interesting article in the paper today

[NIfirsttimer]

found this in todays 'sun'

more than one in four babies given solid foods before they are 4 months old, are overweight at the ages of 3, say researchers.
They also found that just 18% of breastfed babies were overweight compared to 23% of non breast fed kids.
Dr Lucy Griffiths of University College London said, our findings suggest a continued need to promote breastfeeding'

 

[nikkip19]

interesting concept. i however feel like luca is loosing weight now that hes on solids . hubby thinks its because hes so active now. so im now sure what to think!

 

[NIfirsttimer]

yep i think thats to be expected hun.... if hes crawling now then he will be starting to loose his 'baby fat'

 

[nikkip19]

yea luca is a crawling and standing monster right now! got my hands full! ps- ruby is delicious! such a cutie!

 

[Lisa1302]

Here is a link to it all https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iVfTbxfnuWyFeY1PDjuvCJNS-L7A

This is quite interesting too:

Living in a family with a lower household income and having a less educated mother were also factors that made children more likely to be overweight. Youngsters of single mothers were also more prone to being heavy at age three and five.

Years ago it was the opposite becuase people with less money obviously couldn't afford to over feed their kids - or afford a TV/games etc, so their kids enjoyed playing outside. These days though it is sad that junk food is seen as the cheaper option, and kids sit in front of the TV or playing games inside!

 

[Reedy]

Surely its down to what food the parents give to their children not what age they were weaned, seeing as it was suggested to wean at 4 months until recently, surely we would be seeing a whole lot of fat kids right??? my niece is 3 was formula fed & weaned at 4 months & there is nothing on her, she's perfectly healthy because her parents taught her to eat healthy & get plenty of exercise!!!!

 

[NIfirsttimer]

Surely its down to what food the parents give to their children not what age they were weaned, seeing as it was suggested to wean at 4 months until recently, surely we would be seeing a whole lot of fat kids right??? my niece is 3 was formula fed & weaned at 4 months & there is nothing on her, she's perfectly healthy because her parents taught her to eat healthy & get plenty of exercise!!!!

exactly... and we are! this generation have the highest numbers of obese children ever. obviously early weaning isnt the only factor at play, and early weaning wont always result in an overweight child, but theres increasingly clear evidence that it is more likely to.

 

[Lisa1302]

Surely its down to what food the parents give to their children not what age they were weaned, seeing as it was suggested to wean at 4 months until recently, surely we would be seeing a whole lot of fat kids right??? my niece is 3 was formula fed & weaned at 4 months & there is nothing on her, she's perfectly healthy because her parents taught her to eat healthy & get plenty of exercise!!!!

have you seen school kids these days? there are loads of fat ones!
It makes me cringe when I see little kids of 4 with their fat bellies hanging out of their t shirts just like the fatso father.

what they are saying is that early weaning increases the chances of them being over weight. just because you know 1 child, or even 4 children that were brought up like that and aren't fat...doesnt mean there isn't 2 fat ones that you don't know!

 

[Reedy]

Yeah i understand what your saying but maybe if we looked at their diet it wouldnt be that great hence why they are fat, I dont understand how it can be because of early weaning or because of FF!!! especially seeing as they mainly eat pureed fruit & veg right???
not arguing just trying to understand their 'research' thats all x

 

[Lisa1302]

Yeah i understand what your saying but maybe if we looked at their diet it wouldnt be that great hence why they are fat, I dont understand how it can be because of early weaning or because of FF!!! especially seeing as they mainly eat pureed fruit & veg right???
not arguing just trying to understand their 'research' thats all x

I'm not scientist, but I expect it is becuase when the baby is weaned early then its body wasn't ready for food - which may have caused some problems physically ..also mentally..which later mean either their body doesn't work properly so gets over weight, or mentally they can't limit the food they take in so eat too much?

they are still saying that diet, physical activities etc are affecting the numbers of overweight children, that goes without saying really - but this article was mainly about the early weaning and its link to increased numbers of over weight youngsters.

 

[aimee-lou]

God bless the Sun for causing an argument!

18%, 23%, 1:4 = 25%

None of these are anything near what sould be considered a threathening figure in statistical terms. Who paid for the research? What's the angle? Was it the government? Was it the formula companies? (I highly doubt that by the way lol). What was the methodology for the research? Was it validly sourced? What's her credibility apart from she holds a PhD in something? What right does she have to say that a risk factor of 5% means that we should all BF? (5% is considered a statistical factor of 0 as all statistics are given a waiver of +/- 5% - contraceptive pills are considered 100% effective despite some of them having a 95% coverage for example)

Just please, before you start to jump all over this, consider the source and what their grounding is. The article, being in a tabloid, is designed to sell the paper, not give the best information.

 

[NIfirsttimer]

my understanding is that basically, when 'they' studied it they took a large number of babies, studying their weight at birth, 8 weeks, 7 months & 14 months, they found that those weaned at 4m were heavier at 7 & 14 months, and gained weight much more rapidly between 8weeks & 14months, even with a control in place for BF babies, so basically this shows that weight gain is more rapid for babies weaned at 4m, and this is thought to continue into childhood, and therefore impact on the numbers of obese children

theres LOADS of info out there on this, if you are interested, have a google and it should be easy to find something to read ;-)
should also add, that obesity is only one of the many things that weaning early 'is thought to' increase the risk of

 

[NIfirsttimer]

my understanding is that basically, when 'they' studied it they took a large number of babies, studying their weight at birth, 8 weeks, 7 months & 14 months, they found that those weaned at 4m were heavier at 7 & 14 months, and gained weight much more rapidly between 8weeks & 14months, even with a control in place for BF babies, so basically this shows that weight gain is more rapid for babies weaned at 4m, and this is thought to continue into childhood, and therefore impact on the numbers of obese children

theres LOADS of info out there on this, if you are interested, have a google and it should be easy to find something to read ;-)
should also add, that obesity is only one of the many things that weaning early 'is thought to' increase the risk of

 

[Reedy]

should also add, that obesity is only one of the many things that weaning early 'is thought to' increase the risk of

So what about those DRs & HVs that have recommended early weaning to see if it helps reflux???
(a question not the start of an arguement btw)

 

[aimee-lou]

We're talking about a paper which claims that climate change is completely made up. Yeah, a bunch of weedy paps really know more than just about every science community out there.

The Sun... Read it, Enjoy it and then use it for its real purpose... Wrapping up a decent fish & chip supper!

Drew (Aimee's Hubby)

 

[NIfirsttimer]

awhh well id say thats something different altogether. when there is a valid medical reason to wean early, then ud be mad not to at least consider it seriously. i know i would have had i been in that position. im guessing the guidelines are there for bog standard average babies with no additional medical needs to be factored into the decision, like everything, there will always be exceptions.. both ways

God bless the Sun for causing an argument!

18%, 23%, 1:4 = 25%

None of these are anything near what sould be considered a threathening figure in statistical terms. Who paid for the research? What's the angle? Was it the government? Was it the formula companies? (I highly doubt that by the way lol). What was the methodology for the research? Was it validly sourced? What's her credibility apart from she holds a PhD in something? What right does she have to say that a risk factor of 5% means that we should all BF? (5% is considered a statistical factor of 0 as all statistics are given a waiver of +/- 5% - contraceptive pills are considered 100% effective despite some of them having a 95% coverage for example)

Just please, before you start to jump all over this, consider the source and what their grounding is. The article, being in a tabloid, is designed to sell the paper, not give the best information

it was one paragraph on about page 14 of the paper.. i HIGHLY doubt it was put there just to sell copies of the paper.

i guess you would have to ask 'her' about her credibility if you really want to know. then again, im guessing that the number of people who make their decision SOLELY based on that article will be minimal, the huge majority of people will read up on it more than that, and speak to their dr / hv before making any decision...at least i hope they would

i didnt most it for an argument, i didnt even express an opinion. i just linked it as i found it interesting, and thought others might.

 

[NIfirsttimer]

also like to add...
a one in four chance of my child being obese, is quite high to me.. it might not be sufficient for you, or some others, but its enough for me

 

[AppleBlossom]

Hmm... I started weaning just before 4 months old (on HV's advice) plus I am a single mum and she was only breast fed for 2 weeks... looks like Grace is going to be a fatty then!

 

[Lisa1302]

God bless the Sun for causing an argument!

18%, 23%, 1:4 = 25%

None of these are anything near what sould be considered a threathening figure in statistical terms. Who paid for the research? What's the angle? Was it the government? Was it the formula companies? (I highly doubt that by the way lol). What was the methodology for the research? Was it validly sourced? What's her credibility apart from she holds a PhD in something? What right does she have to say that a risk factor of 5% means that we should all BF? (5% is considered a statistical factor of 0 as all statistics are given a waiver of +/- 5% - contraceptive pills are considered 100% effective despite some of them having a 95% coverage for example)

Just please, before you start to jump all over this, consider the source and what their grounding is. The article, being in a tabloid, is designed to sell the paper, not give the best information.

We're talking about a paper which claims that climate change is completely made up. Yeah, a bunch of weedy paps really know more than just about every science community out there.

The Sun... Read it, Enjoy it and then use it for its real purpose... Wrapping up a decent fish & chip supper!

Drew (Aimee's Hubby)

why is the place its published always brought up - this article/variations of it, about that report can be seen all over the place, in newspapers (good and bad ones lol!), nursing sites, general sites - lots of different sources wrote about the study.

 

[NIfirsttimer]

We're talking about a paper which claims that climate change is completely made up. Yeah, a bunch of weedy paps really know more than just about every science community out there.

The Sun... Read it, Enjoy it and then use it for its real purpose... Wrapping up a decent fish & chip supper!

Drew (Aimee's Hubby)

you guys are getting VERY defensive about this!!

are you saying if the same article was in the guardian, it would be ok?