Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Weaning

Find weaning advice from other Mumsnetters on our Weaning forum. Use our child development calendar for more information.

Original poster

Please somebody tell me about the research that shows that weaning before 6 months "may damage your baby".

190 replies

SenoraPostrophe · 14/04/2007 21:18

....only all I can find is the Gill Rapely research, which, as far as I can tell, was based on a small study, centered on chewing not digestion and wasn't longitudinal. I could be wrong as the paper itself isn't online. I did find lots of summaries of it and lots of talk about stone age mothers not having blenders (well no, but they did have teeth).

Is there more to it than this? and if not, why is everybody being quite so aggressive about it?

OP posts:
SlightlyAngrySlug · 14/04/2007 23:22

/link{http://www.kellymom.com/newman/risks_of_formula_08-02.html\citation list - dated 2002 so out of date?}

SlightlyAngrySlug · 14/04/2007 23:23

last try

zippitippitoes · 14/04/2007 23:23

i think natural instinct with regard to weaning is non existent..a red herring

AitchTwoOh · 14/04/2007 23:23

ahem, soapy, the common sense approach suggested by Aitch and Gess...

Soapbox · 14/04/2007 23:25

Aitch of course your approach is common sense too - but when I wrote it I meant that Gess had specifically excluded those foods that were likely to cause issues for her family due to known risks, rather that focusing solely on the age of weaning.

I do concede though, that for different reasons, your approach also has merit

AitchTwoOh · 14/04/2007 23:26

SAS, i didn't mention harming. are you getting me mixed up with LittleLapin? i'm not hugely hardcore about the 4-6 month thing (please see posts passim on this thread), except on a personal basis. my argument is only 'why do it if you don't have to?' and if lack of sleep is one of the reasons that you have to and, crucially, if the child is capable of self-feeding then i'd personally go for it. probably try to stick it to 5 months though.

PenelopePitstops · 14/04/2007 23:27

natural instict a red herring, i hope you are joking.

How on earth would mothers have known when to do anthing if it werent for natural instinct. People may have lost that natural instict due to endless guidelines and peer pressure but it is definataley there, how would a mother have ever known how to care for a baby

zippitippitoes · 14/04/2007 23:30

I'm not joking...it's quite clear that relying on natural instinct would lead to poor outcomes in many cases

lots of parents have no idea what to do with a baby..it's not an instinct

Soapbox · 14/04/2007 23:30

I didn't find Kellymom refs particularly persuasive, as they were mixing the WHO research on best age to exclusively breastfeed to, i.e. to wean, with that on artificial feeding (i.e.formula vs breasfeeding).

I found that they swapped back and forth somewhat and to a cynical eye, did so to prove the point they wished to prove!

So e.g. they took the iron depletion evidence from the artifical feeding research to say that there was no harm in waiting to 6 months to wean, whereas one of the main concerns of both the weaning papers was the depletion of iron stores!

I found the site generally to be more 'emotional' that I would be comfortable with if I were relying on their analysis for best nutritional advice for my baby, tbh.

I like the hard facts though - so it may just be me

Twinklemegan · 14/04/2007 23:32

Soapbox - I have the same opinion of the Kellymom information.

SlightlyAngrySlug · 14/04/2007 23:36

Aitch I have just scanned about 10-12 abstracts regarding bf and Crohns and it seems that
a) the duration of bf is data gathered retrospectively (ie. after diagnosis with Crohns)
b) it is bf they are interested in as opposed to weaning to solids - at least in the handful of abstracts I looked at.

But I now now that if you drank tap water as a child (compared to what? Fruitshoots? ) that lowers your risk of crohns!!!

AitchTwoOh · 14/04/2007 23:45

really? gad, hard or soft?
i think data gathered retrospectively will always be up for question as there are too many variables to be ironed out. and whi;e there remains a question mark i'm all for playing it safe.

SlightlyAngrySlug · 14/04/2007 23:48

Don't worry Aitch - I'm with you....

Oh an an appendectomy is protective against ulcerative colitis....oh the things you can learn at midnight on a Satnight/Sun Monday..

AitchTwoOh · 14/04/2007 23:49

weird...

VeniVidiVickiQV · 14/04/2007 23:49

This is a US article based on review of 52 studies from various countries on infant weaning.

here

I found this by googling weaning and allergies.

All my posts tend to gear towards research and evidence surrounding allergies, because DD has cows milk protein allergies and a serious peanut allergy. I always post with allergies in mind because sometimes you Just Dont Know.

crunchie · 14/04/2007 23:52

This is intresting really, IMHO it seems to say that althoug advise is now about waiting until 6 months, this also says for exclusively breastfed babies. What therefore should be the advise of bbies on formula?

Also if these are simply 'guide;ines' with little/no scientific fact behind them, why do some women here on MN berate others for daring to put a spoon of mushed veggies into their babies before the critical 6 month??

On top of this 'mothers instinct' has been cited her, well what about the 'instinct' that is telling us that our baby is hungry and ready for solid food?? When someone dares admit to this they are told in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS to desist as they are causing unmeasurable harm to their babies. But it doesn't seem that there is any evidence for this.

HHHMMMMM

What am I interested my babies are 8 and 6 and were both weaned well before the magic 6 month mark

SlightlyAngrySlug · 14/04/2007 23:52

Its amazing what associations a scientist can draw out if you really want to.

In 20 years time they will probably be saying that children of MN adicts are blah blah blah....!!!

AitchTwoOh · 14/04/2007 23:54

link me to the threads where the berating is happening, will ya crunchie?

Twinklemegan · 14/04/2007 23:56

Crunchie - I do agree with you that it is hard to find reliable information relating to formula fed babies. FWIW, I started weaning my DS at around 20 weeks for various reasons. But if it hadn't been for those reasons I would have waited until 6 months if I possibly could, because why take the risk otherwise?

VeniVidiVickiQV · 14/04/2007 23:57

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541952

this is what i was looking at, but the link takes you to a login page.

I googled "weaning and the risk of allergies" and it was the first article.

You can find it if you google "medscape, 541952".

SlightlyAngrySlug · 14/04/2007 23:57

Just to add a controversial point before I head to bed...

When I was weaning DTDs before the guidlines were changed I was told in no uncertain terms "you must wean before 6 months otherwise they will have problems learning to chew properly" Does that mean that all of the babies that have been weaned under the new guidlines are going to suffer and not be able to chew 'properly' for the rest of their lives???

AitchTwoOh · 15/04/2007 00:02

i think it does, SAS... poor little dribbly buggers.

and as i mentioned earlier, crunchie, i do think there's more room for debate on the FF issue. twinkle, what did you ever find on that subject? anything good?

Soapbox · 15/04/2007 00:03

The Bliss website for premature babies still refers to that advice Slug. In fact it only fairly recently changed to between 4 and 7 months (non-adjusted age) - it used to be a by 4 months.

'When can I wean my premature baby?
Premature babies have a well-developed capacity for digestion in many ways, and even very premature babies can digest and absorb milk when it is gradually introduced. We recommend weaning between 4-7 months from the babys date of birth, for the following reasons:

Babies begin to be able to make some early 'chewing movements' from around 4 months. If this happens much earlier and your baby seems distressed, check the symptoms with your doctor.

It is important for the development of the mouth and jaw muscles that babies start solids around the time that these chewing movements begin.

At around 4-7 months babies are usually willing to take new flavours. As they grow older, they may become suspicious of new foods and these can take longer to be accepted.

If a baby is used to a spoon and semi-solids by 7 months, the introduction of lumps later on may be easier.'

VeniVidiVickiQV · 15/04/2007 00:03

Crunchie, i think you are confusing the "critical 6 month" with the actual critical 4 month. THe research does indicate that there could be increased risks of the aforementioned before this time. 6 months is advised more as a precaution than prevention as such. Certainly evidence has been found that exposing infants to solids before 6 months can increase the likelihood of developing allergies, particularly if allergies are present with the family.

And as I said in my post, I always post with allergies in mind, because of my DD.

And as with the links already posted, there are plenty of research studies that indicate this.

Twinklemegan · 15/04/2007 00:04

For hard, read impossible. It just seems to get mixed up with exclusive breastfeeding which is great, but not relevant to us formula feeders.