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

***This space reserved for photo of new squish***
Re: Questioning EBFing for first 6mo?
Haven't read it yet, but here's a linky.
https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955.full
"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!
"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.*
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 ...
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.
Exactly
Ditto. Thank you.
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.
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