Little reason to push children to read at an early age

With all the current hoopla over stuff like the "teach your baby to read" programs and the like, I find it refreshing to find a post like this one, which I've copied from here.  This is reassuring for me because I've been mainly working with the boys when they show an interest in a subject, and when they ask to do "schoolwork."  I haven't done a whole lot with reading because I don't think they're really ready yet.  It's very hard to do this though, because it's one of the first things people ask us about and because you worry about how they will do around peers who can already read. 

Copied from the post:
Research Finds No Advantage In Learning To Read From Age Five reports:
----------
A University of Otago researcher has uncovered for the first time quantitative evidence that teaching children to read from age five is not likely to make that child any more successful at reading than a child who learns reading later, from age seven.
The ground-breaking Psychology PhD research, conducted by Dr Sebastian Suggate, has been placed on the University's "distinguished list" of doctoral theses for 2009. Dr Suggate has also been awarded a prestigious Postdoctoral Research Fellowship from the Humboldt Association in Germany to the University of Wuerzburg in Bavaria to further his studies into childhood education.
----------
Moore's wrote in Better Late Than Early that it is better for young children, especially boys, to wait on academics until they are eight to ten years old. Part of this has to do with brain development. While much of the body is basically formed at birth, like your fingers and toes, the brain keeps undergoing major changes until people are eighteen and twenty. In trying to force young children to read before their brains are ready, it is like trying to make them walk before they even have their legs.