manxy Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I know, some members will get excited and no doubt there'll be a number of breast related jokes, but I'm pleased that the DOH are committed to it. My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Scientific 'experts' versus mothers' intuition....chemistry versus nature... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 as a species we have survived for thousands of years with mothers milk as 'the' diet in infancy. since alternatives have been around the companies that produce the products get people to produce reports singing their praises. but in todays rush rush world being able to have anybody feed the child with a bottle will suit many mothers who don't have the time/lifestyle to be a fresian for months. there are cases where scientists/doctors tell us this is what we need and then a few years later it is quite the opposite that is recommended. thalidomide springs to mind, and i think the practice of a vitamin K injection at birth has been dropped also? i refused the jab for my first kid when it was all the rage, they didn't seem to understand no the first time i said it and thought that was an intro for debate on the matter while still continuing prepping as if it was actually going to happen, arrogant fuck heads. i have a midwife in the family so there was some knowledge of things. the second a few years later wasn't even offered/threatened with the jab. for some reason the natural act of birth and feeding seems to be deemed an almost impossible task without supervision and intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaipyr Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 as a species we have survived for thousands of years with mothers milk as 'the' diet in infancy. since alternatives have been around the companies that produce the products get people to produce reports singing their praises. but in todays rush rush world being able to have anybody feed the child with a bottle will suit many mothers who don't have the time/lifestyle to be a fresian for months. there are cases where scientists/doctors tell us this is what we need and then a few years later it is quite the opposite that is recommended. thalidomide springs to mind, and i think the practice of a vitamin K injection at birth has been dropped also? i refused the jab for my first kid when it was all the rage, they didn't seem to understand no the first time i said it and thought that was an intro for debate on the matter while still continuing prepping as if it was actually going to happen, arrogant fuck heads. i have a midwife in the family so there was some knowledge of things. the second a few years later wasn't even offered/threatened with the jab. for some reason the natural act of birth and feeding seems to be deemed an almost impossible task without supervision and intervention. There's no money to be made by anyone from 'natural'!. Hope men resist all the pressure to moisturise, botox their wrinkles etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 as a species we have survived for thousands of years with mothers milk as 'the' diet in infancy. since alternatives have been around the companies that produce the products get people to produce reports singing their praises. but in todays rush rush world being able to have anybody feed the child with a bottle will suit many mothers who don't have the time/lifestyle to be a fresian for months. But the story isn't about bottle vs. breast feeding. The modest conclusion of the study is that current guidelines that suggest exclusively breast feeding a baby for the first six months be dropped should be dropped, and that it's alright to start introducing solids in their diet (in a limited way) after about four months, and perhaps even advisable to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Posted this comment on iomtoday "The UCL report doesn't state "breast is not best" - it suggests that babies can be introduced to solid food alongside breast milk slightly earlier. The headline suggests that breastfeeding groups "hit out" at the report, but your quote has them saying mothers need all the information available to decide what's best. Like for an example, the scientific review of 33 studies into breastfeeding. If mothers are "bewildered" it is hardly surprising when newspapers rather than reporting a study's findings misrepresent them and try to make things more controversial than they are. " Let's see if it shows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah well it is IOM 'news'papers....what a crock of shit that paper is now under that new editor, do they ever report a story how it is without this bullshit sensationalising typical of most tabloids? Direct from the article: "LOCAL breast feeding support groups have hit out at a new study which states that breast might not be best for a baby." a) study doesn't say that b) local groups have commented not "hit out" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 as a species we have survived for thousands of years with mothers milk as 'the' diet in infancy. since alternatives have been around the companies that produce the products get people to produce reports singing their praises. but in todays rush rush world being able to have anybody feed the child with a bottle will suit many mothers who don't have the time/lifestyle to be a fresian for months. But the story isn't about bottle vs. breast feeding. The modest conclusion of the study is that current guidelines that suggest exclusively breast feeding a baby for the first six months be dropped should be dropped, and that it's alright to start introducing solids in their diet (in a limited way) after about four months, and perhaps even advisable to do so. i wasn't so much commenting on the latest conclusion, just that the 'conclusions' point to change for some reason when it works well as is. i was trying to point out , babies have been fed for thousands of years and all of a sudden there is a better way to do it?? i could understand the need for change if for some reason it saved humanity from extinction ( if its worth saving ) but i see it as it aint broke dont fix it. we'll be getting advice on how to shit next! i dare say some babies could take solids earlier, and some later, i don't believe for a second that there is a specific time to introduce solids ( mush really ) on a calender basis, it is all down to how the child is doing on an individual basis. no need for a chart to set out your childs daily menu from day 1. we don't all get teeth at the same time, but no doubt nature lets us have them when it thinks we are ready to use them?? you don't need teeth for milk? oddly enough though the first teeth are refered to as 'milk teeth'? the time the first teeth start to come through differs from child to child, but 6 months is common for the first bottom front 2 and the top 2 4 - 6 weeks later, if nature intended us to be eating earlier we would get our teeth earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The basics are in most cases a mother does things on intuition which often is far more accurate than some artificial milk company sponsered research, a mother knows instinctivly when to stop breast feeding so in my opinion the rest can just keep it quite and leave it to the expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah well it is IOM 'news'papers....what a crock of shit that paper is now under that new editor, do they ever report a story how it is without this bullshit sensationalising typical of most tabloids? I have to agree, they are a bunch of tits who will milk anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisBishop Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I don't think that you have to wait for the magical '6mths' to occur before solids are introduced. We started our boy a bit earlier (not much mind) through baby lead weaning as he was not being acasiated with breast alone (likes his food just like his dad ;P). It wasn't something we jumped right into, we looked at the options and weighed them up. He started by playing with food and exploring, then he would eat a little and this was evident in his stool. He's now 10mths, still breast feeds but also eats a varied diet.... oh and he doesn't have teeth yet either, but that doesn't stop him from biting and chewing. Ultimately I think it's down do the baby's development as a whole and when they show interest in food, not just teeth coming through (as we'd still be exclusively breast feeding) or chronological age (or we would have had more weeks of a hungry crying baby)... of course I'm not saying that you should be spoon feeding your new born solids, and I'm not saying to feed them junk. But every baby is different and the '6mths' is/was a guideline not a hard and fast rule. Some bubs will take solids earlier, some later. Food earlier made for one happy baby (and there by happy parents) in our case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The baby, knowing more about its dietary requirements than an Albert Hall-full of experts, will inform its mother when a suuplement to her milk becomes necessary. The mother, knowing more about her baby than a Wembley Stadium-full of experts, will recognise when the moment arrives to begin supplementing its diet. Those are the conclusions of my research - when do I get my grant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William_Hartnell Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I believe vit K is still recommended and given over here at birth? As a grandfather to be I am sure I read a recent leaflet recommending it but it was described as a recommended option. Intreasted on any links you can share on the subject WTF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1978 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Vitamin K injections are still given and quite rightly so. Its more likely that any child you weren't offered it for had it anyway. There is a small amount of discredited research that suggests a tenuous link with the development of childhood leukaemias but the fact that some newborns suffer sub arachnoid haemorrhage and this can entirely be prevented with a vit K injection far outweighs this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquarius Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The baby, knowing more about its dietary requirements than an Albert Hall-full of experts, will inform its mother when a suuplement to her milk becomes necessary. The mother, knowing more about her baby than a Wembley Stadium-full of experts, will recognise when the moment arrives to begin supplementing its diet. Those are the conclusions of my research - when do I get my grant? Hear hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.