Questioning EBFing for first 6mo?

StrawberryAlarmClock · January 2011

Has this been posted? It appears that some "experts" are questioning the WHO's 2001 advice to EBF for the first 6 months. Could someone please make this linky? https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full

Ananke · January 2011

Haven't read it yet, but here's a linky.

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full

StrawberryAlarmClock · January 2011

Ananke:
Haven't read it yet, but here's a linky.
https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full

Thank you. It's long and written in scientific study mumbo jumbo. LOL

shainababygirl · January 2011

"Yet infants exclusively breast fed for 6 months represent, globally, a small, potentially biased subgroup (for example, under 1% of UK infants in the 2005 UK Infant Feeding Survey17), that presumably excludes those perceived by their parents as signalling hunger and so requiring weaning foods earlier. Generalisation from this subgroup must therefore be questioned. Indeed, Wells and Reilly,18 following a systematic review of infant energy requirements, breast milk output, and energy content, calculated that many mothers who exclusively breast fed would not support their infant?s energy requirements to six months19; an important matter under further investigation."

I disagree with this so strongly that its not funny. I just saw a 6 month old who has been EBFed today (DD started solids closer to 5 months, so I'm excluding her) who is the happiest, most energetic little boy!

sapgirl76 · January 2011

Evidently the "experts" on this one are also linked to formula and baby food companies, either through consulting or receiving research funding. Conflict of interest, anyone?

MellsHells · January 2011

I saw a link to a similar article on Yahoo. It had some quote in it about not knowing when our Stone Age ancestors introduced solids, and I was thinking "WTF would that have anything to do with it?'

drea_raye · January 2011

"Apart from two randomised trials in Honduras, the studies were observational, precluding proof of causation for the outcomes examined, since residual or unidentified confounding may remain even after adjusting for potential confounders."

Just started reading... but this sounds like fake sciencey writing to me... all statistics is about correlation, not causation, so trying to tear down research because it doesn't prove causality is anti-science in the first place.

Not to mention the number of ads slowing down the site, not a good sign of a reliable source...

ETA: " However, the six month group had higher indices of fatness. The authors speculated that faster growing infants, destined to be fatter children, might be breast fed longer because of mothers? confidence in their milk supply, although contrary evidence suggests faster growing infants receive solids earlier. Thus, the study could suggest that more prolonged exclusive breast feeding predicts later fatness."

And yet some very scientific terms are later put to use *sarcasm.*

MellsHells · January 2011

From another article on ABC:

"Three of the four authors acknowledged having consulted or received research funding within the past three years from companies that manufacture infant formulas and baby foods."

So there you go. The other article I read about it made it very clear that breastfeeding was preferred to FF but the debate was regarding when to introduce solids. But I don't like the way they're titling them and starting out ...

Bride2b2004 · January 2011

shainababygirl:
I disagree with this so strongly that its not funny. I just saw a 6 month old who has been EBFed today (DD started solids closer to 5 months, so I'm excluding her) who is the happiest, most energetic little boy!

Totally agree with you about disagreeing with this. DS has only just started to be (kind of) interested in solids and is EBF. He continues to be off the charts in height and weight and generally above his age for development milestones.

Bride2b2004 · January 2011

sapgirl76:
Evidently the "experts" on this one are also linked to formula and baby food companies, either through consulting or receiving research funding. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Exactly

StrawberryAlarmClock · January 2011

sapgirl76:
Evidently the "experts" on this one are also linked to formula and baby food companies, either through consulting or receiving research funding. Conflict of interest, anyone?

No doubt!

StrawberryAlarmClock · January 2011

drea_raye:
"Apart from two randomised trials in Honduras, the studies were observational, precluding proof of causation for the outcomes examined, since residual or unidentified confounding may remain even after adjusting for potential confounders."
Just started reading... but this sounds like fake sciencey writing to me... all statistics is about correlation, not causation, so trying to tear down research because it doesn't prove causality is anti-science in the first place.
Not to mention the number of ads slowing down the site, not a good sign of a reliable source...
ETA: " However, the six month group had higher indices of fatness. The authors speculated that faster growing infants, destined to be fatter children, might be breast fed longer because of mothers? confidence in their milk supply, although contrary evidence suggests faster growing infants receive solids earlier. Thus, the study could suggest that more prolonged exclusive breast feeding predicts later fatness."
And yet some very scientific terms are later put to use *sarcasm.*

I got caught up on that line, too, but couldn't put my finger on what was wrong with it. I didn't take enough college courses that centered around research methodology but you definitely nailed it here. Good catch!

shainababygirl · January 2011

StrawberryAlarmClock:
drea_raye:
"Apart from two randomised trials in Honduras, the studies were observational, precluding proof of causation for the outcomes examined, since residual or unidentified confounding may remain even after adjusting for potential confounders."
Just started reading... but this sounds like fake sciencey writing to me... all statistics is about correlation, not causation, so trying to tear down research because it doesn't prove causality is anti-science in the first place.
Not to mention the number of ads slowing down the site, not a good sign of a reliable source...
ETA: " However, the six month group had higher indices of fatness. The authors speculated that faster growing infants, destined to be fatter children, might be breast fed longer because of mothers? confidence in their milk supply, although contrary evidence suggests faster growing infants receive solids earlier. Thus, the study could suggest that more prolonged exclusive breast feeding predicts later fatness."
And yet some very scientific terms are later put to use *sarcasm.*
I got caught up on that line, too, but couldn't put my finger on what was wrong with it. I didn't take enough college courses that centered around research methodology but you definitely nailed it here. Good catch!

Ditto. Thank you.

waterfly · January 2011

DH's response: "Not getting enough calories/energy AND they're plagued with 'fatness'? These things do not equate..."

WyoGal · January 2011

Interesting article, but mostly because it was full of so many conflicting statements. I'd like to see this type of discussion lead to more discussion/education of "each baby's timeline is different, so you need to follow your own child's" instead of seemingly arbitrary mandates of STTN at 4 mos., solids at 6 mos. Cow's Milk at 1 year. It's amazing how many people follow these as letter of the law milestones.

Public health must be a frustrating field because at some point most of the people aren't prepared with the critical thinking skills for this type of advice and instead want/need/ask for an arbitrary timeline. Even if WHO didn't have 100% evidence, I don't think their recommendation was made maliciously but after carefully weighing the pros and cons and they risked that encouraging EBF longer was the safer/better choice in the long run.

C-Charm · January 2011

UNICEF & the WHO responded to the "study." I'll see if I can find the WHO's response.

https://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/pdfs/unicef_uk_response_to_BMJ_article_140111.pdf

Want a personalized experience?

Questioning EBFing for first 6mo?

Re: Questioning EBFing for first 6mo?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards