 6 months is unrealistic, am I in the minority?

(hope the link works as it looks like it opens an old article about bf babies being less settled, but did open the right one for me)

I think it's unrealistic without support.
Mothers feel the pressure whilst pregnant, yet when the baby is born, there is pressure from all sides to give baby a bottle.

6 month targets will never be met when HCP's don't understand Breastfeeding, and undermine it.
Midwives, HV's and GP's should all have a level of knowledge (and it's not difficult to get - an evening browsing the kellymom website would improve things instantly!) and be able to give better advice, rather than the ignorant crap many spout now. It's a miracle many get to 6 weeks, let alone 6 months.

I agree with you there. I had loads of support from HV, midwife and bf specialists but I know that isn't the case for most. Dd is 7 months now and there isn't many people around me that have reached this far, so I'm under no illusion that support is critical to success.

And that's the bit that irritates me I suppose- that there are guidelines and therefore pressure for new mums and then no or little support (depending where you live).

I knew I should read the daily fail when the baby naps!

" Many mothers find the routine of having to stop and breastfeed their babies for months on end hard to cope with and give up earlier."

So Mother's who ff don't have to take any time to feed their children?? WTAF?

I agree that more support is needed but not with the fact that the message needs to be dumbed down too. The Mail (surprise surprise) seems to have misunderstood the WHO advice too (or at least misrepresenting it) as WHO advice is to BF for 2 years, exclusively for the first 6months

I agree there also needs to be more support in place. And if your baby is feeding every hour, it may not be that they are hungry and need topping up. A father does not need to give a bottle to bond with the baby. If established early, you can express if you need a break. Fathers can be supportive by getting glasses of water, running around for other children while the mother is feeding, etc.

BUT the biggest thing that needs changing is public opinion/perception. It should be normal to see BFing women, not a spectacle. It should be normal to see older toddlers 1 - 2yrs ho are still BF. GPs, HV, everyone needs to up their knowledge to support a womens choice to BF.

My DD is 22 months and I still BF her. The number of stares and comments I have is unbeleivable. I recently needed a medicine that she is allergic (anaphylactic) to. I told my GP who said 'and?' as if I could just stop instantly, thereby putting me at risk of mastitis etc needing more drugs. It is also a comfort thing and just stopping it would be the same as just ripping a dummy off a toddler for no reason. A dummy the GP would no doubt not even raise an eyebrow at.

Coming from a country that BF rates are very high, and it is a totally normal thing, I do find the attitudes in the UK regarding BF to be very unsupportive.

I am not very eloquent or very good at getting my point across, so apologies if this is garbled or if I unintentionally offend anyone.

loony I thought that too. So ff babies' mums don't need "stop and feed them" they just themselves don't you know daily fail!

Yes, it is unrealistic for many as it doesn't match the 'reality' of our culture, hpcs training and our societal set up.

So what should we do about it then?

Just tell all women not to bother because it's never gonna work in our intolerant society?

Or try and change society?

I know which is cheaper and generally better for capitalism.

pb very nicely put (you are good at getting point across ). I do worry about perception when I reach 12 months+ as I don't intend on stopping.

starlight don't know what the solution is. Just keep chipping away. I know I do with my pregnant friends (in a non- pressured way) like feeding in front of them like it's normal, pointing them in the direction of Kelly mom and other evidence based sites that support bf'ing. There is no ideal solution without it upsetting some people.

The advice is unrealistic when health professionals don't know about BF, when well meaning family/friends give poor advice simply because FF is the norm and when BF is compared to FF when they aren't the same.

Feeding your baby is emotionally charged and IMO BF is more so because of the hormones and the overwhelming sense that only you as mum can feed baby (expressing aside).

That coupled with normal newborn behaviour (eg evening fussiness, wanting to suckle for comfort, wanting to be held), all lead to BF being seen as a burden on mothers. Hence the reason why FF was invented in the first place and is so successful.

Maybe the advice should be to BF as long and exclusively as you can until solids are introduced.

Good advice iggly
definitely emotionally charged and a good point that some, not all, people confuse the 'normal' baby behavior with, "it's because your breastfeeding"

*you are bf'ing not your

Read 1/2 the article. I didn't think the headline fitted with the article.

IMO BF to six months is very realistic once it is well established.

I think that there needs to be less telling women what to do, and more supporting women to actually do it. Which is what the text in the article seems to be saying.

Stats show that the vast majority of women start out BF but due to problems which are not supported there is a fall-off. They need to put better support in the wards and available to women after they have gone home and that would have a real impact I think.

I must say I think that it must be culture here, rather than lack of support that causes the low BFing rates (although possibly support can override that) as I had my baby in a different country, away from family and friends with no antenatal classes, and had no contact with any HCP after 6 weeks, yet here I am BFing at 20 months.

I admit, I read everything going, and am generally quite strong-willed, and oblivious to people trying to give me advice and my mum BF (although not even to 6 months) so I'd always assumed I would. But I think had I been around my family it might be that I'd have weaned earlier, and done things differently under pressure from my 'elders and betters' and that an HCP wouldn't have been able to change that (after all, everyone ignores what they consider to be batty advice from HVs don't they?)

The other point is that the exclusive BF stats and the stats for having had formula are very different. The stats usually quoted are the exclusive stats which paint a very gloomy picture but if you look at the stats including people who give the odd FF they are a lot better.

I do think that aiming for exclusive BF ie never giving any formula ever is, in our society, a big ask. Many people like to have their OH give a bottle at night, or the occasional bottle when they go out, or if they are doing a bit of work or other commitments. They are out of the exclusive stats but to my mind they are still BF and should be counted IYSWIM.

scroll to bottom

Initial breastfeeding rates in 2005 were 78 per cent in England, 70 per cent in Scotland, 67 per cent in Wales, and 63 per cent in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the incidence of breastfeeding increased between 2000 and 2005.

In 2005, 48 per cent of all mothers in the United Kingdom were breastfeeding at six weeks, while 25 per cent were still breastfeeding at six months. Between 2000 and 2005 there was an increase in the prevalence of breastfeeding at all ages up to nine months in both England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The pattern of fall out was broadly similar across all countries.

In 2005, 45 per cent of all mothers in the United Kingdom were breastfeeding exclusively at one week, while 21 per cent were feeding exclusively at six weeks. At four months the figure was 7 per cent while at six months the proportion of mothers who were breastfeeding exclusively was negligible (<1 per cent).

Over eight in ten mothers (84 per cent) said they were aware of the health benefits of breastfeeding.

The text of the article repeats over and over that women do not have enough support for breastfeeding.

I was very shocked at the poor level of support available once baby was born - maybe the NHS should spend less on posters saying 'breast is best' and more on training MWs and HVs in the basics of breastfeeding.

"I do think that aiming for exclusive BF ie never giving any formula ever is, in our society, a big ask"

It's a big ask of UK mothers.

Mothers from many other cultures do it, and work, and care for much bigger families than ours, on much less money.

We are talking about the UK though aren't we

And in fact I even said "in our society" so I'm not sure what your point is?

I can understand that the 6 months target does put some women off. I've breastfed all my kids, and I have quite a few. With each one the first few weeks have been sodding difficult now imagine if you're a new mum and you're got a constant feeding baby, maybe you're nipples are a bit sore and you're thinking, shit I can't do this for 6 bloody months.

I also think there is a limit to how much and the type of breastfeeding support HCPs can provide. Outside of correct positioning and attachment, they can't tell you how to get over the fear that breastfeeding in public will attract loads of attention some of it negative. Or how to shut up family members who want to give a bottle.

The only thing I needed any help with was establishing breastfeeding, if you get support and learn the knack of it, it's easy and much less hassle.

Obviously you smell a bit of cheese and newborn babies in the supermarket give you wet patches on your top, but there's milk ON DEMAND wherever you are at a perfect temperature and it never runs out or costs a penny. So what's unrealistic about feeding to 6 months?

There was an interesting bit of research out a few months ago that seemed to suggest that the 6 months EBF target wasn't set in stone and that it was more like a window of opportunity' to establish solid food/chewing/new tastes which lay somewhere between 4 and 8 months. That made a lot of sense to me, given how different my DDs were - DD1 started snatching food off my plate at about 16 weeks, obviously wasn't able to chew the really solid stuff but she was interested. We let her lead it, she took to solids very easily whilst still BF (until 13 months).

DD2 was not interested at all until she was about 7 months old, then it just happened - she was also BF to 13 months. They are now both healthy, non-fussy eaters. Set in stone guidelines are just unhelpful.

Don't get me started on the lack of support for BF, without the great support from my midwife after DD1 was born, it would have been a disaster - tongue tie, oversupply, poor latch - you name it, we had it. The MW cracked it within the first 10 days, after which BF became lovely and easy.

Once it's properly established it's probably harder to give up at 6 months than to continue.

I.ve managed 3 out of 4 babies ebf til 6 months, eldest was on solids though.
They isn't enough support but then again how many women who struggle ring the bf support lines? The numbers are in rhe discharge packs.
If they did they could talk to trained peer supporters like me and even more highly trained helpers like TIKTOK
More information for mums is needed and lots of information for GP's, HV's and MW's.
I don't think ebf till 6 months is unrealistic, maybe some mums views on how they will bf and how out will impact on their lives are unrealistic.

I felt that the support was there, you just have to look for it. Every time my daughter was weighed the HV asked how my feeding was going and reminded me of the helplines available. I attended NHS breast feeding classes prior to the birth which highlighted the help available, including a weekly baby group for breast feeding moms.
I think the problem is with our culture - as others have said, it is seen as unusual to breastfeed long term. People who haven't breastfed their babies will preach how well their baby has slept etc and compare their baby to your breastfed baby - I don't think this helps because their food intake is so different.
Even well intentioned family members have an influence saying things like, 'when your on the bottle, I can help look after the baby longer' 'if you put her on the bottle, she'll sleep through' 'I weaned all my children by 4 months and it didn't do them any harm' 'they're waking in the night cos they're hungry - get them on a rusk and they'll sleep through' etc etc.
Unfortunately peer pressure doesn't finish at school and friends/family (who don't understand BF'ing and current guidelines) can make you feel like you should stop early.
I believe that you should feed for as long as you feel happy/comfortable to. If you can't BF, can only breast feed for 2 weeks or decide to stop at 3 months, or continue to 2 years - you shouldn't be made to feel bad whatever your choice.

I didn't get a "discharge pack" and had one visit from HV after giving birth.

I was not told about any BF support or groups from what I can remember.

I think that this sort of thing varies drastically between different areas TBH.