Re: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years

[denise thomson]

In the UK there has been repeated talk of breastfeeding centile charts but no one has actually seen one. Instead the mothers are subjected to pre feed and after feed weighing in some hospitals, neither wonder people get stressed about breastfeeding! I wonder how long it will take these charts to come out over in Australia.   Do you have the centile charts for Down syndrome babies- these have been recognised as being required in the uk?  DeniseJo Bourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  The thing that surprises me is that most of my friends have exclusively breastfed and produced babies with rolls on their rolls and crevices so deep you can't find the bottom of them... My own daughter was off the chart at 6 months (she was exclusively breastfed until somewhere around 16 months). They did generally seem to look different to
 chubby formula babies though, sort of softer looking fat.At 10:42 AM +0800 25/4/06, Susan Cudlipp wrote:This is interesting Kelly and about time these wretched charts were consigned to the bin.I did a lactation course a few years ago and the facilitator asked us to all bring in our ownbabies health records, some of which were very old! It was obvious that all of us who had breast fed produced babies with very different growth patterns to that specified on the chart. She explained about the growth being based on formula feeding, which was something most of us were unaware of.Regards,Sue"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"Edmund Burke- Original Message -From: Kelly @ BellyBellyTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:13
 AMSubject: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 YearsBreastfeeding evolution in Britain - WHO changes guidelines...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.htmlMothers got wrong advice for 40 yearsSarah-Kate Templeton, Medical CorrespondentBREAST-FEEDING mothers have been given potentially harmful advice on infant nutrition for the past 40 years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has admitted.Charts used in Britain for decades to advise mothers on a baby's optimum size have been based on the growth rates of infants fed on formula milk.The organisation now says the advice given to millions of breast-feeding mothers was distorted because babies fed on formula milk put on weight far faster.These breast-feeding mothers were wrongly told that their babies were
 underweight and were advised, or felt pressured, to fatten them up by giving them formula milk or extra solids.Health experts believe the growth charts may have contributed to childhood obesity and associated problems such as diabetes and heart disease in later life. A government study has found that more than a quarter of children in English secondary schools are clinically obese, almost double the proportion a decade ago.This week, the WHO will publish new growth standards based on a study of more than 8,000 breast-fed babies from six countries around the world. They will say the optimum size is that of a breast-fed baby.The move will put pressure on British doctors to replace charts which, for the last four decades, have taken into account the growth patterns of bottle-fed babies.Professor Tim Cole, of the Institute of Child Health at University College London, said: "We should change to a growth chart
 based on breast-fed babies. During their first year they do not put on as much weight as those fed on formula milk. Breast-fed babies are less likely to be fat later in life and to develop complications such as diabetes and heart disease."Six years ago, Cole developed an alternative chart based on breast-fed babies but it has never been endorsed by the British medical establishment. The Child Growth Foundation, a UK charity, campaigns for the adoption of Cole's chart.The foundation claims breast-fed babies are, on average, at 22lb at 12 months, about 1lb lighter than those fed solely on formula milk. It is thought that breast-fed babies grow more slowly in the first year because they control the rate at which they feed, rather than being tied to their parents' notion of meal times.Mercedes de Onis, who co-ordinates WHO child growth standards, said: "Breast-fed babies appear to self-regulate their energy intake to
 lowerlevels. Breast-fed babies have different metabolic rates and different sleeping patterns. Formula-fed babies seem to have higher intakes of energy and, as a result, are heavier."The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that being overweight as a baby is a key early risk factor for heart disease and diabetes.The babies who were the models for the new WHO standards were selected for good health. They were all breast-fed, their mothers did not smoke and they received good health care.The WHO says babies should be fed solely on breast milk for up to six months. In Britain, fewer than 10% of babies are getting only breast milk by 

Re: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years

[Jo Bourne]

You can download the new WHO charts online now...

At 5:41 AM +0100 30/4/06, denise thomson wrote:
In the UK there has been repeated talk of breastfeeding centile charts but no 
one has actually seen one. Instead the mothers are subjected to pre feed and 
after feed weighing in some hospitals, neither wonder people get stressed 
about breastfeeding! I wonder how long it will take these charts to come out 
over in Australia.
Do you have the centile charts for Down syndrome babies- these have been 
recognised as being required in the uk?
Denise

Jo Bourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The thing that surprises me is that most of my friends have exclusively 
breastfed and produced babies with rolls on their rolls and crevices so deep 
you can't find the bottom of them... My own daughter was off the chart at 6 
months (she was exclusively breastfed until somewhere around 16 months). They 
did generally seem to look different to chubby formula babies though, sort of 
softer looking fat.

At 10:42 AM +0800 25/4/06, Susan Cudlipp wrote:
This is interesting Kelly and about time these wretched charts were consigned 
to the bin.
I did a lactation course a few years ago and the facilitator asked us to all 
bring in our own babies health records, some of which were very old! It was 
obvious that all of us who had breast fed produced babies with very different 
growth patterns to that specified on the chart. She explained about the 
growth being based on formula feeding, which was something most of us were 
unaware of.
Regards,
Sue
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
nothing
Edmund Burke

- Original Message -
From: Kelly @ BellyBelly
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:13 AM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years

Breastfeeding evolution in Britain - WHO changes guidelines...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.html
Mothers got wrong advice for 40 yearsSarah-Kate Templeton, Medical 
Correspondent

BREAST-FEEDING mothers have been given potentially harmful advice on infant 
nutrition for the past 40 years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has 
admitted.

Charts used in Britain for decades to advise mothers on a baby's optimum size 
have been based on the growth rates of infants fed on formula milk.

The organisation now says the advice given to millions of breast-feeding 
mothers was distorted because babies fed on formula milk put on weight far 
faster.

These breast-feeding mothers were wrongly told that their babies were 
underweight and were advised, or felt pressured, to fatten them up by giving 
them formula milk or extra solids.

Health experts believe the growth charts may have contributed to childhood 
obesity and associated problems such as diabetes and heart disease in later 
life. A government study has found that more than a quarter of children in 
English secondary schools are clinically obese, almost double the proportion 
a decade ago.

This week, the WHO will publish new growth standards based on a study of more 
than 8,000 breast-fed babies from six countries around the world. They will 
say the optimum size is that of a breast-fed baby.

The move will put pressure on British doctors to replace charts which, for 
the last four decades, have taken into account the growth patterns of 
bottle-fed babies.

Professor Tim Cole, of the Institute of Child Health at University College 
London, said: We should change to a growth chart based on breast-fed babies. 
During their first year they do not put on as much weight as those fed on 
formula milk. Breast-fed babies are less likely to be fat later in life and 
to develop complications such as diabetes and heart disease.

Six years ago, Cole developed an alternative chart based on breast-fed babies 
but it has never been endorsed by the British medical establishment. The 
Child Growth Foundation, a UK charity, campaigns for the adoption of Cole's 
chart.
 
The foundation claims breast-fed babies are, on average, at 22lb at 12 
months, about 1lb lighter than those fed solely on formula milk. It is 
thought that breast-fed babies grow more slowly in the first year because 
they control the rate at which they feed, rather than being tied to their 
parents' notion of meal times.

Mercedes de Onis, who co-ordinates WHO child growth standards, said: 
Breast-fed babies appear to self-regulate their energy intake to lower
levels. Breast-fed babies have different metabolic rates and different 
sleeping patterns. Formula-fed babies seem to have higher intakes of energy 
and, as a result, are heavier.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that being overweight as a baby 
is a key early risk factor for heart disease and diabetes.

The babies who were the models for the new WHO standards were selected for 
good health. They were all breast-fed, their mothers did not smoke and they 
received good health care.

The WHO says babies

[ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years

[Kelly @ BellyBelly]

Breastfeeding evolution in Britain - WHO changes guidelines...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.html

Mothers got wrong advice for 40 yearsSarah-Kate Templeton, Medical
Correspondent

BREAST-FEEDING mothers have been given potentially harmful advice on infant
nutrition for the past 40 years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has
admitted.

Charts used in Britain
for decades to advise mothers on a baby's optimum size have been based on the
growth rates of infants fed on formula milk. 

The organisation now says the advice given to millions of breast-feeding
mothers was distorted because babies fed on formula milk put on weight far
faster.

These breast-feeding mothers were wrongly told that their babies were
underweight and were advised, or felt pressured, to fatten them up by giving
them formula milk or extra solids.

Health experts believe the growth charts may have contributed to childhood
obesity and associated problems such as diabetes and heart disease in later
life. A government study has found that more than a quarter of children in English
secondary schools are clinically obese, almost double the proportion a decade
ago.

This week, the WHO will publish new growth standards based on a study of more
than 8,000 breast-fed babies from six countries around the world. They will say
the optimum size is that of a breast-fed baby.

The move will put pressure on British doctors to replace charts which, for the
last four decades, have taken into account the growth patterns of bottle-fed
babies.

Professor Tim Cole, of the Institute
 of Child Health at
University College London, said: We should change to a growth chart based
on breast-fed babies. During their first year they do not put on as much weight
as those fed on formula milk. Breast-fed babies are less likely to be fat later
in life and to develop complications such as diabetes and heart disease.

Six years ago, Cole developed an alternative chart based on breast-fed babies
but it has never been endorsed by the British medical establishment. The Child
Growth Foundation, a UK
charity, campaigns for the adoption of Cole's chart.

The foundation claims breast-fed babies are, on average, at 22lb at 12 months,
about 1lb lighter than those fed solely on formula milk. It is thought that
breast-fed babies grow more slowly in the first year because they control the
rate at which they feed, rather than being tied to their parents' notion of
meal times.

Mercedes de Onis, who co-ordinates WHO child growth standards, said:
Breast-fed babies appear to self-regulate their energy intake to lower
levels. Breast-fed babies have different metabolic rates and different sleeping
patterns. Formula-fed babies seem to have higher intakes of energy and, as a
result, are heavier.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that
being overweight as a baby is a key early risk factor for heart disease and
diabetes.

The babies who were the models for the new WHO standards were selected for good
health. They were all breast-fed, their mothers did not smoke and they received
good health care.

The WHO says babies should be fed solely on breast milk for up to six months.
In Britain,
fewer than 10% of babies are getting only breast milk by this age.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is to meet this summer to
discuss the new WHO standards.

The Department of Health said: Once WHO publishes the new growth charts
we will assess the need for revisions to the UK growth charts.



Best
Regards,

Kelly Zantey
Creator, BellyBelly.com.au 
Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood
BellyBelly Birth Support
- http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support

Re: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years

[Susan Cudlipp]

This is interesting Kelly and about time these 
wretched charts were consigned to the bin.
I did a lactation course a few years ago and the 
facilitator asked us to all bring in our ownbabies health records, some of 
which were very old! It was obvious that all of us who had breast fed 
produced babies with very different growth patterns to that specified on the 
chart. She explained about the growth being based on formula feeding, which was 
something most of us were unaware of.
Regards,
Sue
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
nothing"Edmund Burke

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kelly @ 
  BellyBelly 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:13 
  AM
  Subject: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding 
  Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years
  
  
  Breastfeeding evolution in Britain - WHO 
  changes guidelines...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.html 
  Mothers got wrong advice for 40 yearsSarah-Kate Templeton, Medical 
  CorrespondentBREAST-FEEDING mothers have been given potentially 
  harmful advice on infant nutrition for the past 40 years, the World Health 
  Organisation (WHO) has admitted.Charts used in Britain for decades to advise 
  mothers on a baby's optimum size have been based on the growth rates of 
  infants fed on formula milk. The organisation now says the advice 
  given to millions of breast-feeding mothers was distorted because babies fed 
  on formula milk put on weight far faster.These breast-feeding mothers 
  were wrongly told that their babies were underweight and were advised, or felt 
  pressured, to fatten them up by giving them formula milk or extra 
  solids.Health experts believe the growth charts may have contributed 
  to childhood obesity and associated problems such as diabetes and heart 
  disease in later life. A government study has found that more than a quarter 
  of children in English secondary schools are clinically obese, almost double 
  the proportion a decade ago.This week, the WHO will publish new growth 
  standards based on a study of more than 8,000 breast-fed babies from six 
  countries around the world. They will say the optimum size is that of a 
  breast-fed baby.The move will put pressure on British doctors to 
  replace charts which, for the last four decades, have taken into account the 
  growth patterns of bottle-fed babies.Professor Tim Cole, of the 
  Institute of 
  Child Health at 
  University College London, said: "We should change to a growth chart based on 
  breast-fed babies. During their first year they do not put on as much weight 
  as those fed on formula milk. Breast-fed babies are less likely to be fat 
  later in life and to develop complications such as diabetes and heart 
  disease."Six years ago, Cole developed an alternative chart based on 
  breast-fed babies but it has never been endorsed by the British medical 
  establishment. The Child Growth Foundation, a UK charity, 
  campaigns for the adoption of Cole's chart.The foundation claims 
  breast-fed babies are, on average, at 22lb at 12 months, about 1lb lighter 
  than those fed solely on formula milk. It is thought that breast-fed babies 
  grow more slowly in the first year because they control the rate at which they 
  feed, rather than being tied to their parents' notion of meal 
  times.Mercedes de Onis, who co-ordinates WHO child growth standards, 
  said: "Breast-fed babies appear to self-regulate their energy intake to 
  lowerlevels. Breast-fed babies have different metabolic rates and 
  different sleeping patterns. Formula-fed babies seem to have higher intakes of 
  energy and, as a result, are heavier."The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that 
  being overweight as a baby is a key early risk factor for heart disease and 
  diabetes.The babies who were the models for the new WHO standards were 
  selected for good health. They were all breast-fed, their mothers did not 
  smoke and they received good health care.The WHO says babies should be 
  fed solely on breast milk for up to six months. In Britain, fewer 
  than 10% of babies are getting only breast milk by this age.The Royal 
  College of Paediatrics and Child Health is to meet this summer to discuss the 
  new WHO standards.The Department of Health said: "Once WHO publishes 
  the new growth charts we will assess the need for revisions to the 
  UK growth 
  charts."
  
  Best Regards,Kelly ZanteyCreator, 
  BellyBelly.com.au 
  Gentle 
  Solutions From Conception to ParenthoodBellyBelly Birth 
  Support - 
  http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support
  
  
  

  No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free 
  Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/323 - Release Date: 
  24/04/2006

Re: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years

[Jo Bourne]

The thing that surprises me is that most of my friends have exclusively 
breastfed and produced babies with rolls on their rolls and crevices so deep 
you can't find the bottom of them... My own daughter was off the chart at 6 
months (she was exclusively breastfed until somewhere around 16 months). They 
did generally seem to look different to chubby formula babies though, sort of 
softer looking fat.

At 10:42 AM +0800 25/4/06, Susan Cudlipp wrote:
This is interesting Kelly and about time these wretched charts were consigned 
to the bin.
I did a lactation course a few years ago and the facilitator asked us to all 
bring in our own babies health records, some of which were very old!  It was 
obvious that all of us who had breast fed produced babies with very different 
growth patterns to that specified on the chart. She explained about the growth 
being based on formula feeding, which was something most of us were unaware of.
Regards,
Sue
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
nothing
Edmund Burke

- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Kelly @ BellyBelly
To: mailto:ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:13 AM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years

Breastfeeding evolution in Britain - WHO changes guidelines...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.htmlhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.html
Mothers got wrong advice for 40 yearsSarah-Kate Templeton, Medical 
Correspondent

BREAST-FEEDING mothers have been given potentially harmful advice on infant 
nutrition for the past 40 years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has 
admitted.

Charts used in Britain for decades to advise mothers on a baby's optimum size 
have been based on the growth rates of infants fed on formula milk.

The organisation now says the advice given to millions of breast-feeding 
mothers was distorted because babies fed on formula milk put on weight far 
faster.

These breast-feeding mothers were wrongly told that their babies were 
underweight and were advised, or felt pressured, to fatten them up by giving 
them formula milk or extra solids.

Health experts believe the growth charts may have contributed to childhood 
obesity and associated problems such as diabetes and heart disease in later 
life. A government study has found that more than a quarter of children in 
English secondary schools are clinically obese, almost double the proportion a 
decade ago.

This week, the WHO will publish new growth standards based on a study of more 
than 8,000 breast-fed babies from six countries around the world. They will 
say the optimum size is that of a breast-fed baby.

The move will put pressure on British doctors to replace charts which, for the 
last four decades, have taken into account the growth patterns of bottle-fed 
babies.

Professor Tim Cole, of the Institute of Child Health at University College 
London, said: We should change to a growth chart based on breast-fed babies. 
During their first year they do not put on as much weight as those fed on 
formula milk. Breast-fed babies are less likely to be fat later in life and to 
develop complications such as diabetes and heart disease.

Six years ago, Cole developed an alternative chart based on breast-fed babies 
but it has never been endorsed by the British medical establishment. The Child 
Growth Foundation, a UK charity, campaigns for the adoption of Cole's chart.

The foundation claims breast-fed babies are, on average, at 22lb at 12 months, 
about 1lb lighter than those fed solely on formula milk. It is thought that 
breast-fed babies grow more slowly in the first year because they control the 
rate at which they feed, rather than being tied to their parents' notion of 
meal times.

Mercedes de Onis, who co-ordinates WHO child growth standards, said: 
Breast-fed babies appear to self-regulate their energy intake to lower
levels. Breast-fed babies have different metabolic rates and different 
sleeping patterns. Formula-fed babies seem to have higher intakes of energy 
and, as a result, are heavier.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that being overweight as a baby 
is a key early risk factor for heart disease and diabetes.

The babies who were the models for the new WHO standards were selected for 
good health. They were all breast-fed, their mothers did not smoke and they 
received good health care.

The WHO says babies should be fed solely on breast milk for up to six months. 
In Britain, fewer than 10% of babies are getting only breast milk by this age.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is to meet this summer to 
discuss the new WHO standards.

The Department of Health said: Once WHO publishes the new growth charts we 
will assess the need for revisions to the UK growth charts.
 
Best Regards,

Kelly Zantey
Creator, http://www.bellybelly.com.au/BellyBelly.com.au