Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
FrannyandZooey · 15/04/2007 13:54

Woohoo Suzy

is that one in the acronym list? And shouldn't it be

HTTKOY?

shonaspurtle · 15/04/2007 14:11

Welliemum if you email me - shonaspurtle at gmail dot com - I will send you the article.

welliemum · 15/04/2007 16:01

Brilliant!! Thanks so much shonaspurtle! I really appreciate that.

I've just quickly skimmed though the article and there's lots of interesting stuff there - but it's 3am here and dd2 has finished feeding and I need my sleep!

Will have another look tomorrow and post some comments.

Original poster
SenoraPostrophe · 15/04/2007 20:12

I didn't mean to sound like a rabid global warming denyer when I said the WHO was political: I just meant that in this case the guidelines don't appear to be quite as evidence-led as I would have expected.

That said, it's not just companies who can be biased you know. and I doubt the baby food companies are shaking in their boots over the idea that everyone weans 2 months later.

As far as I can see, there is lots of research which shows that breastfeeding for longer is better (accomapnied by baby rice or not), and that weaning before 4 months is a bad idea, but almost no research that shows weaning at 4-6 months is in any way dangerous. The few studies that do show ill effects were conducted in developing countries. Again, if you know otherwise then please post a link.

But also I really would just like to know why people feel so strongly about this. The WHO also advise that babies should be breastfed until they are two, but people don't seem to feel quite as strongly about that.

OP posts:
welliemum · 15/04/2007 22:23

I am your fairy godmother, and your wish is granted!

PEDIATRICS Vol. 119 No. 4 April 2007, pp. e837-e842

Breastfeeding and Hospitalization for Diarrheal and Respiratory Infection in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study.

A vast study of nearly 16 000 babies aged 0-8 months.

Link is here - it seems to be free to all.

Their conclusion:
"Our findings confirm that breastfeeding, particularly when exclusive and prolonged, protects against severe morbidity in contemporary United Kingdom.

In our study, only 1.2% of infants were exclusively breastfed for at least 6 months, and the protective effects of breastfeeding were large; a population-level increase in exclusive, prolonged breastfeeding would be of great public health benefit.

Our results may be used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions.

Better information on the risks and benefits that are associated with infant feeding methods, including prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding, will enable parents to make an informed choice."

welliemum · 15/04/2007 22:40

So where have all the weaning sceptics gone?

SlightlyAngrySlug · 15/04/2007 22:43
AitchTwoOh · 15/04/2007 22:48

oooh, well done welliemum.

SlightlyAngrySlug · 15/04/2007 22:49

But only 1.2% of babies exclusively bf for 6m (even on the previous guidlines)

welliemum · 15/04/2007 22:55

Yes, the 1.2% was a bit shocking... but having read the violent antipathy towards the WHO guidelines of HVs and mumsnet amongst others, I guess it's not surprising.

SlightlyAngrySlug · 15/04/2007 22:58

Actually I think it is worth posting the results section of the abstract.....I have highlighted what I believe to be the important bits...

RESULTS. Seventy percent of infants were breastfed (ever), 34% received breast milk for at least 4 months, and 1.2% were exclusively breastfed for at least 6 months. By 8 months of age, 12% of infants had been hospitalized (1.1% for diarrhea and 3.2% for lower respiratory tract infection). Data analyzed by month of age, with adjustment for confounders, show that exclusive breastfeeding, compared with not breastfeeding, protects against hospitalization for diarrhea and lower respiratory tract infection. The effect of partial breastfeeding is weaker. Population-attributable fractions suggest that an estimated* 53% of diarrhea hospitalizations could have been prevented each month by exclusive breastfeeding and 31% by partial breastfeeding. Similarly, 27% of lower respiratory tract infection hospitalizations could have been prevented each month by exclusive breastfeeding and 25% by partial breastfeeding. The protective effect of breastfeeding for these outcomes wears off soon after breastfeeding cessation.

shonaspurtle · 15/04/2007 23:01

1.2% is insanely low but I'm not entirely surprised. Ds is 5 months and I am starting to get a bit weary of the, really fairly constant, questions on when he's going onto solids.

I haven't met anyone in rl who has waited until 6 months.

UCM · 15/04/2007 23:03

I am no expert but I think, that some babies simply want something to chew on. I will be giving my LO crusts (homemade of course) when she wants them. If it's before 6 months, then so be it. But I am not going to give her proper food before then. My DS wanted something to chew on and thats what I gave him.

I think bikkie pegs were made when weaning was advised at 9 months in the 20's.

I think you can give them something to bang their gums on, it's just what really.

harpsichordcarrier · 15/04/2007 23:03

oh that's a great study isn't it?
I am in a minority of 1.2% and just for tonight I shall feel proud and I don't fucking care

Soapbox · 15/04/2007 23:04

Slug - that doesn't actually tell us what we need to know, and I can't be arsed to read another report tonight!

It doesn't tell us what the decrease in gastrointestinal infections were in the exlusively breastfed to 6 months group vs the exclusively breasfed to 4 months group.

All the rest of the study tells us is that exclusively breastfeeding rather than mixed feeding is better. In other words the report mainly seems to be about mixed feeding (with formula) rather than about weaning age. The results to mirror the results of a couple of the WHO studies though.

SlightlyAngrySlug · 15/04/2007 23:05

The babies were born between September 2000 and August 2001 so the guidlines were still 4-6m so I guess the 1.2% until 6m isn't quite as shocking...

harpsichordcarrier · 15/04/2007 23:06

but soapbox what about this bit:
Population-attributable fractions suggest that an estimated* 53% of diarrhea hospitalizations could have been prevented each month by exclusive breastfeeding and 31% by partial breastfeeding.
(my italics)

Soapbox · 15/04/2007 23:07

Yes, but that is about Formula vs breasfeeding, it would appear - since so few fed exlusively breastmilk past 4 months. It isn;t about introducing solids to the diet.

SlightlyAngrySlug · 15/04/2007 23:08

I agree it is possible more relevant for the bf v ff debate. BUT the fact that it is saying that you introduce anything other than bm increases chances of hospitalisation as far as I am concerned encompasses solids (as they are not breast milk).

What it doesn't deal with is the longer term effects such as allergies...crohns...blah blah blah.

I guess that there will be follow-ups on this millenium cohort regarding these longer term issues and that is what we are/should all be waiting for....

harpsichordcarrier · 15/04/2007 23:09

yes but there is a real benefit to not introducing anything other than bm after four months and before sixmonths.
whether that is formula or solids

SlightlyAngrySlug · 15/04/2007 23:10

but with a measlie 1.2% exclusively bf until 6m the statistical power of analyses on longer term effects will be severly impinged.

harpsichordcarrier · 15/04/2007 23:11

indeed.
SMS why are you angry and a slug??

SlightlyAngrySlug · 15/04/2007 23:13

Slug is my new name (but going to change again shortly. Angry cos of this

Soapbox · 15/04/2007 23:14

Harpsi - that is not what the study is saying or at least as far as I can see. It really does seem to be taking about liquid feeding not about introducing solids to formula and/or breastfed babies.

It is a good support for the breast is best message though, but not persuasive (as slug says probably because of the statistical limitations of the small number of exclusively breastfed babies post 4 months)in terms of a weaning to solids argument.

terramum · 15/04/2007 23:16

Coming to this late & not had time to read all the messages...but I wonder if there is any research from countries where bfing is very common like norway.....Im guessing the 1.2 % of excl bfing for 6 months was hampered somewhat by the lack of maternity leave when the study took place. iirc it was only made 6 months in 2003.