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

Weaning

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

Some recent research suggests we should wean at 4 - 6 months to reduce risk of coeliac or diabetes.

23 replies

ThomasTankEngine · 06/08/2007 21:23

See here

OP posts:
pinkspottywellies · 06/08/2007 21:26

Nestle research?

fingerwoman · 06/08/2007 21:27

but note this " Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Pediatr Program." at the top.
hmmmmm

MrsBadger · 06/08/2007 21:29

(am trying really hard to ignore who sponsored that session)

ThomasTankEngine · 06/08/2007 21:30

Yes I noticed that too.

Am I being naive, but how would this it benefit them? Weaning is onto food, not from BM to Formula.

OP posts:
MrsBadger · 06/08/2007 21:31

NB that would be Nestle sponsoring the knees-up where this work was presented but not the actual research itself.
The fact that they recommend bf for its protective effects rather belies Nestles involvement anyway...

But tis only one man, one presentation in one workshop.
This is a better study.

ThomasTankEngine · 06/08/2007 21:31

We still don't drink nescafe coffee here at the .engine shed

OP posts:
ThomasTankEngine · 06/08/2007 21:34

But doesn't that still say its less (coeliac)risk to intro food at 4 - 6 months?

OP posts:
canmummy · 06/08/2007 21:37

OMG!

My mum regularly tells everyone she gave me and my brother rusks against hv advice at 6 weeks and we were ok

We are both diabetic

ThomasTankEngine · 06/08/2007 21:39

But do you have a family history canmummy?

OP posts:
lljkk · 06/08/2007 21:44

Ah F*ck, it's only one study. When they get 15 more studies like it, all with the same conclusions and all done to a high standard, I will begin to believe. Wait for the meta-analysis.

Also, they say "in predisposed individuals" which suggests the study was done specifically on people with a history of diabetes or coeliac disease in the family. Coeliac especially dosn't affect many people, so am surprised they also described it as a "large immunological investigation" maybe it was "large" in that it was wide-ranging, didn't actually involve more than a few hundred babies (if that) for coeliac disease.

canmummy · 06/08/2007 21:51

Sort of - my mum is an only child of an only child so our only relatives are fairly distant but yes there's diabetes there.

TheBlonde · 06/08/2007 21:55

Nestle do sell baby food
Just not in the UK

Desiderata · 06/08/2007 21:57

A pre-disposition towards diabetes is hereditary. You cannot make that link.

If you read the article properly, it is not suggesting that anyone gives up breast-feeding. I don't see what the problem is, personally. It's a just another piece of advice in an ocean of advice. People will take from it what they want and leave, or totally deny, the rest.

lljkk · 06/08/2007 22:02

Not sure what Desiderata meant by "cannot make that link", but interesting factoid: Something like 40% of people with Type I diabetes have no family history of the disease... (IIRC)

tatt · 06/08/2007 22:10

article suggests that there is less risk introducing gluten if you are breastfeeding - so is an argument for breastfeeding longer. However its an observational study not a randomised trial. That means it could include people who weaned late because they have a family history of coeliac disease. Only real conclusion I'd draw from it is that you don't introduce gluten early.

Desiderata · 06/08/2007 23:59

canmummy's strong implication that she is diabetic because she was given farley's rusks at six weeks.

Not something I would have done, lljkk, but I don't think you can blame diabetes on it.

What you will tend to find with childhood Type 1 Diabetes is that there is a family link in the majority of cases. You just may have to go back a few generations, possibly to a time when it was not diagnosed or medically recorded.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/08/2007 00:09

Well, the 6 month mark is still looking pretty good as far as i can see.

And the recommendation to b/feed for a further 2-3 months after starting weaning is also a bonus since the no. of b/fed infants drops dramatically past the 4 mth mark (i'd like folk to b/feed for the full 2+ years personally, but hey ho )

All research very welcome, IMO.

berolina · 07/08/2007 00:15

Nestle sell baby food over here (Germany), under another brand name.

I thought the principle was that waiting until 6 months will not cause harm, but weaning before 6 months might (i.e. not will, but might)?

VeniVidiVickiQV · 07/08/2007 00:16

I think its a case of at 6 mths the gut will be most likely mature by then.

4-6 months is not guaranteed. That's not to say that folk, particularly those who are blw shouldnt start when their lo can pick up food and put it in their mouths, whether they be 20 weeks or 26 weeks.

ThomasTankEngine · 07/08/2007 09:56

Ok the information seems to be:

WHO says just milk for the first 6 months.

This research says no food pre 3 months and post 7 months may cause problems.

Therefore we should introduce all food at 6 - 7 months.

canmummy, I strongly suspect your diabetes is family history related. Don't be too hard on your mum!

But there can be a culture of well, I gave my baby food at 10 weeks (the earliest one of my friends did) as almost a status thing.

OP posts:
thehairybabysmum · 07/08/2007 10:16

I agree with Thomas apart from i would draw the conclusion that there seems to be a window of opportunity for introducing cereal based foods from 4-6 months, but to do so gradually in small amounts with continued bf....seems like reasonable middle ground advice anyway.

The link after 7 months is also worrying as i have seen a few threads on here where a small no. of posters seem to take pride in how late they can leave it to wean...the same kind of status-y thing that Thomas talks about with early weaning, both of which worrying.

SeamonstEr · 07/08/2007 10:56

I weaned my ds's at 4 months as that was what was recommended then, but I agree with thehairybabysmum about introducing runny solids if required with lots of b/fing at 4 and then lumpier foods around 6 months, which is what I was told then anyway..., but not unneccesarily, some babies do not need any thing other than milk before then anyway.

I'm rambling, sorry.

ThomasTankEngine · 07/08/2007 13:40

That sounds like a good way forward hairybabysmum.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page