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?

Hmmm - I have read that document Welliesmum and it was far from persuasive imo. The main factor seemed to be the increased risk of infection in the Honduran studies. There was also a concern that some studies were indicating a sub-optimal iron level issue, but they then decided that wasn't statistically reliable due to small sample size. And the other factor was that mums lost more weight in feeding to 6 months vs 4 (which in the still - developing world is not good news.

I was totally underwhelmed by the evidence presented.

The practicalities of exclusive breastfeeding are a worry. It's a HUGE commitment and the realities of life are going to make it difficult for anyone without fabulous support.

What's encouraging though, is the suggestion that even a short amount of exclusive bf is worthwhile ie it's not an all-or-nothing thing.

ours came round to the house to do a 'weaning chat' at 3 months, but the official 'weaning talks' were held at 4. i was told the same thing about people not waiting, but tbh i thought it was a bullshit answer as she'd completed the entire chat without mentioning the WHO guidelines, just saying 'in the next while you'll be starting weaning'. i hardly need add that she'd never heard of BLW. she's a nice enough woman, but not rigorous, iykwim?

soapbox.

Sceptism is good. I'm a sceptic too, although interestingly, I see the WHO advice quite differently. I did read around the context quite a bit though. I was reading because I needed to decide when to wean dd1 and I was really hoping it would be earlier rather than sooner, so you can see I was quite convinced by what I read!

The iron thingy - I've found somethign recent which is reassuring, will pst it when I have time - just need an extra 3 hours in the day....

I'm probably coming across as dogmatic in these posts but I really hope I'm not, and that my mind is still open.

I think it's very likely that advice will change in 1 way or another. I also think it's very unlikely that the 1-size-fits-all advice will be appropriate for everyone.

That said, I'm pretty convinced at the moment that delaying weaning as long as possible is a good idea.

Ouch! Welliemum... stop nailing things to me.

Sorry mast

I'll take my colours away and polyfilla the holes, OK?

kiss it better.

er.....mwah

All better now!

well i think we've both learned a valuable lesson there.

sorry welliemum - was asleep.

Soapbiox is right though: that study is a resounding endorsement of breastfeeding, but, like the others, it does not really say anything about exclusive bfing at 4-6 months because that data is lumped in with the data comparing exclusive/mixed bfing at 1, 2 and 3 months.

It's true that breastmilk is enough for 6 month old babies, but that in itself is not a good reason to pillory women who give baby rice at 4 months (not that anyone here does that, but my doctor was a bit on the forceful side).

really? what did he say? where are you based? am amazed to hear of a GP suggesting anything other than '4-6 months'...

she, in spain.

she's usually very nice actually.

SP, the study does indicate that exclusive bf to 6 months is better than exclusive bf to 4 months, but it's implicit rather than explicit.

They assessed the risks of exclusive bf (can I abbreviate to EBF, this 1 handed typing is tiring!) vs not EBF month by month, adjusted for age, and found a significant effect. So, babies EBF during month 6 of life were better off than babies not EBF during month 6. Do you see what I mean?

This is a stronger way of examining the question because it avoids preconceptions about which months are significant. The debate about 4 vs 6 months is a cultural one - this way of looking at it avoids that bias.

EBF is pretty much a 1 way street in that if you stop at (say) 4 months, you're unlikely to be able to EBF 2 months later. So the study is showing us what happens when you introduce non-breastmilk feeds.

What the study doesn't show is the difference between introducing formula and solids. However, we already know that babies don't need solids at 4 months.

The (to me) bigger question is about formula, and I think it's very important because for many mums, exclusive bf to 6 months is going to be very hard for practical reasons. Those mums deserve good info on risk/benefit to make that kind of decision.

Thats probably part of the point. As far as I can remeber (and I am not searching the document now as it is 11pm here) teh WHO recommendations are based upon weaning from breastmilk....i.e stopping exclusive bf, which is the same as the article.

I think that as far as teh research is concerned there often seems to be little definitive distinction between weaning onto formula v weaning onto solids.

However as has been send - if a child is exclusively bf it is implicit that they are not on solids. The same is not true teh other way round. A child that is not exclusively bf could be on ff alone, bf + solids or ff + solids.

Yes, I wish there was more research making those distinctions, ie bf, ff, solids and combinations of those, because in real life, that's what's happening - exclusive bf-ers are the minority.

It would be very helpful if parents could compare for example bf baby starting solids vs starting formula top-ups.

God I sound like cod - I hope you could understand me...

Unfortunately due to the nature of this type of research it will probably be a couple of years at least before the outcome of any experiments which are currently going on are published. I hope that because of the chnage in guidlines the proportion exclusively bf may increase [hopeful]

I keep banging on about this South African HIV study which was published recently, because as far as I know it's the only big, proper study that's shown different risks for formula vs solids. It does fit with the gut permeability work, ie that for gut permeability, formula is closer to bf.

I expect this Millenium Child thingy is going to look at those questions, but as you say SMS, it will need more follow-up time because the really interesting outcomes are long-term ones.

Are you in the science industry WM? You seem to be taking this in in a rational, scientific manner

Yes, everyone else except me is hysterical and rabid, is what you're saying?

Nah - you know what I mean. If anyone else wants to come and tell me they are a scientist tis fine by me. I was asking about you based on the posts on this thread.....

Its just that it takes a bit of practice to read a scientific paper 'properly'...

Yes I was SMScientist.

geeks