Shocked by doctor re: weaning

[hivechild]

My friend is a pediatric nurse and she has said its 4-6m
she mentioned that you can tell when the biliary system is matured because the baby will begin to have sweaty hands or feet. This is when the liver is mature enough.
I thought this was odd but I noticed last week emilia began to have jammy hands and feet!

That's interesting. I never knew that before!

Does it have any direct correlation to the perforations in an infant's stomach lining which is one of the primary reasons given for delaying weaning until they've closed up (again said to happen between 4-6 months)?

I will have to ask sally if that is the reason. x

Thanks! I'm really curious now and couldn't find anything on a quick google search. Information overload!

 

[Gen79]

The problem with guidelines is that they tend to be over simplistic. Co-sleeping is not a SIDS risk, it's actually been shown to reduce the risk of sids. Its an overlying risk. But when officials want to get a message out they have to keep it down to short sound bites. Everyone knows what SIDS is, not everyone (sadly) would understand what "overlying" is. Someone here also wrote that the original "Back to Sleep" campaign was a Back or Side to Sleep campaign but it was too confusing!

The fact about weaning is that there are studies that say early weaning causes allergies and/or intestinal troubles and there are studies that say weaning late causes allergies or intestinal troubles. Even the scientists DO NOT KNOW.

Someone else already posted about it but there is a study going on right now as we speak to see whether early weaning will prevent allergies to common food allergens. That does not speak to the subject being closed to me.

 

[Mya209]

^^ so the scientists aren't sure all we can do is trust our instincts and our babies!

 

[meg79]

^^^^ even if they aren't sure, the clues are there that will tell you that a baby is ready; sitting up, accurate hand-mouth coordination, loss of tongue thrust reflex etc. That's what I will go by, whether that is next week, next month or whenever. X

 

[Gen79]

^^ so the scientists aren't sure all we can do is trust our instincts and our babies!

Well I don't know, I'd rather do my own research than trust my instincts TBH.

 

[hivechild]

The problem with guidelines is that they tend to be over simplistic. Co-sleeping is not a SIDS risk, it's actually been shown to reduce the risk of sids. Its an overlying risk. But when officials want to get a message out they have to keep it down to short sound bites. Everyone knows what SIDS is, not everyone (sadly) would understand what "overlying" is. Someone here also wrote that the original "Back to Sleep" campaign was a Back or Side to Sleep campaign but it was too confusing!

The fact about weaning is that there are studies that say early weaning causes allergies and/or intestinal troubles and there are studies that say weaning late causes allergies or intestinal troubles. Even the scientists DO NOT KNOW.

Someone else already posted about it but there is a study going on right now as we speak to see whether early weaning will prevent allergies to common food allergens. That does not speak to the subject being closed to me.

The scientists actually say there is evidence that early weaning MAY be a contributing factor and CAN cause allergies and/or intestinal troubles. They say there is a RISK of these things happening, and it's a calculated risk you should be aware of because often times, these problems don't crop up until later in life.

Even though a baby may seem 'perfectly fine and healthy and happy' at 10 months when they were weaned at 10 weeks, that doesn't mean that the damage hasn't occurred internally at that point, even if it will only manifest noticeably years down the road.

I don't think that most, if any posters here speak in absolutes saying that IF you early wean, THIS WILL happen, and the authorities and scientists most certainly do not do so. All they do is point out the related RISKS that are stated as reasons to be cautious about weaning before 6 months, and moreso before 4 months.

To be honest, it seems to me that it's more often the case that I hear someone who has early weaned throwing a hissy fit about everyone telling them their baby is going to be full of allergies and intestinal problems and obese and grow a third arm and an extra eye and hair on the palm of their hands because they dared to wean early and how dare they!?! It amazes me that these histrionics and absolutes usually come from the 'other side' of the debate on early weaning and rarely, if ever from the proponents of following the guidelines and recommendations, yet it's the 'wait until they're close to 6 months' posters that catch hell for it.

 

[Jibber Jabber]

I'm so boooooooooored off this debate! Feed your children when you like, if there are consequences of feeding them too early; as medical research has proven - be happy to live with that, some people are just lucky and that's exactly what it is - luck.

 

[Mya209]

My mother in law just told me that when she had my husband the recomendation/guideline was solids at 6 weeks. When she had my sister in law it was 6 months. Both times she followed the guidelines, both couldn't be more different, both were the official guideline!

 

[Gen79]

The problem with guidelines is that they tend to be over simplistic. Co-sleeping is not a SIDS risk, it's actually been shown to reduce the risk of sids. Its an overlying risk. But when officials want to get a message out they have to keep it down to short sound bites. Everyone knows what SIDS is, not everyone (sadly) would understand what "overlying" is. Someone here also wrote that the original "Back to Sleep" campaign was a Back or Side to Sleep campaign but it was too confusing!

The fact about weaning is that there are studies that say early weaning causes allergies and/or intestinal troubles and there are studies that say weaning late causes allergies or intestinal troubles. Even the scientists DO NOT KNOW.

Someone else already posted about it but there is a study going on right now as we speak to see whether early weaning will prevent allergies to common food allergens. That does not speak to the subject being closed to me.

The scientists actually say there is evidence that early weaning MAY be a contributing factor and CAN cause allergies and/or intestinal troubles. They say there is a RISK of these things happening, and it's a calculated risk you should be aware of because often times, these problems don't crop up until later in life.

Even though a baby may seem 'perfectly fine and healthy and happy' at 10 months when they were weaned at 10 weeks, that doesn't mean that the damage hasn't occurred internally at that point, even if it will only manifest noticeably years down the road.

I don't think that most, if any posters here speak in absolutes saying that IF you early wean, THIS WILL happen, and the authorities and scientists most certainly do not do so. All they do is point out the related RISKS that are stated as reasons to be cautious about weaning before 6 months, and moreso before 4 months.

To be honest, it seems to me that it's more often the case that I hear someone who has early weaned throwing a hissy fit about everyone telling them their baby is going to be full of allergies and intestinal problems and obese and grow a third arm and an extra eye and hair on the palm of their hands because they dared to wean early and how dare they!?! It amazes me that these histrionics and absolutes usually come from the 'other side' of the debate on early weaning and rarely, if ever from the proponents of following the guidelines and recommendations, yet it's the 'wait until they're close to 6 months' posters that catch hell for it.

I find the histrionics at every debate amusing really. I personally have no stake in this, I just find people shockingly black and white about things so often.

My point is that the scientists do not all say that there are risks with weaning at 4 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12180052

Most interesting:

The WHO recommendation "rested largely" on a review of 16 studies, including seven from developing countries.

It concluded that babies just given breast milk for six months had fewer infections and experienced no growth problems.

But another review of 33 studies found "no compelling evidence" not to introduce solids at four to six months, the experts said.

 

[hivechild]

See, the thing about "THAT" article, is that when it was released, it was pretty much widely discredited by every major leading health authority worldwide as well as independent sources and smaller organizations.

It's not new research and involves no new studies. It's a different opinion given on the same body of research by which the major health authorities have come to the guidelines and standards they recommend now.

Most of the authors of that article are, or have worked for or been sponsored and funded by formula and baby food companies.

The WHO, UNICEF, the NHS, the US Pediatric association, Canada, and I believe NZ and Australia all said that it's not going to make them change their weaning guidelines and they all still maintain the current guidelines they have now.

The Pediatric Journal it was published in went on record to state that it was nothing more than an opinion piece and it does not support the content within.

The media latched onto the article and went hog wild with it, and it makes my heart sink every time I see someone link to it because I know that that article is all they've read and that they don't also know what I've just written above.

 

[Gen79]

See, the thing about "THAT" article, is that when it was released, it was pretty much widely discredited by every major leading health authority worldwide as well as independent sources and smaller organizations.

It's not new research and involves no new studies. It's a different opinion given on the same body of research by which the major health authorities have come to the guidelines and standards they recommend now.

This actually proves my point that the issue is not closed. Just because the politicians decided that opinion was wrong doesn't mean it is. Scientists are still studying it.

it makes my heart sink every time I see someone link to it because I know that that article is all they've read and that they don't also know what I've just written above.

This is also completely untrue. The EAT Study is currently doing more research as that article probably said was needed.

 

[hivechild]

See, the thing about "THAT" article, is that when it was released, it was pretty much widely discredited by every major leading health authority worldwide as well as independent sources and smaller organizations.

It's not new research and involves no new studies. It's a different opinion given on the same body of research by which the major health authorities have come to the guidelines and standards they recommend now.

This actually proves my point that the issue is not closed. Just because the politicians decided that opinion was wrong doesn't mean it is. Scientists are still studying it.

it makes my heart sink every time I see someone link to it because I know that that article is all they've read and that they don't also know what I've just written above.

This is also completely untrue. The EAT Study is currently doing more research as that article probably said was needed.

The World Health Organization and UNICEF aren't government bodies or politicians. Sure, they are affected by politics, but so are scientists. It's kind of impossible to do much of anything these days without politics being involved in some way.

I don't really understand your last statement. Most people who quote or link to that article (or any of the numerous media published articles about the original pediatric journal article) do not know what I just posted about the subsequent reaction to it when it was first released. That article doesn't even mention the EAT study, and to be honest, I'm going to give more weight to what an organization like UNICEF or WHO says who have zero monetary gain to be made from it, than a general media journalist or an organization or individual with something to gain from it.

Have you read the original article in the Pediatric Journal in its entirety?

 

[Gen79]

See, the thing about "THAT" article, is that when it was released, it was pretty much widely discredited by every major leading health authority worldwide as well as independent sources and smaller organizations.

It's not new research and involves no new studies. It's a different opinion given on the same body of research by which the major health authorities have come to the guidelines and standards they recommend now.

This actually proves my point that the issue is not closed. Just because the politicians decided that opinion was wrong doesn't mean it is. Scientists are still studying it.

it makes my heart sink every time I see someone link to it because I know that that article is all they've read and that they don't also know what I've just written above.

This is also completely untrue. The EAT Study is currently doing more research as that article probably said was needed.

The World Health Organization and UNICEF aren't government bodies or politicians. Sure, they are affected by politics, but so are scientists. It's kind of impossible to do much of anything these days without politics being involved in some way.

I don't really understand your last statement. Most people who quote or link to that article (or any of the numerous media published articles about the original pediatric journal article) do not know what I just posted about the subsequent reaction to it when it was first released. That article doesn't even mention the EAT study, and to be honest, I'm going to give more weight to what an organization like UNICEF or WHO says who have zero monetary gain to be made from it, than a general media journalist or an organization or individual with something to gain from it.

Have you read the original article in the Pediatric Journal in its entirety?

I have it open in another tab but just had dinner and LO is demanding lol. I am inclined to believe that a worldwide reccommendation isn't necessarily right for everyone; it makes sense to me. The reference to the EAT Study was me making connections and forming my own conclusions. I don't read 1 article and think I know it all. I soak up everything I can find on whatever my newest curiosity is. Admittedly, I haven't done that with this topic yet, but I have read enough to know the topic is not settled in the academic community yet. Anyway my curiosity is piqued now, I'll be reading up. Where is it that the journal article was criticized then?

 

[hivechild]

See, the thing about "THAT" article, is that when it was released, it was pretty much widely discredited by every major leading health authority worldwide as well as independent sources and smaller organizations.

It's not new research and involves no new studies. It's a different opinion given on the same body of research by which the major health authorities have come to the guidelines and standards they recommend now.

This actually proves my point that the issue is not closed. Just because the politicians decided that opinion was wrong doesn't mean it is. Scientists are still studying it.

it makes my heart sink every time I see someone link to it because I know that that article is all they've read and that they don't also know what I've just written above.

This is also completely untrue. The EAT Study is currently doing more research as that article probably said was needed.

The World Health Organization and UNICEF aren't government bodies or politicians. Sure, they are affected by politics, but so are scientists. It's kind of impossible to do much of anything these days without politics being involved in some way.

I don't really understand your last statement. Most people who quote or link to that article (or any of the numerous media published articles about the original pediatric journal article) do not know what I just posted about the subsequent reaction to it when it was first released. That article doesn't even mention the EAT study, and to be honest, I'm going to give more weight to what an organization like UNICEF or WHO says who have zero monetary gain to be made from it, than a general media journalist or an organization or individual with something to gain from it.

Have you read the original article in the Pediatric Journal in its entirety?

I have it open in another tab but just had dinner and LO is demanding lol. I am inclined to believe that a worldwide reccommendation isn't necessarily right for everyone; it makes sense to me. The reference to the EAT Study was me making connections and forming my own conclusions. I don't read 1 article and think I know it all. I soak up everything I can find on whatever my newest curiosity is. Admittedly, I haven't done that with this topic yet, but I have read enough to know the topic is not settled in the academic community yet. Anyway my curiosity is piqued now, I'll be reading up. Where is it that the journal article was criticized then?

I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer on the subject matter where everyone agrees. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are people out there who disagree with the theory of relativity!

Anyway, I'm on my way out the door but here's a link to a thread with links and information that was posted when the article found out that will hopefully head you in the right direction : https://www.babyandbump.com/breastfeeding/509832-those-worried-breastfeeding-6-months-news.html

 

[Gen79]

After reading the original BMJ article, along with many of the responses and some of its references I can't say I'm all that swayed away from my original comment that the guidelines are largely a politicised generalisation.

One thing that's quite apparent now is that it's a breastfeeding issue more than a weaning issue. Most of the critic's are breastfeeding groups, who seem to be mostly concerned that women will use the opinion as a reason not to breastfeed as much. Many seem to be mostly concerned with developing regions (like Africa) rather than developed (like UK and US). I'm also a little bit annoyed that Le Leche League say that introducing solids before six months could contribute to the baby not absorbing iron in the breast milk when I read from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition that its when breast milk feed is taken too close to a solid feed. Half truths are not appreciated.

The guideline is to "breastfeed exclusively for 6 months". But most babies in the UK are not breastfed anyway so what of those babies? Apparently, not much research has been done regarding "artificially fed" babies (their words, not mine.) This is probably why we are hearing whispers of the guidelines changing to formula fed babies starting from 4 months and breastfed babies from 6 months. Yes, breastmilk is all a baby needs for at least the first six months. They're not quite sure though, that formula is.

But even the SACN say in their response to the article that they agree weaning from 4 - 6 months is fine. In fact almost everyone says this, they also mostly agree that the official advice should push people toward 6 months because they're all mostly concerned with babies being weaned before 4 months, or 17 weeks. Specifically, both the BMJ article and the SACN say that there was "no compelling evidence" for formula fed babies to be fed milk exclusively for 6 months.

Again, its a political issue. The campaign is to get mothers to breastfeed their babies for as long as possible. Anything that even seems like it's not supporting that advise is slated. But as I said, most babies aren't breastfed, so maybe we should think about whats best for them too.

 

[hivechild]

Honestly, as much as I personally think that weaning should wait until around 6 months, which to me is between 5-7 months (using BLW with no spoon feeding), I think a major concern with a 17 week guideline, is with the attitude that 'well a few weeks early won't hurt, what does it matter whether I wean my baby at 3 months instead of 4?' Suddenly, it's gone from 17 weeks to sometime around between 12-16 weeks, which most every 'expert' agrees is a far more likely time for problems to arise from weaning too early before 17 weeks, but you see that shift in mentality already with the current guidelines and even some people who think 4 months = 16 weeks, and since 4 months is the minimum recommended age tossed around, that that is ok to start.

 

[Gen79]

Honestly, as much as I personally think that weaning should wait until around 6 months, which to me is between 5-7 months (using BLW with no spoon feeding), I think a major concern with a 17 week guideline, is with the attitude that 'well a few weeks early won't hurt, what does it matter whether I wean my baby at 3 months instead of 4?' Suddenly, it's gone from 17 weeks to sometime around between 12-16 weeks, which most every 'expert' agrees is a far more likely time for problems to arise from weaning too early before 17 weeks, but you see that shift in mentality already with the current guidelines and even some people who think 4 months = 16 weeks, and since 4 months is the minimum recommended age tossed around, that that is ok to start.

Agreed, and I know that few people will actually read the research, so maybe a 6 month guideline is best overall. I'm prone to want to know the nitty gritty details though and I hate (and love) politics. And when it comes to debate I'm always after the ultimate truth rather than whats best for society; it pisses off my DH too.

One thing I did learn though that worries me is that there is some support for the idea that coeliacs disease happens when wheat is not introduced alongside breastmilk. I suppose thats what the EAT Study is all about because they require that you breastfeed the whole time. Many women only breastfeed for 6 months then change to formula when weaning. Indeed that was my plan too, and I'm seriously questioning it now.

 

[hivechild]

I never really had a plan for breastfeeding and had barely given weaning a thought at your LO's age, but by 6 months, I couldn't imagine giving up breastfeeding, especially since it was so easy by then and alongside BLW, it just made everything simple and stress free.