weaning research

[bigbird2003]

I am currently writing a thesis and am interested in weaning techniques

Please could someone send me a link about the gut problems for babies weaned under 6 months.

I can't find annything relating to it anywhere. I have found 1 article that recommends gluten free before 6 months. HAve also found others that discounts the previous theories on allergy increases.

I'm very interested to where this came from as WHO and UNICEF don't mention it either, they just say it doesn't harm to wean after 6 months , it doesn't say it does harm to wean early.

Also a link about the food is fun before one, as again, I can't find where the research is. All I can find is a baby needs a varied diet from 6 months as breastmilk may not be high enough in iron and some nutrients

IMO the recommendations are to keep babies breastfed for longer (good thing). Does anyone have statistics of last few years, comparing babies weaned at 6 months to those weaned earlier? Whether allergy or gut problems have increased for example

Update; have been directed to kellymom to see some research and again all I can find is a few papers, with very small study groups regarding under 15 weeks or it directs you back to a different kellymom page. I can find no research regarding the gut (I have spent weeks on this and mumsnet has thrown up issues that no where else has)

I really would like to see the research that many on here keep referencing as I'd like my thesis to be totally current

Bigbird - sorry me again! Interesting that you found the same with kellymom. I'm willing to be corrected by people in the know, but my understanding is that the gut issues are mainly theoretical rather than based on actual research (I presume for practical reasons).

I'll be watching this thread with interest.

bigbird

I haven't much time so I'm sorry if this is a bit brief, but you raise a very important issue, ie that there really isn't a good evidence base for any weaning practice.

This isn't an accident. The BIG methodological problem here is that you can't do a randomised controlled trial because parents wouldn't stand for it.

eg: say you want to compare weaning at 3 vs 6 months, and whether this affects allergies. You'll never get parents to agree to wean at 3 months if their preference is to wean at 6 months - especially if there's a family history of allergy.

So all the studies are observational with HUGE bias everywhere.

The big bias in weaning studies (in my opinion) is reverse causation. If you find that babies who were weaned later have more allergies, what does that mean - that later weaning causes allergies? Well, it might, but what's far more likely is that families who have an allergy risk will err on the side of caution and wait a bit longer before introducing solids. So you can't conclude anything from the observation.

Must stop there but I feel your pain! Have found some studies in the past which were better than the usual run and if I have time in the next couple of days I'll dig them out for you - am a bit hectic here. As I recall, there is reasonable evidence for gut problems with weaning before 3 months, but nothing really satisfactory looking at 3-6 months. WHO evidence which you've obviously read was pretty clear that there isn't a nutritional need for solids before 6 months - a slightly different issue of course.

Must run, hope to write more later, I think it's an interesting problem!

The big Belarus study showed an increase in gastro-enteritis in babies who were excusively bf to 3 mths compared to those excl bf to 6 mths - haven't got time to find the link but Google it. There were something like 2500 babies in the trial.

I don't know if you mean gastric problems when you mean 'gut problems' but the link between not bf and gastro-enteritis is not in dispute, surely.

I have joined a few parenting sites with an interest in current practices
(my children are older and am using my (and friends family) experiences to compare to

Mumsnet is unique in how vehemently current guidelines should be followed. This is the only place I have found that mentions the gut problems and I was wondering where this information was found and how it is spread. It is one of the few places where parents actively discourage some medical advice

This is why I have come here to get the most up to date information, as parents are usually the best read and word of mouth can be a good thing.

Is kellymom the main source of information on some of these issues or is it word of mouth? Or has the information come from publications?

I really would like to read through/study this research to make my thesis

No dispute where breastfeeding is concerned, it's the weaning onto solids I am studying.

Breastfeeding is proven to 'strengthen' the immune system. What I was referring to was the open/closed gut debate, where introducing solids too early would cause problems in later life

I can find references to research regarding this pre 15 weeks old but nothing for older/under 6 months theory

Having read some things, it is also interesting regarding the weaning ff babies as most of the little research I have found talks about bf babies

As I said, unicef and who are rightly wanting to promote bf for 2 years and over, and the 6 month rule is a fab thing if it gets people to at least 6 months. I'm just wanting to find where some of the facts said here originated and why they aren't in the public domain or if they are, so very hard to find

The other problems with early solids are shown in the Dundee cohort study, bigbird, which showed chest issues ('wheeze') in babies given solids at 15 weeks.

Maybe you could contact Kelly herself to ask about her site & its recommendations.

Might be worth looking at the LLLI site as well as they have been recommending "the middle of the first year" for starting solids for 50 yrs now.

Despite what I said earlier about the lack of clear evidence, the balance of evidence is very strongly in favour of later weaning. That's the view taken by public health professionals and WHO and co. ie the people who have looked at this in the most detail.

So it's not just something that mumsnet made up!

However, there's a big information block whereby GPs and HVs and others advising parents haven't come across any of these issues and are still giving old advice.

IMO mumsnet is doing a great job of alerting people to the fact that there's more to this than meets the eye.

PS have you seen the big HIV study just out, showing that exclusive bf to 6 months reduces transmission - and that this benefit is lost if solids are introduced - a very strong suggestion that the infant gut is vulnerable.

you can find the WHO guidelines on weaning online, it's a rather huge pdf, and I had to google for a while before I found it, but it did explian in more detail why they recommend waiting until 6 months
(interestingly also said that some babies may need weaning earlier and parents who do so should be given support)

You've seen the stuff on coeliac disease and early weaning, yes, bigbird?

I agree with you about the research on formula feeding - I think it might even be possible that formula is not a good sole diet for 6 mths. Some formula fed babies may need other nutrients before that time - we don't really know, as it's only really growth that's been looked at with ff babies. It's a tall order for another species' milk to sustain good nutrition for 6 whole months - we can be reasonably sure that breastmilk will do the job admirably, but I don't think the evidence is there for formula. Formula is unchanging, unlike breastmilk. The UK says '6 mths' for both breastfed and formula fed babies because there is no evidence any other way for formula fed babies, but unless I am wrong, WHO don't have anything to say on formula fed babies.

Again, have found a lot on the 15 week things, and even in my 'old days' weaning 15 weeks was too young, 16 weeks was recommended 20 years ago, 12 weeks 30 years ago.

Of course I'm not saying mumsnet made anything up, I did say I cam here for the most up to date advice. I have read most of the WHO guidlines/research and am making my wy through unicef and others.

What I am finding are the reasoning is quite different. WHO in main (in what I have read but could have missed some somewhere) is that a baby will not suffer in any way if weaning is introduced after 6 months, as breastmilk is all a baby needs. It doesn't say (again, so far) that weaning early is detrimental. Stopping bf before could be but not the added solids. It does say earlier solids may be necessary and it does say babies should be on established solids by 9 months (obviously with continued bf)

The food is fun til one thing, I would love to know where that comes from and include it, the same with blw

Like I said, I'd like to include all of todays practises and mumsnet has shown me some but it hasn't necessarily shown me where to find the origins behind the practises

Have you not read Gill Rapley's study on BLW?

bigbird - yet again I'd mention the Belarus study, also known as PROBIT....this shows adverse effects of the introduction of non-breastmilk foods/drinks before 6 mths. Have you not come across this study? It's interesting because although Belarus is not 'the West' it is not a developing country, and the basics of hygiene, running water and so on are available to all.

I don't know where 'food for fun until one' comes from either However, a baby breastfed unrestrictedly and offered solids is gonna be fine even if he doesn't have many actual solids going down, even at a year - what's he at risk of?

I don't think there is much evidence of a definite quota of solids that baby has to have by age whatever, in fact.

as far as i'm aware, the only research into BLW was that small study done by gill, which you are bound to have read. she's not published in full yet but there is a lengthy essay available in a medical journal, the name of which escapes me but you can google for it.

i think that i first heard someone say 'food is fun until they're one' on the yahoo BLW group, which has been on the go for a few years. presumably someone read the WHO report and interpreted it, as i do, that food is 'complementary' to milk ie the milk meets the vast bulk of their nutritional needs. there is a (again tiny) canadian study mentioned in WHO literature that talks of small growth dips in exclusively some of the exclusively bf babies in the study between 6 and 12 months so it may be important that the babies eat some food to counteract that. or, tbh, it may be that is what happens to some babies when they become more active, who knows?

purely anecdotally, having read a lot of BLW threads on here and dealing with the blog i'd say that the vast majority eat well enough for there to be no concern about the complemetary-ness of the solids. those that don't eat a huge amount, however, are interesting in that they generally get the hang of it by a year, anyway, so Gill has posited that this is when the solids become important nutritionally. so i presume that is why someone came up with 'food is fun until they're one'. i think teh research basis is the WHO report.

and i have a friend with crohns who is currently the longest-living person in the world with her type of feeding tube. she told me that in the 80s, gut specialists told her that babies were being weaned too early and that in conjuction with the different size of grains we are eating now plus other environmental factors (even including measles jags) it was causing an upsurge in crohns. so she has impressed upon me that she would murder me if i weaned my dd before 6 months, as that was erring on the side of caution. if you could see her vomiting blood and bent double with diaorrhea you wouldn't think that it was a price worth paying, even if the majority of people are fine. plus, she is now seeing babies as young as 18 months with stomas.

that said, i personally buy into the BLW theory that an ability to eat the food indicates a readiness to digest it, so if i was met with a child in the future who swiped my dinner and ate it earlier than 6 months then i would let him go for it. this, i think, is quite different to spooning cereal into a child's mouth, regardless of how willingly he laps it up.

Thank you peeps....I have enough material to keep me reading for weeks lol

Any other research anyone knows of, I'd still like to see it.

Again, thank you x

have you joined the BLW yahoo group bb? it might be worth asking there as well.

what is your thesis about big bird? are you studying a particular subject? i'm wondering if you're coming from a sociological background, biological, nutrition, medical..what?

have a look at \link{http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/feeding/pdfs/2_1%20Erikson.pdf \this}if it's child development-based.

balls. cut and paste it then...

Good post, Aitch.

I think there is good evidence that ridiculously early weaning can be actively dangerous ('ridiculous' here is me being subjective but by that, I mean the babies who get rice or, worse, rusks in the bottle at just a few weeks old) and one of these dangers would be long-lasting gut damage, over-loading of the kidneys (with short and long-term risks). People who are determined to do this need to be told, quite clearly, DO NOT. Forget about instincts, what your grannie did, baby waking, never-did-me-any-harm....just don't do it.

Rather later weaning ( solids at, say, 12-17 weeks) is nutritionally unsound, in that babies really don't need anything but milk at this age, and there is a small risk of long-term and short-term effects - difficult to prove this, but why risk it?

What is harder to be dogmatic about is the 4-6 mth period. Again a small no. of babies may be adversely affected but most won't be, but the whole thing is a pointless hassle because most babies really don't need anything else at this age, can't cope with it very well, and grow perfectly well without it. Offering solids babies can manage to handle themselves at around 6 mths without the nuisance of purees and spoons supports their physiology, their motor skills, and their nutrition.

There is a whole industry of jars, packets and books wanting mothers to do it in a mother-led, micro-managed way. Nobody needs to do it that way - if they want to, then that's fine, but they need to know it's a choice, and there are no real benefits to doing it that way.

Tiktok that is a fabulous post - I have never seen one that puts it all so clearly.

very interesting thread, and I think Tiktok is talking a lot of sense. I also admit to being rather skeptical when reading the Kellymom site, which does seem rather paranoid in some areas. Food being 'just for fun before one' may work for some babies but definitely not my hungry boy.

gawd. food is fun until they're one... if your boy is eating well then he's having fun, no? and so are you, i take it? so food is fun until they're one. it doesn't mean you have to do it in a party hat.
after one, you probably have to be more careful about balance etc, as by that time they are normally weaned and drinking less milk. although in dd's case she still piled in the milk until 14 months.

This is a very interesting thread. My DS is now 5 months old and I am trying to hold out to the 6 months before weaning. However yesterday I was speaking to a paeditrician who told me that the WHO guidelines are mainly aimed at developing countries where when weaning a baby early they are not giving/don't have access to high quality food like we do. She was basically saying that weaning between 4-6 months in this country is fine.

I started weaning at 5 months very slowly. I started with a single cube of veg at lunch, now i give a bit of baby cereal at breakfast. I think its fine if you start very slowly.