Breast may not be best for the first six months of life, some experts say - Los Angeles Times

[Scott Adams]

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link Los Angeles Times For example, the incidence of celiac disease in Sweden rose after parents were advised to wait until their babies were 6 months old before introducing them ... Open Original Shared Link ModernMedicine Open Original Shared Link Fox News Open Original Shared Link CBS News Open Original Shared Link  -Open Original Shared Link  -Open Original Shared Link Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

[AzizaRivers]

That's interesting, because I've read that introducing certain foods to babies earlier actually increased their risks of developing intolerances and allergies.

Not trying to discount the above information as it was very interesting, particularly the part about peanut allergies being low where peanuts are a common weaning food. But a few weeks ago I read a few articles with opposite information. Just goes to show maybe we don't know as much about this as we think we do.

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

[tarnalberry]

It's worth noting that three of the four authors have financial ties (consulting work for or funding from) baby food companies. Additionally, there is no separation between "breastmilk only until 6 months" and "breastmilk plus solid foods until 6 months" and "formula only until 6 months" and "formula plus solid foods until 6 months" (or even both breastmilk and formula). All in all... this "meta study" seems fairly worthless to me.

[cassP]

suggesting that mothers shouldnt breastfeed for the 1st six months is the most ludacris thing ive ever heard.

reminds me of an article i read recently where this drug company was suggesting that mothers shouldnt breastfeed- because it negates the Rotavirus vaccine.

i dont trust our Corporate medical system at all.

[T.H.]

there is no separation between "breastmilk only until 6 months" and "breastmilk plus solid foods until 6 months" and "formula only until 6 months" and "formula plus solid foods until 6 months" (or even both breastmilk and formula).

I agree...that pretty much makes it worthless in terms of conclusions. Far too much in the gut is affected by food to accept this as useful information. Gastric acid and pepsin, and many enzymes used for digestion, are not at comparable adult levels for a number of months. Infants also have low levels of lipase and bile salts, until somewhere between 6-9 months. And they're telling us that consuming foods that cannot be digested fully won't have any effect? Like, say, creating fullness but not providing the vitamins and fats to the body that it would be expecting?

Sorry, don't buy it.

And the 'won't get used to bitter foods' take...what was that about?? Total speculation that has no basis in anything I can see - it was like reading a political ad against the 'evil' breastmilk.

And so silly. Really...have generations of formula fed children who had solids before 6 months secretly been scarfing down their green veggies when their parents weren't looking? Because kids avoiding veggies and heading to sweets has been going on for, oh, I dunno, since the dawn of time? A few hundred years, we have it recorded, at the very least.

Humans like sweets whether they're formula fed or breastfed. I can't believe they're trying to imply that breastmilk is going to affect their taste buds. Jeesh.