Happy Mothers Breastfed Babies
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Article touting studies that say its okay to start at 4 months.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    21,259

    Default Re: Article touting studies that say its okay to start at 4 months.

    Here's the full text original British Medical Journal article: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full

    From just a quick perusal, I think the media reports are badly skewed. The media is taking an "OMG, exclusive breastfeeding might be harmful!" angle because that makes for a controversial, eye-grabbing headline. Whereas it seems to me that the paper is making the case that earlier introduction of solids may be beneficial.

    This is from the discussion: "At one extreme, it has been suggested32 that there is insufficient scientific evidence for any lower age for weaning and that “infants should be weaned on demand, which is what most infants and their parents actually do in practice.” It can be argued that, from a biological perspective, the point when breast milk ceases to be an adequate sole source of nutrition would not be expected to be fixed, but to vary according to the infant’s size, activity, growth rate, and sex, and the quality and volume of the breast milk supply. Signalling of hunger by the infant is probably an evolved mechanism that individualises timing of weaning for a mother-infant pair.19 However, others would adopt a more cautious approach, based on data suggesting that the introduction of solid foods before 3 to 4 months may be associated with increased fatness and wheeze later in childhood,33 with an increased risk of allergy, and with higher rates of coeliac disease and type 1 diabetes in infants at risk.26 27 Recently, after a detailed review commissioned by the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority’s panel on dietetic products, nutrition, and allergies concluded that for infants across the EU, complementary foods may be introduced safely between four to six months, and six months of exclusive breast feeding may not always provide sufficient nutrition for optimal growth and development.5"
    Coolest thing my big girl said recently: "How can you tell the world is moving when you are standing on it?"
    Coolest thing my little girl sang recently: "I love dat one-two pupples!"

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,475

    Default Re: Article touting studies that say its okay to start at 4 months.

    This statement suggests to me that they're reaching:
    "Bitter tastes, in particular, may be important in the later acceptance of green leafy vegetables, which may potentially affect later food preferences with influence on health outcomes such as obesity."
    This is supposed to be a scientific study. May shouldn't come into it. Either it does or it doesn't. Two mays in the same statement means that they have no clue and they need to research it further. Their findings are premature and in my opinion, negligent by posting it.
    Mommy to our DD1 early bird (34 weeks, 2 days, 7lbs, 14oz)! Oct. 2nd, 2008 Emergency C-Section, Frank Breech, HEALTHY Girl!
    Weaned @ 17 months
    Our DD2 early bird (37 weeks, 3 days, 7lbs, 12oz) Aug. 10th, 2010 Our Successful VBAC, growing like a bad weed!
    Weaned @ 15 months
    Our DD3 early bird (37 weeks, 3 days, 7lbs, 6oz) Feb. 16th, 2012 Our 2nd VBAC and lightening speedy birth!

    Loving being a Mom of 3, 40 months apart!!
    and

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    21,259

    Default Re: Article touting studies that say its okay to start at 4 months.

    Quote Originally Posted by @llli*amysmom View Post
    This statement suggests to me that they're reaching:This is supposed to be a scientific study. May shouldn't come into it. Either it does or it doesn't. Two mays in the same statement means that they have no clue and they need to research it further. Their findings are premature and in my opinion, negligent by posting it.
    I agree that this is one of the more things in the article. As far as I can tell, there's no citation on that "double may" assertion, which makes it a hypothesis or an opinion, not a theory. It's something the editors of the paper should have caught, and the authors should have been told "put a citation on that or take it out of the paper." Another thing that made me go was where the authors referred to the Belarus PROBIT study as observational- my understanding is that it was a prespective randomised controlled study, not a purely observational one.

    But IDK- if we throw out the entire review paper based on one or two questionable statements, aren't we risking throwing out the baby with the bathwater? I mean, there's plenty in the paper that I was with- like this bit about iron status: "More recent data from 2007 raise further concerns on whether six months’ exclusive breast feeding would reliably meet iron requirements. US infants exclusively breast fed for six months, versus four to five months, were more likely to develop anaemia and low serum ferritin, which is of concern given irreversible long term adverse effects on motor, mental, and social development after iron deficiency.20 21 22 Such risks might be reduced by improving iron status in pregnancy, delaying umbilical cord clamping, and supplementing infants at risk (for example, those with low birth weight)." I mean, a lot of the brouhaha over whether or not breastmilk is "nutritionally adequate" is based on iron levels. And the authors are pointing out that improving prepartum care and delaying cord clamping- early clamping being standard in hospital births occurring in developed countries- could at least in part resolve the issue.

    I don't think I'd defend this review as a whole- too much stuff that makes me go , IYKWIM- but to me it points out interesting directions for new research.
    Last edited by @llli*mommal; January 16th, 2011 at 03:22 PM.
    Coolest thing my big girl said recently: "How can you tell the world is moving when you are standing on it?"
    Coolest thing my little girl sang recently: "I love dat one-two pupples!"

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: Article touting studies that say its okay to start at 4 months.

    Maybe I'm being dense but why not just give EBF babies an iron supplement? At least that's what the drs advised me when ds was born. I have to say that we didn't start solids until after 6 mos and even then he wasn't really too interested for a while. It sounds to me like they are taking a few cases and blowing it out of proportion (like usual) especially when it even states in the article that it is a small group that actually follows the EBF for the first 6 months.
    SAHM to Timothy 8-8-08 Keegan 4-27-11 and Rowen 3-27-13

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,475

    Default Re: Article touting studies that say its okay to start at 4 months.

    Here's a question, if the Mom's have a good diet and are not iron deficient, does the iron still drop off in their breast milk? Would supplementing iron to the Mom's correct any deficiency in the breast milk? Is a prenatal vitamin enough?

    The references seem to assume that all breast milk is equal. But the Mother's diet, vitamin supplements, iron supplements, etc. need to be taken into consideration.
    Mommy to our DD1 early bird (34 weeks, 2 days, 7lbs, 14oz)! Oct. 2nd, 2008 Emergency C-Section, Frank Breech, HEALTHY Girl!
    Weaned @ 17 months
    Our DD2 early bird (37 weeks, 3 days, 7lbs, 12oz) Aug. 10th, 2010 Our Successful VBAC, growing like a bad weed!
    Weaned @ 15 months
    Our DD3 early bird (37 weeks, 3 days, 7lbs, 6oz) Feb. 16th, 2012 Our 2nd VBAC and lightening speedy birth!

    Loving being a Mom of 3, 40 months apart!!
    and

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    21,259

    Default Re: Article touting studies that say its okay to start at 4 months.

    Quote Originally Posted by @llli*amysmom View Post
    Here's a question, if the Mom's have a good diet and are not iron deficient, does the iron still drop off in their breast milk? Would supplementing iron to the Mom's correct any deficiency in the breast milk? Is a prenatal vitamin enough?

    The references seem to assume that all breast milk is equal. But the Mother's diet, vitamin supplements, iron supplements, etc. need to be taken into consideration.
    I think this is an excellent point that this article really doesn't address.
    Coolest thing my big girl said recently: "How can you tell the world is moving when you are standing on it?"
    Coolest thing my little girl sang recently: "I love dat one-two pupples!"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •