Another misleading headline about breastfeeding? "Too much breast-feeding makes babies more prone to allergies"

[Tinker]

Here in the Indie

The article actually says this applies for exclusive breastfeeding beyond 6 months. How many people really fall into that category to justify that headline?

I get the feeling the people who write these articles just like to use the word "Breast". I think it gives them cheap thrills.

It's hardly a comprehensive study. they only looked at 200 people.

that's what I was going to say and how were they selected..they "were asked to exclsuively breastfeed for as long as possible" that seems a strange thing to ask tbh

more facts required!

That title implies any breast feeding beyond 3 months or so to be a risk. Like you say, Tinker, how many people aren't supplementing the diet with some solids at 6 months.

There's a real bf backlash in the media right now. bf is the new disgraced celebrity.

Am going to email them.

Of course it doesn't mention that if you can still bf after 6 months alongside introducing solids it is the best way to avoid food allergies.

What an odd slant! I agree they must just be excited about the word breast. The thing that is unusual about these babies is that they are not eating solids after 6 months, not that they are breastfeeding. I don't know anything about the pros and cons of not introducing solids at 6 months, but its not as though it is widely recommended or as though it is a common thing to do so the article is completely pointless.

What next - BREASTFEEDING DANGEROUS! (in studies where mothers were also riding a unicycle and juggling at the same time)

I think we have already had "death by breastfeeding". Didn't we have it in the DM last week with the baby who tragically died after a breat feed?

Just seems like a totally pointless article! Summed up in the final paragraph really - "few babies are at risk." Who exclusively breastfeeds to 9 mths? Admittedly at times it felt that ds consumed nothing bm way past the 6mth mark, but the point is he regulated his own intake of solids so I figured he was getting what he needed. Ok, a baby may still not be interested in solids at 8 or 9mths, but I'd be surprised if most babies at this age were't actually offered it or taking even a tiny amount. Surely forcing solid foods before the child is ready is also dangerous?

What a pointless article and very unhelpful. Cupcakes is right, there does seem to be an anti-bfing thing going on with the media at the moment. Why is that?

I'd suspect that the people who were most motivated to do exclusive bf the longest would be people with food allergies in their families ... which would slant the results just a bit.

Sorry that should read nothing but bm

great, more ammunition for my MIL...

I can't help thinking that babies that are 'exclusively breastfed' for much more than 9 months might have nutritional problems anyway. Breastmilk is amazing stuff (my 3 swear by it ) but it isn't meant to be exclusive food for ever and ever. And how many people do bf exclusively that long anyway. Odd.

There does seem to be a rash of anti-bf stories atm.

I know various people who didn't introduce solids until after 6 months because their babies were not interested / refused.

I am mystified by this article.

Yes Franny, I think really the only reason a baby wouldn't be having at least some solids after 6mths is if they refused it - and in that case I think it is quite right to wait until the child is interested, obviously while eating with the child and offering food at regular intervals. I don't like the implication of the article that some breastfeeders would wilfully 'deny' their child solid food... With my ds I didn't have much choice in the matter, he just ate when he was ready.

Blimey, what next, 'When Tits Attack' on Channel 4?

LOL Acnebride

ab

But the risk was actually for kids who weren't eating solids at 9 months, which is vanishingly rare in the UK.

I do know quite a few kids who were exclusively BF to 6 months, or a bit beyond. But that's just the circles I run in. I've even met one kid who didn't take to solids until 14 months.

Oh, also the article totally implied that breastmilk was the problem, not exclusive breastfeeding, iyswim. You can start solids at 6 months but keep bfing for ages after that, as many of us do.

There has to be a zillion reasons why this is a heap.... not least because of this statement:
"This suggested that environmental factors such as pollen exposure, diet and disease played a more important role in the onset of allergies in later childhood and adulthood" ...yet there is no comparison with formula. There does seem to be a breastfeeding backlash (for want of a better word) at the mo.

Are we going back to the 1950s or what? (when everybody thought that formula was the best way to go?)

I think it's a good idea to breastfeed for as long as you can, but I'm not quite sure about exclusive BF beyond certain age. Surely there are some good reasons and guidelines about weaning before certain age? I know the guideline is BF exclusively for 6m, but there should be something mentioning the reasons of why weaning has to take placeduring the first year of the child...