Weaning breastfed baby before 6 months

[womanofdulwich]

of course full babies like adults sleep longer plimsoul. Have you never tried going on a diet yourself and woken up starving? Believe me if you dont eat enough it catches up on you and you wake up in the early hours and prowl the house for food.

[plimsoul]

of course womanofdulwich, like all things to do with babies it makes impeccable sense.

[Huggers]

em, it's not suggesting weaning before 6 months but to add solids earlier surely? I breast fed mine for a year but also introduced solids at 4months. I think this article is being misinterpreted as encouraging mothers to stop breastfeeding when it certainly isnt.

[sophiechristophy]

if iron deficiency is a key reason in advocating weaning earlier than 6 months, why is that not followed by advocating natural sources of iron rich foods for weaning on to? most weaning advice for pre 6 month weaning recommends the whole pureed fruit/pureed veg route - not exactly going to boost the iron supplies unlest it's leafy green veg and dates that is being pureed!

i wonder what we would all do in a time before 'advice'. Would we think it made sense to give solids to our babies before they can sit up on their own? Before they can hold the food they are eating?

[Saila]

any basic cereal (meant for babies) will have masses of iron in it -

anyway - the point is yet again women are infighting over personal choices, vulnerable woman are feeling guilty that they're doing/have done the wrong thing.. again

it's so repeititive

if men reared children in the early months i wonder if they'd be more supportive of each other?

this sort of thing just fuels division and it's really sad to watch and we're all guilty of it

edit to say: cereal meant for babies or low in salt and sugar... *shoots self*

[katgod]

One child born under the old 4 month regime who loved the solids from 16 weeks and loves his food now, two born in the new 6 month regime. The older one I tried on solids at 16 weeks, but she was not intersted so I offered it once a week til at 5.5 months she liked it. Younger one just not bothered til 6 months. Each child different. They have 2 grannies who reckon they should have had a rusk or scrambled egg at 12 days old like me and DH had. We don't have allergies or diabetes AND as well as being given solids at 2 weeks old we were also formula fed. Amazed we survived. Do what is right for you and your baby and ignore 'advice'.

[sophiechristophy]

saila - most basic cereal will also contain salt and sugar.

[littleEDfamily]

Only fortified cereals will have masses of iron. I agree with sc that most of the foods we start our babies on are virtually iron free, so I can't see how earlier introduction of solids will provide much of a barrier to anaemia. I don't think we are personally attacking each other, just sharing our personal interpretations of so called 'evidence' combined with our instincts.

Many of the choices we make about our own health and that of our kids rely on us being able to rationally weigh up potentially conflicting arguments. For instance, should I deny my baby food when everything I observe about them (grabbing my food, feeding on milk constantly, waking in the night) makes me believe they need more than milk because they have an increased chance of developing an allergy later in life??? Equally, I think it's foolish to ignore research and just steam ahead with what feels right ( I remember a lady in my baby group stating she was giving her baby (then 3 months) bottles of juice because she seemed 'bored with water').

Both my girls started on solids (I'm never sure exactly what 'weaned means) around 5.5 months. I belived the guidelines at the time (6 months) were sensible, but as my girls were larger than average, fascinated by food, could sit in a highchair and we had no family history of allergies, I figured a little less than 6 months was a sensible compromise and am pretty comfortable with those decisions, even in light of today's articles.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Not read the posts on here but my breast fed son was not interested in solids until around 10 months old and still hardly ate much, even today at 16 months he is not much interested in food but yet he is just over two stones in weight!! I always took a multi vitamin during breastfeeding also and tried to give him things ( not cereals as he has allergies) that are high in iron.

I think baby will lead and that is what you should go for instead of what these so called experts suggest ( and keep changing!).

[sophiechristophy]

this book has a refreshing section on weaning and first foods:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Food-Mother-Baby-Fertility/dp/1596913940

[sophiechristophy]

well said heidihi!

[Fuschia]

From babymilk action "Three of the four authors of the piece, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, receive funding from the baby food industry. Prof Lucas in particular plays a key role in advising the UK baby food industry, and has opposed the WHO recommendation for many years. In 2003 he went so far as to appear for the defence when one of the largest baby food companies, SMA Wyeth was successfully prosecuted for illegal advertising by Trading Standards. "

[Unkle_Paulie]

like Heidihi says your baby will lead you.. our boy did exactly that and we tried giving him food at 4 mnths and it worked wonders! we realised breast feeding wasn't enough and with a combination of food and milk he was a happy soul ;)

my view is that guidelines, reports and government advice should be acknowledged but not necessarily followed word for word...

[Fuschia]

I am afraid I am a bit of a saddo geek and feel the need to research every issue right back to the source research before deciding what route to take. I think it comes from having a background in economics/statistics and working now with numbers/finance. I detest the dumbing down of science into "common sense" (did you guess?!)

What makes me cross about this press flurry is that there is basically no new informtion, it's a viewpoint based on a selective appraisal of some of the previous body of evidence, but by the time it ends up as press reports esp in the tabloids the message gets so mangled it will lead people to think that breastmilk to 6m is no longer adequate... and there was already a lot of pressure from HVs/MILs/rubbish baby mags to back the "hungry baby at 4m" brigade.

It's a real shame the BMJ has allowed itself to be the mouthpiece for this shoddy piece.

[emily88]

i get really pissed off at the goverment think they know what is best for every child. how can someone in a office now whts best for my child. ive worked with children 4 years and have a child of my own i started givin her food at 4 months coz she was read and theres been no problems.

[sophiechristophy]

Fuschia - I share your frustration. The baby food/formula industry have a lot to answer for, promoting formula and spoon feeding and early weaning to a point where it is generally accepted as the 'normal' way for babies. Then press releases like this inaccurately reinforce these commercially motivated misconceptions.

[Fuschia]

A study into attitudes of mothers to weaning/early weaning:

http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/4/471.full

This was produced when the guideline was still 4m but the comments of mothers about perceptions of hunger etc are very interesting, along with "the rationales used to support particular actions were often relatively simple and based on lay concept of `evidence'. The most frequent justification cited was short-term signs of `health', mostly perceived as signs of contentment or happiness and absence of immediate `disease' or `distress'. "

[Polly D]

Fuschia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> What makes me cross about this press flurry is

> that there is basically no new informtion, it's a

> viewpoint based on a selective appraisal of some

> of the previous body of evidence, but by the time

> it ends up as press reports esp in the tabloids

> the message gets so mangled it will lead people to

> think that breastmilk to 6m is no longer

> adequate... and there was already a lot of

> pressure from HVs/MILs/rubbish baby mags to back

> the "hungry baby at 4m" brigade.

>

Really? You know, equally there's a hell of a lot of pressure to 'keep going' with breastfeeding and 'keep off' weaning until 6 months. The truth is we all hear what we want to hear, and it's about making well-informed but personal choices about what's hopefully best for our children.

[charlottep]

yep, i agree completely Polly, we hear what we want to. Personally, I've always found the pressure in this country to bf exclusively a bit much. Obviously, I understand the reasons why, but the delivery of the message often feels militant. Likewise, if the authors of this research receive funding from the food industries, that is disappointing. Recommendations are clearly useful, but informed personal choice has to be paramount, and as long as we're motivated by what we feel is best for our children then we're doing a good job IMO.

[srisky]

The reason there is so much differing advice re: breast feeding/weaning is there is no specific time when a baby should begin solids. Every child is different. The advice to breast feed exclusively and for as long as possible is most applicable to countries where there is a lack of clean water and access to appropriate foods, such that early weaning could result in severe illness or death of the child.

I have been on the breastfeeding workshop run by King's and I left feeling very angry. There is undue pressure to breastfeed exclusively and for as long as possible. The rise in allergies, atopia, childhood obesity etc is multifactorial and not due solely to early weaning or formula milk.

There are far too many babies admitted for intravenous fluids to treat terrible dehydration/weight loss as a result of mothers desperately struggling to breastfeed, as this is what they are constantly told is 'best' for baby. Go with whatever works for your baby. Try breastfeeding and if it is difficult then get help EARLY. You are not a bad mother if you can not breast feed and your baby will not suffer all sorts of ills as a result.

COI: Myself and siblings were all partly breastfed, partly formula fed, weaned early. Bolied water introduced from birth (shock horror). None of us have any allergies or medical/solical/psychiatric problems and all have 'achieved' academically. Equally, I know of plently of people who were purely breastfed and have asthma, eczema, hay fever and food allergies. What does this tell me? Nothing. Be sensible - breast/formula feed and introduce healthy food when you and your baby are ready.

[sillywoman]

charlottep Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> informed personal choice has

> to be paramount, and as long as we're motivated by

> what we feel is best for our children then we're

> doing a good job IMO.

Very much agree with this sentiment, and feel that Fuschia et al are saying the something similar, but are very sensibly pointing out that it's crucial to understand the motivations behind the 'expert' opinions that so often colour a parents sense of what 'feel is best' thing to do. Often their motivations aren't all that they seem - as Fuschia's diligent research proves.

[jollybaby]

I agree with srisky about the kings run breast feeding workshop. I was seething by the end of it. I couldn't believe that the phrase 'damage being done' was used to describe giving a baby one bottle of formula. This was not at all helpful in my opinion, and only likely to add to the stress felt by a new mum struggling to breast feed.

[Fuschia]

Actually, the most depressing thing of all is that the selective rehashing of those cherrypicked pieces of old research which highlight the need for more research into the mechanisms of weaning and allergy... are, predictably, now being used to undermine the whole science of the benefits of breastfeeding. The juggernaut that is the baby feeding industry just rolls right over the science, yet again.

I wish the "breastfeeding mafia" was even 100th as powerful.

We're talking about the pros and cons of exclusive breastfeeding to 6m. Have a guess what the % in the UK is, of babies exclusively breastfed at 6 months................................

One percent!!!! Just one percent!!!

Probably a bit higher in ED due to the demographics (class/education) but nonetheless, the number is neglibible.

So the "pressure to bf" we hear so much about can't be that powerful. And I must admit I haven't seen any of it, in my recent struggles to bf my tongue tied newborn. I told any number of midwives, maternity support workers, HV that he wouldn't latch on and there was just ONE NHS midwife who then tried to offer assistance. All the others pretty much shrugged!

[buggie]

...would be interested to know how many not "exclusively br/feeding" are actually only giving one bottle/top ups of formula a day - there's a big gulf between EBF'ing and fully formula feeding which doesn't seem to be acknowledged. Anything I've seen on the subject of feeding seems to see the subject as black and white without taking note of the many shades of grey inbetween.

[Smiler]

Is anyone part of the trial at Tommy's Evelina where they are introducing certain solids at three months (their hypothesis being that it may help to reduce the incidence of allergies)? Got a letter about this when my daughter was born in August and thought it looked interesting, but didn't take part.