It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

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


www.latimes.com

What could be healthier for a baby than feeding him nothing but breast milk for the first six months of his life?

Not relying exclusively on breast milk for the first six months of life, according to a small group of experts on pediatric health from the United Kingdom.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.modernmedicine.com
www.foxnews.com




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
At first my CT Alarm started ringing, because I know that a mother's milk is far superior than canned baby formula. However, this article suggests none of that, and I am thankful that the milk vs. formula has taken a break in this article.

This article suggests that waiting less than six months to feed solids to a baby is a possible counter to food allergies and celiac disease.

Celiac disease is a gluten allergy, for those not in the know.

I can agree that trying to introduce solids to a baby as soon as they are ready and able is a good thing. I have two children myself and another on the way, and I really don't follow the mainstream views. I think that each child has different tolerances for things.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 2011/1/15 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)

edit on 2011/1/15 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
It all depends really. There is no clear cut method here.

If a baby will take solids early on, go for it. It's a good thing really.

But if the baby rejects them, hold off a little, and keep trying.

I have 2 kids, and so I have to tell you all kids are different and each one has different rates of growth.

But I agree with the overall assessment, that the earlier you can get a baby eating something solid the better off you are.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


this is nothing less than them controlling the population. Anyone knows that its the most important 6 months of their lives hence why nearly every animal /mammal feed their young. I believe its more along the lines of lowering amunities then reduce men to tatty water, then you will have a situation where births become unbelievably rare.
It will get to the point that you will struggle to remember seeing a pregnant woman.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jazz10
 


I think the control the population argument works wonders when we are talking about the ills of baby formula. It's really yucky stuff.

But when we are talking merely about when a child should start attempting to stomach something solid, like mashed green beans, I don't see anything wrong with this. I have kids, I kinda know what I am talking about - they are healthy strong and smart.

I cannot see a single scientific reason why trying to give a kid solids a little early on will be any issue?

You don't make them eat only solids, you still give them breast milk like normal.
You just try to add in a little spoonful of yummy every once in awhile.


This is a good strategy and most parents I am sure will know this as fact.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Follow nature.

You really think science is up to par?

Never.


Remember when people used to put formula in plastic containers then nuke it...

Yeah, that was a good idea.


Make sure that solid food is organic, at least.



edit on 15-1-2011 by Mayura because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
These opinions change every couple decades or so!
When i was born,my mother was advised not to breast feed me,but to bottle feed straight from birth!
Not sure why,but perhaps the government wanted all children to be less dependent on their mothers,thus allowing them to rejoin the workforce quicker?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
So breast milk, an endless resource for the baby, which adjusts to the babies needs, which increases yield as the baby grows older, and the breast even responds to baby's cries, is not best? What is best? Genetically modified formula processed in rat infested factories? Oh my!

When the baby is first born, the milk comes out very slowly, because it is high in nutrients but low in quantity, meeting the baby's needs since the baby's stomach is less than a ping pong ball, so the milk must be low in quantity but high in quality. Many mothers quit at this early and necessary stage because it is too hard, as the mother and baby are adapting to each other and the baby can have a hard time "latching" and hurt the sensitive nipple, which over the counter nipple cream can help. As time goes by the nipple becomes harder and it is a less painful sensation. Amazingly, when the baby cries, it causes lactation, and you can actually see milk coming out of the nipple when the newborn infant cries, nature's way of telling the mother it is time to eat. Also, the mother's breast in later periods of development may feel full, an indication that the baby is ready to nurse. And as the baby grows, the supply of milk increases to to become more liquid and a greater supply for the baby to consume.

Plus the article doesn't even make sense. The title is "Breast may not be best for the first six months of life, some experts say" which seems to imply that breast milk is not best for new born babies, from zero to six months old, which of course it is. Then it says "In the decade since the WHO issued its global recommendation, evidence has emerged that babies who aren't introduced to solid foods during the crucial window of four to six months of age may be at heightened risk of developing food allergies and celiac." Some babies don't even have teeth at four months old so how could they take solid food? Cereal maybe, they should have clarified that rather than saying solid, like what's solid? Apple, banana? Not unless you want your baby to choke and that is not a desirable situation.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
13 zodiac signs, birds dying from hitting semis....Thought I heard it all. Now breast milk is no good for a baby?
I imagine all newborns should also line up for last years swine flu vaccine...IF they know what's good for them.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


I would tend to agree with you. I wasnt aware that people didnt give their child some kind of solids before 6 months. In the UK the soft foods start from 4+months, surely if you were a parent and you saw that on the baby food you'd think...

"my child is 4 1/2 months, maybe we should try him/her with some baby food"...no???



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


I heard this driving to work the other day on the radio here in the UK,

Total crap, if the mother's healthy! the baby will not get a drop of anything better than a mother can feed naturally by breast feeding,

It's another assult on our intelligence and health by wannabe NWO aimed at getting em younger and reliant on the PharmaKill Industry,

Won't be long now from the tipping point, where We The Masses will start taking our liberties back and hunt these dogs into oblivian,



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
You folks are just reading the poorly constructed headline and not reading the article.

The article clearly states there is nothing wrong with breast milk.

The problem pointed out in the article, is that many people wait too long to start trying solids with their kids.
This is almost certainly true.

I highly recommend keeping breast milk intake the same and not altering it.
But I also second the scientific report that claims the earlier you can start introducing solids the better off you are. This is plain common sense here folks.

Don't let the misleading headline fool you. It is designed by professionals to get your attention.

People ignore boring headlines. It's a fact.
Just remember to READ the article along with it.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrmcleod
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


"my child is 4 1/2 months, maybe we should try him/her with some baby food"...no???


If the kid will eat it, sure go for it.
If the kid spits it all up, wait a week and try again.

Don't alter the breast feeding though, as this is not intended as a replacement.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I have been so blessed with healthy children, I strongly believe in Mothers milk, colostrum and to begin introducing baby rice cereal as soon as the baby begins to need it, after 5 babies I found they each have a different timing on such things. There are certain things that go far beyond science.

Babies are awesome and so is Mammas milkie.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I'm reading a similar article in Maclean's right now and the argument seems flawed to me. Yes it has some benefits but we have no evidence that it does anything about that, it says. That goes against what science has already proven. Breastfeeding in the beginning provides the child with colostrum, essential to fighting off infection. Secondly there is the psychological benefits that bonds the mother and child. About the only thing I can think of that would be a negative is the chance to pass Thrush back and forth between the two.

Edit: To add link:

www2.macleans.ca...
edit on 15-1-2011 by intrepid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
For thousands and thousands of years, the breast was sufficient.

Then it wasn't.

Then it was.

Now it may not be.

I'm an expert of sorts on breasts, and I can tell you that relatively free access to breasts can improve the quality of life for a man his whole life.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You folks are just reading the poorly constructed headline and not reading the article.

The article clearly states there is nothing wrong with breast milk.

The problem pointed out in the article, is that many people wait too long to start trying solids with their kids.
This is almost certainly true.

I highly recommend keeping breast milk intake the same and not altering it.
But I also second the scientific report that claims the earlier you can start introducing solids the better off you are. This is plain common sense here folks.

Don't let the misleading headline fool you. It is designed by professionals to get your attention.

People ignore boring headlines. It's a fact.
Just remember to READ the article along with it.


I starred all your posts, mostly because you read the article, and a little bit because you are talking about what it actually says. Kudo's!

A child will tell you what it wants more than you will ever know. This article merely says introduce the solids sooner rather than later, not to wean, but as an additional source of food.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
This article is from the British Medical Association and is not a part of the British medical publication Lancet.
www.bmj.com...

A more recent study in infants at risk (with a first degree relative with type 1 diabetes or carriage of certain HLA types), showed that introduction of gluten before three months and after six months was associated with increased risk of biopsy proved coeliac disease26 and islet cell autoantibodies27. This finding suggests that gluten may best be introduced during a critical window of three to six months. In the same cohort, introduction of wheat after six months predicted increased risk of wheat allergy at age four years. Exclusive breast feeding for six months is readily defendable in resource poor countries with high morbidity and mortality from infections.

No where does it list the number of subjects that were studied, no control groups, no blind or double blind studies.
Additionally, the group focused on people in England.
However I do find the information interesting, and believe interested parties need to review the full content from the source.
www.bmj.com...
When in doubt, ask your Pediatrician.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
This article is from the British Medical Association and is not a part of the British medical publication Lancet.
www.bmj.com...


Star for you, for looking into the matter further. I would be more interested in finding an opposing view, backed by some scientific evidence, however. So far as I can summize, it is wholly beneficial to introduce solids in this window, rather than the previous six-month window. Honestly though, no baby is the same at any period in their development or any aspect for that matter.

Ask your pediatrician indeed.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
There is nothing wrong with celiac disease/gluten intolerance/etc.

You know why? Because humans aren't supposed to be eating that sh!t in the first place.

This is just one more attempt by the TPTB to get us used to eating unhealthy, cheap, GMO, mass produced "food" (wheat).




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join