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

[SenoraPostrophe]

....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?

I think this is where BLW is probably more useful if the whole chewing/working of jaw muscle statements are actually backed up with evidence/research. Surely BLW and the nibbling on sticks/chunks of food would do far more for a baby's jaw muscles than a spoon of slush?

Personally, I dont buy this "you must wean by 6 months". Babies mouth and chew their fists, their rattles etc etc. I dont see how this would be any different to chewing a stick of carrot.

Although I love reading research papers, so if anyone has a link???

VVVQV - the WHO research (or at least all the studies referenced on their site) does not make any connection between the incidence of allergic reactions and weaning age. Most of the studies specifically mention excema and asthma, one mentions otitus media specifically. Of course there are other forms of allergic reactions and the studies tend to be short term ones which wouldn;t tell you much about longer term allergic tendencies.

However, I think it is fair to say, that the WHO guidelines to delay weaning to 6 months is not based on any increased propensity to allergic reactions.

Ahhhh DTDs were prem....we had a 3 week window in which to wean them as the advice used to be 16wks (old rules) + half the period of prematurity. So they were 13wks prem, so we had to add 7wks, meaning we had (apparently) to wean them between 23-26weeks. We felt very pressured with the small time window and in hindsight they were sooo not ready.

I don't know of the research directly VVVQV...that is just what we were told (by HV when DTDs were getting ready for weaning. Going to bed now but if I have the impetus to look for research tomorrow I will give you a shout.

No, maybe not. But there are plenty of studies that have found that the earlier you introduce solids, the more likely a sensitisation occurs. This has been found to be the case over and over.

Since the argument that the WHO covers worldwide issues, and most folk determine that it is too wide a net, and also since the incidence of allergies in the UK is on the increase - I would say that it is pretty valid findings for the UK at least.

Have you got any info on jaw muscle development?

I think there is some research that is starting to show that that is not always the case - around peanut allergies. A friend and I were talking today that there is research which indicates that avoiding peanuts during pregnancy and lactation, does not reduce (and may indeed increase) the likelihood of allergic reactions in the child.

Indeed if you look at cultures where peanuts are an integral part of the diet there is no increased propensity to peanut allergy amongst the population, unlike in the UK where the incidence has been increasing signficantly. This seems to be leading to a suspicion that there are other factors at play - which is the purpose of the research.

My own person view is that we are at the very beginning of the trail to better understand allergies/feeding/weaning and that guidance will change over the years as more research is done!

Oh, which countries/cultures were those soapy?

I am sure guidelines will change in future, which can only be a good thing really, because it means that more is understood about these things.

Mostly Asian, I believe VVVQV.

on a noticeboard in a Sixth Form which i saw with my own 2 eyes. student X was allergic to all nuts EXCEPT peanuts. he was Asian.

yes i think other factors are at play so things will change.

I understand that there are a high proportion of UK Asians with IBS in comparision to White British with IBS. Very interesting.

Well I'm off to bed now!

I've really enjoyed being able to take part in a weaning thread that hasn't become thermo-nuclear (I normally just lurk and watch them blow)

Coward

Night soapy

The chewing and jaw development interests me. I have a child with cerebral palsy and her weaning was very different to my older children. 3 kids, 1 was weaned at 4 months, guidlines then 3 months. next 1 was highly advanced in her physical development and did her own version of BLW ie swiped the food, chewed and swallowed at 4-5 months and 3rd was a breastfeeding demon and was closer to 7 months. No4 had huge swallow problems and had mush for nearly 2 years. Lumps caused major choking. She is approaching teenage years and has a very pronounced overbite and a small lower jaw. This is probably due to her lack of chewing and she hasn't built muscles

I have a dyspraxic daughter too, she never crawled and because of this she never built good shoulder or hip muscles and will need to bulid them in a gym, almost artificially. Could jaw muscles be similar I wonder?

I believe the art of good weaning has been lost due to blenders and jars of food. Food used to be mashed finely and different foods have different textures. Finger foods were introduced as soon as they could hold them and it was all fruit and veg. Then we had mass produced jars and packets. Food became one texture for first stage, mush....then lumpy mush for the next stage. Developmentally, a child over 6 months prob doesn't need any kind of mush and that is where BLW is rising. People are realising babies are very clever

I have been reading lots and I think people have taken little bits of research and lumped them all together and confused them with WHO guidelines. WHO says no harm comes from waitng til 6 months. It doesn't it will harm before. It also says weaning should be complete by 8 months. Then you have kellymom and it appears that the open/closed gut comes from there and their research. And the allergy research classes early weaning as under 15 weeks. So put it all together and it gives you good guidelines but it doesn't come under one umbrella

I still believe as much as some babies will walk at 7 months and some 17 months, babies develop at very differnent rates and I don't see why weaning is any different. If a baby is showing signs that the parent thinks are valid and that baby is a reasonable age (say 5 months plus) then it is up to them to make a decision. Same if the baby is 7 months and showing no signs, why bother. Where the advice must come in is around the people that think under 4 months is good to wean. Strong evidence suggests that is not good

I'm really glad my littly days are over as no one (professionals)it seems can give uniform advice on this subject and that just leads to amjor confusion

Sorry for waffling, wine to blame

I think that's an excellent summary, bigbird. There are different ways of looking at weaning age and there isn't enough knowledge yet to link all the aspects together.

All I would add to that is to point out that I don't see anyone on MN getting outraged at the idea of weaning before 6 months, as was suggested earlier on.

In fact I challenge anyone to find a rabid posting about weaning pre 6 months on MN.

Plenty of people saying "why wean earlier when you don't have to" which is my personal take on the evidence, and I think is quite a common view here on MN, but where are all these militants that keep getting mentioned?

There are some rabid postings about weaning at less than 3 months and though I'm not mad keen on rabid postings, objectively, there are known risks of weaning that early. So if anyone says "with current knowledge, weaning at 9 weeks is a silly thing to do" the evidence is on their side.

Oh, one more thing - I looked into the "window of opportunity" theory, ie that if babies don't start chewing at a particular age they won't learn to deal with lumps properly.

I don't have the references any more, but in summary, this has now been discredited.

What I read was that some children have prolonged difficulty with lumpy food, but this is the result of various conditions, not of the way their parents fed them.

In other words if you took a random child with no swallowing difficulty, and kept them on sloppy food for long time, and then handed them a steak, they would be fine. There isn't a point at which the ability to chew will be lost forever.

me again! (talking to myself while you're all asleep)

Can anybody help - I'm trying to get hold of the full article of the abstract below, but the computer isn't co-operating.

From the abstract, it looks as if there's a good discussion of exclusive breastfeeding and the mechanisms of how this might protect against various risks. The authors are most interested in HIV, but the discussion is probably relevant to all of us.

Anyone?

------

Exclusive breast-feeding: does it have the potential to reduce breast-feeding transmission of HIV-1?

Smith MM, Kuhn L
Nutr Rev 2000; 58:333-40.

Abstract
Exclusive breast-feeding is unambiguously the optimal infant feeding practice and is universally promoted in the absence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). It is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality from diarrheal and respiratory diseases. Recent findings suggest that exclusive breast-feeding may pose less risk of HIV-1 transmission than the more common practice of mixed feeding (i.e., breast-feeding concurrent with the feeding of water, other fluids, and foods), which has important infant feeding policy implications for low-resource settings.

This paper reviews the biologic mechanisms associated with exclusive breast-feeding that provide protection against gastrointestinal, respiratory, and atopic diseases, and evaluates the relevance of these mechanisms for HIV-1 transmission.

Potential mechanisms include reduction in dietary antigens and enteric pathogens that may maintain integrity of the intestinal mucosal barrier and limit inflammatory responses of the gut mucosa; promotion of beneficial intestinal microflora that may increase resistance to infection and modulate the infant's immune response; alteration in specific antiviral or anti-inflammatory factors in human milk that may modulate maternal hormonal or immunologic status; and maintenance of mammary epithelial integrity that may reduce viral load in breast milk.

It appears that this citation is not available as a full text electronically. Will double check at work tho.

Have just had a week off so will have lots of catching up to do Monday so it will prob be Tues/Weds but I promise I will look.

Yay, slug! It would be great if you could look.

Talking to myself is by no means a guarantee of a quiet thread though - am v. good at arguing with myself and things can get quite heated, I warn you..

[barking mad]

SenoraPostrophe in answer to your question I weaned DS1 at 23 weeks. Had hoped to get to 6 months but he was waking during the night so I thought he needed them. DS2 was 22 weeks and DS3 was 20 weeks (my fattest baby!).

I agree that there is not maternal 'instinct' as far as starting solids goes. I decided DD was not getting solids till 26 weeks. Yes she woke during the night, I breastfed her, went with the flow, my milk production upped and she slept through again.

I am not sure the debate about when to start solids is political - who is gaining from it?

The overall health of adults is pretty shocking and it is known that obesity etc. stems from childhood. I think there is a drive to tackle childhood obesity and delaying overfeeding babies is one tactic.

I think manufacturers of baby food have a lot to gain by people weaning earlier than 6 months. If you wean early, you can't really give normal food and are locked into the puree thing. I think once you start giving your child separate, "special" food for babies, then that is the way you are more likely to continue.

If you however believe that milk is all a baby needs for at least the first six months of life (medical exceptions notwithstanding), then the baby food industry kind of goes up in smoke. There isn't any need to buy any food for your child that you wouldn't already be buying and eating yourself.

but people don't need to buy special fromage frais or barbie spaghetti or ice lollies but they do for older children so all is not lost for industry

'am really beginning to think that the world of health advice is more political than scientific.' Said SenoraPostraphe

I agree with you F&Z that baby food companies gain out of babies weaning early, but not after 6 months.

So who gains from later weaning?

yes but zippi i do think that if you've never once bought anything special from the baby food aisle then you may not think to in future. i get all ditzy in front of the organix ranges, i just don't know where to put myself.

"yes but zippi i do think that if you've never once bought anything special from the baby food aisle then you may not think to in future."

yes that was the point I was trying to make. I think once you have accepted that children need "special", "different" food to adults then the door is open to sell you all sorts of crap.

Mears I was just responding to the point that weaning age was not political. As we both believe, it is when early weaning is encouraged.

has TTKOY?