Breastfeeding discussion - spinoff from Home Ec Teacher thread

TaraFoxglove

Mod Note: given the volume of posts on the Home Ec Teacher Thread I've spearated this discussion into a thread of its own.

EileenG wrote: »

but one daughter has just been told that women can't breastfeed if they lift weights, and shouldn't breastfeed past six months, it stops having value at that point.

From an immunological point of view, this makes sense. I don't know why people always ignore this. Colostrum provides nourishment but its MAIN function is to boost or kickstart the newborn's immature secondary immune system. By month four or five, the child's immune system should be up and running, so the milk does indeed lose a lot of its value after this point. They are not saying the milk is poison, it will do the baby no harm to have it after this point, but its main function has been completed.

EileenG

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

From an immunological point of view, this makes sense. I don't know why people always ignore this. Colostrum provides nourishment but its MAIN function is to boost or kickstart the newborn's immature secondary immune system. By month four or five, the child's immune system should be up and running, so the milk does indeed lose a lot of its value after this point. They are not saying the milk is poison, it will do the baby no harm to have it after this point, but its main function has been completed.

I really hope you are kidding here.

Colostrum is not milk, and the the point of breastfeeding a baby is to FEED the baby. Breast milk is ideally tailored to the individual baby and its needs. No formula can match that, and it remains ideally tailored to the individual baby even after solids have been introduced.

One of the amazing things about breastmilk is that it can provide immunity to things the mother has not been exposed to, as well as all the things the mother has immunity to herself. A baby who is exposed to a particular bug in creche, for instance, comes back, feeds from the mother, and exposes her to the bug. The milk immediately starts to produce antibodies to that bug. And that's not valuable?

The World Health Organisation recommends that all babies should be breastfed for at least two years, and for as long after that as suits mother and baby. There is no recommended upper limit, no age at which it ceases to have value. The WHO ranks breastfeeding as the ideal, followed by the mother's milk given in a bottle, followed by breastmilk from some other person, and artifical baby milks are at the bottom.

It's probably a really bad idea to get me going on breastfeeding, I could go on for days, and provide lots and lots and LOTS of studies to back up what I say.

TaraFoxglove

EileenG wrote: »

I really hope you are kidding here.

No, I'm not kidding, and I doubt my immunology professor was either.

EileenG wrote: »

One of the amazing things about breastmilk is that it can provide immunity to things the mother has not been exposed to, as well as all the things the mother has immunity to herself. A baby who is exposed to a particular bug in creche, for instance, comes back, feeds from the mother, and exposes her to the bug. The milk immediately starts to produce antibodies to that bug. And that's not valuable?

The woman's BODY will start producing antibodies, not the milk. And yeah, that's how the secondary immune system works, exposing itself to new things and building up resistance to them. If a baby is introduced a bug in the creche, after the first few months, its own now matured secondary immune system will begin to produce antibodies to deal with that bug. It doesn't need mother's milk to provide the antibodies anymore. In the first few months? Yes, then mother's antibodies would be useful. What you're saying kinda backed up my point that the main point of breastfeeding is to boost the babies immature immune system.

So, yeah, nothing wrong with breastfeeding your child for as long as you want, but IMO, it's fine to stop after six months. You can get going on the subject of breastfeeding all you want, but opinions differ on this and you'll just have to accept that.

EileenG

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

No, I'm not kidding, and I doubt my immunology professor was either.



The woman's BODY will start producing antibodies, not the milk. And yeah, that's how the secondary immune system works, exposing itself to new things and building up resistance to them. If a baby is introduced a bug in the creche, after the first few months, its own now matured secondary immune system will begin to produce antibodies to deal with that bug. It doesn't need mother's milk to provide the antibodies anymore. In the first few months? Yes, then mother's antibodies would be useful. What you're saying kinda backed up my point that the main point of breastfeeding is to boost the babies immature immune system.

So, yeah, nothing wrong with breastfeeding your child for as long as you want, but IMO, it's fine to stop after six months. You can get going on the subject of breastfeeding all you want, but opinions differ on this and you'll just have to accept that.

I hope your immunology professor can produce studies to back this up. Too often breastfeeding produces reactions based on "If some woman whips out her boobs in front of me, I'll be mortified and won't know where to look," rather than science.

TaraFoxglove

EileenG wrote: »

I hope your immunology professor can produce studies to back this up. Too often breastfeeding produces reactions based on "If some woman whips out her boobs in front of me, I'll be mortified and won't know where to look," rather than science.

Firstly, yes, I'm pretty sure my highly respected immunology professor knew what he was talking about. His material was backed up with peer-reviewed studies. I didn't go to a Mickey Mouse university.

Secondly, what has the bolded sentence got to do with anything I said? You think my prof made that stuff up because women breast-feeding in public offend him? Daft thing to say, TBH.

implausible

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

What you're saying kinda backed up my point that the main point of breastfeeding is to boost the babies immature immune system.

I thought that the point of breastfeeding was to feed the baby

Bottle_of_Smoke

deemark wrote: »

I thought that the point of breastfeeding was to feed the baby

Yes but immune system is one of the main reasons breast is better than bottle - which also feeds the baby

TaraFoxglove

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes but immune system is one of the main reasons breast is better than bottle - which also feeds the baby

Exactly.

I feel really sorry for women who actually can't breastfeed for various reasons with all this "breast is best" pressure. Personally, I WILL breastfeed if I ever have kids but only for six months max. And I won't be shamed in doing it for any longer than that. It's not needed.

Red Cortina

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

From an immunological point of view, this makes sense. I don't know why people always ignore this. Colostrum provides nourishment but its MAIN function is to boost or kickstart the newborn's immature secondary immune system. By month four or five, the child's immune system should be up and running, so the milk does indeed lose a lot of its value after this point. They are not saying the milk is poison, it will do the baby no harm to have it after this point, but its main function has been completed.

Breastmilk's main function is to nourish a growing baby! To say that it will 'do no harm' after 6 months is wrong.
I would say that the same might not possibly be said about formula milk.
Only recently did they start to include omega 3 fatty acids in formula milk. What other essential compounds found in human breast milk have they unknowingly omitted??

I was listening to a podcast by a paleo health blogger recently and he said something along the lines that it was the utmost of mankind's arrogance to think that they could possibly manufacture something to replace breastmilk. And I totally agree with him.

Red Cortina

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

I feel really sorry for women who actually can't breastfeed for various reasons with all this "breast is best" pressure.

I feel sorry too for those women who want to breast feed but can't. But I think that it is right that breastfeeding is strongly pushed on new mothers due to the benefits to the baby. Also there are benefits to be gained for the mother too ie decreased risk of cancer for women who breastfeed for longer.

On the otherhand I think that the issue isn't just as straight forward as whether the mother does or does not want to BF. I think that the birth experience of the mother will likely influence the sucess, or otherwise, of BF'ing and I also think that the medicalisation of the birth process is not conducive to BF'ing.

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Personally, I WILL breastfeed if I ever have kids but only for six months max. And I won't be shamed in doing it for any longer than that. It's not needed.

You shouldn't be shamed out of BF'ing after 6 months either. Just as a matter of interest why wouldn't you continue to BF after 6 months if it was working well for you and your baby? Why rule out the option before you even have a baby? The WHO recommend breastfeeding for 2 years and as I said earlier, I am skeptical as to the fact that formula milk can be as good as human breastmilk

implausible

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

They are not saying the milk is poison, it will do the baby no harm to have it after this point, but its main function has been completed.

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

So, yeah, nothing wrong with breastfeeding your child for as long as you want, but IMO, it's fine to stop after six months.

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

I feel really sorry for women who actually can't breastfeed for various reasons with all this "breast is best" pressure. Personally, I WILL breastfeed if I ever have kids but only for six months max. And I won't be shamed in doing it for any longer than that. It's not needed.

Wow, the language used here is interesting! You seem to think that breastfeeding is a bad habit and something that women are pressured into and it sounds like you're making excuses for women who do it - "it'll do no harm", "do it if you want". It smacks of the formula companies' marketing-speak - "when you're ready to move on...."

Women breastfeed their babies because it is the best thing for them and because they want to!

Getting back on track, the Home Ec course's recommendations for breastfeeding should mirror WHO regulations. There's very little point in public health education and school education contradicting each other!

EileenG

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Exactly.

I feel really sorry for women who actually can't breastfeed for various reasons with all this "breast is best" pressure. Personally, I WILL breastfeed if I ever have kids but only for six months max. And I won't be shamed in doing it for any longer than that. It's not needed.

Shamed into breastfeeding for over six months??? When I read this, I choked and splattered coffee all over my keyboard. At the last count, only one Irish baby in 450 is still exclusively breastfed at six months.

When you have a baby, you'll find that the Irish medical establishment's attitude is "Breast is best BUT...." The result is that half the women who start breastfeeding have stopped by the time they leave the maternity hospital.

Breastfeeding is my subject of expertise, I've studied it, and make a point of keeping my education and qualifications up to date. Half my mail (both snail and e-mail) concerns breastfeeding in some way. What I don't know (and that's lots) I know the person to ask. And I have never, in all the work I've done, and with all the experts I've met, found a single study which says that breastfeeding loses its value after six months.

If there is one, I'd love to see it.

And what what it's worth, I don't think "Breast is best." I think breast is normal. It's how babies should be fed. Anything else is a substitute.

TaraFoxglove

Red Cortina wrote: »

IJust as a matter of interest why wouldn't you continue to BF after 6 months if it was working well for you and your baby?

I'm not hugely maternal and know I won't enjoy the experience if I get in the position of being pregnant.

menoscemo

This is yet another thread that proves the arrogance of modern humans, who think they can chemically manufacture a product better than what their ancestors have been living on for millions of years :rolleyes:. Wise up people. Nature is best.

TaraFoxglove

EileenG wrote: »

When you have a baby, you'll find that the Irish medical establishment's attitude is "Breast is best BUT...." The result is that half the women who start breastfeeding have stopped by the time they leave the maternity hospital.

I don't see anything wrong with this. I do see wrong with the sanctimonious breast is best/normal faction, as if being a new mother isn't hard enough.

EileenG wrote: »

Breastfeeding is my subject of expertise, I've studied it, and make a point of keeping my education and qualifications up to date.

Then it is REALLY surprising to me that you are so surprised by the immunological importance of breast-feeding the first few months and that it is not really required after. It's your field of expertise and you didn't know this? Really?

And yes, I do think there is pressure to breast-feed from many quarters, and some of the response on this thread back up my viewpoint on this actually. Again, I really feel for women who can't do it with all this self-righteous hooey.

EileenG

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Then it is REALLY surprising to me that you are so surprised by the immunological importance of breast-feeding the first few months and that it is not really required after. It's your field of expertise and you didn't know this? Really?

No, I really don't. And since you are the one who is insisting there is no benefit, and you have proof of it, it's up to you to supply it.

TaraFoxglove

EileenG wrote: »

No, I really don't. And since you are the one who is insisting there is no benefit, and you have proof of it, it's up to you to supply it.

You're saying the immunological importance of breast-feeding is new to you, and this is your area of expertise?

Just had a look around Pubmed where there is an absolute avalanche of studies on the subject.

There are also official websites which also cite to six months old as the crucial breastfeeding time-scale, with any after that being at the mother's discretion.

Now you can continue demanding I provide evidence or you can use google for yourself.

menoscemo

menoscemo wrote: »

This is yet another thread that proves the arrogance of modern humans, who think they can chemically manufacture a product better than what their ancestors have been living on for millions of years :rolleyes:. Wise up people. Nature is best.

Not a product that's better, just a replacement. I totally agree with TaraFoxglove in terms of the pressure. I'm not having children any time soon, but even I've seen a lot of pressure to breastfeed. I think that breastmilk is best for a baby, but I don't think mother's who want to use formula should be villainised. And that does happen. I think that after 6 months, breastmilk is still very healthy for a baby, but I don't think it's a make or break situation at that stage. AFAIK by that time from what I've seen from kids I know, purees etc. should begin to be introduced to the baby's diet. I can only imagine how much a mother worries about the health of her child, and how hurtful it must be when people act like she's hurting her child by not breastfeeding, be it by choice or by necessity.

As an aside, I wasn't breastfed at all, from birth, and I turned out fine.

implausible

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

I'm not hugely maternal and know I won't enjoy the experience if I get in the position of being pregnant.

Nobody is maternal until they have a baby!

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with this. I do see wrong with the sanctimonious breast is best/normal faction, as if being a new mother isn't hard enough.

And yes, I do think there is pressure to breast-feed from many quarters, and some of the response on this thread back up my viewpoint on this actually. Again, I really feel for women who can't do it with all this self-righteous hooey.

I cannot understand why a person cannot state the fact that breast is normal without being accuse of being sanctimonious. It is a fact. It is also a fact that smoking is bad for you, you should exercise and you should eat more fruit and veg. Some people choose to smoke, not to exercise and don't eat what they should, yet nobody accuses public health education of putting pressure on those people or of making them feel guilty. Doctors who tell you to get more exercise are not accused of being self-righteous.

What's wrong with our attitude towards breastfeeding is epitomised in this thread - a woman who has not had a baby yet, talking about pressure being on her and refusing to entertain the idea of breastfeeding past 6 months.

EileenG

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

You're saying the immunological importance of breast-feeding is new to you, and this is your area of expertise?

Just had a look around Pubmed where there is an absolute avalanche of studies on the subject.

There are also official websites which also cite to six months old as the crucial breastfeeding time-scale, with any after that being at the mother's discretion.

Now you can continue demanding I provide evidence or you can use google for yourself.

Of course I know about the immunological importance of breastfeeding. What I don't know is why those benefits cease as soon as the baby turns six months. And the only evidence you have produced to prove this is "My immunological professor says so". I can produce study after study to show that breastfeeding continues to be important after six months, I'd like to see just one which says it isn't.

By the way, breastfeeding gets easier the longer you do it. It starts with a steep learning curve, but after the first couple of weeks, you have it down. Bottle feeding stays the same all the time, though the current recommendations for making up a bottle are so fiddly they are a huge plug for breastfeeding www.babycentre.co.uk/baby/formula/makingabottle/ By the time you are breastfeeding for six months, there is absolutely no work or effort involved.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I do think it best to continue after 6 months but I doubt it does the baby any real harm to stop at that point. If everyone breastfed for that long it would be a major achievement

EileenG wrote:

I can produce study after study to show that breastfeeding continues to be important after six months, I'd like to see just one which says it isn't.

Just to be clear here - you can produce study after study to show it continues to be important in general or continues to be important in relation to the immune system of the baby?

EileenG

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I do think it best to continue after 6 months but I doubt it does the baby any real harm to stop at that point. If everyone breastfed for that long it would be a major achievement



Just to be clear here - you can produce study after study to show it continues to be important in general or continues to be important in relation to the immune system of the baby?

Both.

And yes, breastfeeding to six months is a major achievement, and an unusual one in Ireland (we have the worst breastfeeding rates in the world) but the WHO and the Department of Health and Children both recommend breastfeeding to two years for a reason.

Roger Marbles

EileenG wrote: »

Both.

And yes, breastfeeding to six months is a major achievement, and an unusual one in Ireland (we have the worst breastfeeding rates in the world) but the WHO and the Department of Health and Children both recommend breastfeeding to two years for a reason.

Can I get a link to the WHO recommendation please. I'm interested to see what reasoning they are basing this on, particulary their data showing breastfeeding for 2 years has statistically significant benefit compared to a control group.

Adelie

Roger Marbles wrote: »

Can I get a link to the WHO recommendation please. I'm interested to see what reasoning they are basing this on, particulary their data showing breastfeeding for 2 years has statistically significant benefit compared to a control group.

If you Google for "who breastfeeding" you get their website as the first result... which says
"Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to 6 months of age, with continued breastfeeding along with appropriate complementary foods up to two years of age or beyond."

I'm also interested in what they have to back this up, there is a lot of info there including a page of links to publications. I didn't get through much of it yet.

Roger Marbles

Ya I had a brief look at the introduction to their latest guideline and they say it may be beneficial up to 2 years but there is no citation

smiles302

Erm..

WHO have a huge list of publications

The protection
is greatest when breastmilk alone is given for the first six months and when
breastfeeding continues along with other foods well into the second year and
beyond. No other milks, foods or supplements can provide the protection
of breastmilk.

Page 54 of this pdf: http://www.factsforlifeglobal.org/resources/factsforlife-en-full.pdf

Anyway.. OP have you decided what you are doing to do about the home ec teacher?

EileenG

smiles302 wrote: »

Anyway.. OP have you decided what you are doing to do about the home ec teacher?

The children have begged me NOT to approach the teacher or anyone else in the school, on the grounds that any sort of stirring would make trouble for them.

If I thought it would do any good, I'd go to the Department, but I happen to know a paediatric brain surgeon who is fuming about a Primary School reading book which shows a new baby coming home from hospital (where it was bottle fed) and travels sitting on its mother's knee. He had written to the Department pointing out that he has to deal with the result of babies who are not properly secured in cars, but that reading book is still on the curriculum.

Roger Marbles

smiles302 wrote: »

Erm..

WHO have a huge list of publications



Page 54 of this pdf: http://www.factsforlifeglobal.org/resources/factsforlife-en-full.pdf

Anyway.. OP have you decided what you are doing to do about the home ec teacher?

Yes it does have a lot of publications, however the one you linked above has no references to any scientific literature regarding the proven benefits of breastfeeding up to 2 years.

Facts indeed:rolleyes:

EileenG

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309043913&page=134#pagetop

www.kellymom.com/bf/bfextended/ebf-benefits.html This page has a load of links to the sort of study you want.

Roger Marbles

What that page establishes is that human milk provides concentrations of immunologic facts which we already know. However, children start producing their own antibodies at 6 months unless they have Bruton's agammaglobulinemia or SCID.

Secondly to prove scientifically something is beneficial for a period of time, you must compare 2 groups, one controlled for a variable, one not and the result must be statistically significant with appropriate methodology.

While we can all agree breast milk is a great source of nutrition, particularly for neonates, this does not provide any answer to my original query regarding the 2 year recommendation.

Edit: I see your reference in the 2nd edit, will have a look now.

Regarding the kellymoms page, can you direct me to the particular reference of a RCT looking at 2 year benefit versus a control group. I can't access the full copy of the first ones I tried and I don't have the time to go through that many references. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to which trial you had in mind.

One of the abstracts I've read is about episodes of illness in Jewish children born to middle class mothers but only goes as far as 20 weeks postpartum.

El_Dangeroso

Anyone who thinks this..

Water, Skimmed Milk, Reduced Minerals Whey, Vegetable Oils, Lactose, Emulsifiers (Monoglycerides of Fatty Acids and Soya Lecithin), Calcium Citrate, Sodium Citrate, Vitamin C, Potassium Bicarbonate, Choline Chloride, Calcium Chloride, Potassium Phosphate, Magnesium Chloride, Calcium Hydroxide, Sodium Bicarbonate, Potassium Chloride, Potassium Hydroxide, Ferrous Sulphate, Taurine, Inositol, Zinc Sulphate, Cytidine-5'-Monophosphate, Vitamin E, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Adenosine-5'-Monophosphate, Disodium Uridine-5'-Monophosphate, Disodium Inosine-5'-Monophosphate, Vitamin A, Disodium Guanosine-5'-Monophosphate, Thiamin, Copper Sulphate, Vitamin B6, Vitamin D, Manganese Sulphate, Folic Acid, Potassium Iodide, Vitamin K, Riboflavin, Sodium Selenite, Biotin

..is somehow equivalent to breastmilk even after 6 months.. I dunno..:(

Most of those vitamins are synthetic btw, cheaper to manufacture and meets government regulations.

Roger Marbles

Again, that's not the argument, or at least my point. And I think we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the "anyone thinks" argument around here.

For example, one can reasonably argue that after 6 months, the equivalence comparison between that product and breast milk is a non-runner seeing as children are producing antibodies of their own by that point and that they could obtain the rest of the laudable properties of breast milk by other means.

But the fact the WHO produce a document without citations for their "facts" is alarming but not surprising given the cholesterol myth that is being peddled to this day by similar organisations in other fields.

Really what I'm after is the cold hard science here. Having looked through those references, although I don't have access to them all and only abstracts to some, I'm far from convinced there is methodologically sound data with significant results to support the 2 year hypothesis, which for now it is.

That's not to say I'm not convinced there isn't, it just remains to be answered.

El_Dangeroso

Roger Marbles wrote: »

Again, that's not the argument, or at least my point. And I think we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the "anyone thinks" argument around here.

For example, one can reasonably argue that after 6 months, the equivalence comparison between that product and breast milk is a non-runner seeing as children are producing antibodies of their own by that point and that they could obtain the rest of the laudable properties of breast milk by other means.

But the fact the WHO produce a document without citations for their "facts" is alarming but not surprising given the cholesterol myth that is being peddled to this day by similar organisations in other fields.

Really what I'm after is the cold hard science here. Having looked through those references, although I don't have access to them all and only abstracts to some, I'm far from convinced there is methodologically sound data with significant results to support the 2 year hypothesis, which for now it is.

That's not to say I'm not convinced there isn't, it just remains to be answered.

At 6 months an infant is not ready to eat only solid food. You have to continue with milk in addition to solid food for a while at least.

There's a really good reason why healthy populations breast-feed to 2+ years (the average is 3-4 years :eek:).

There is no way that formula is in any way equivalent to real food.

With the 'anyone who thinks' comment, it just makes me sad that people would think we could in anyway replicate a natural food with synthetic chemicals. Maybe we will some day but not yet.

Had a quick look through pubmed and there seems to be little to no studies examining the results of breast feeding of 6 months vs. 2 years. But all the studies seem to exhibit a linear relationship in the benefits of breastfeeding.

I did find this paper:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/20/2601.short

It showed a reduced incidence of type II diabetes in the mother breastfeeding longer than 1 year as compared to 6 months. Having said that, it is an observational study and in a western society women who breastfeed that long are likely to be very health conscious anyway.

The 6 month cut-off date seems rather arbitrary unless anyone has a good paper that justifies it?

I can't help but notice the lack of study on longer term breastfeeding, which is a huge pity but as Eileen says, the population of women who breastfeed post 1 year is tiny.

In the cases where there is no real papers on a subject I tend to defer to what healthy populations do, and they breastfeed much longer than 6 months.

Roger Marbles

I haven't mentioned anything about solid food tbf.

Ya, I appreciate the lack of studies could be the issue rather than a relationship existing. But for the sake of good discussion, if you are going to cite the WHO and DOH then you should be aware of what they are basing their recommendations on and be able to draw on these. Otherwise, don't cite such sources as a basis for your point of view as it doesn't obviously stack up as it stands.

I will leave it at that as this thread was originally about something else to begin with.

TaraFoxglove

EileenG wrote: »

Of course I know about the immunological importance of breastfeeding. What I don't know is why those benefits cease as soon as the baby turns six months. And the only evidence you have produced to prove this is "My immunological professor says so".

Because the immune system has matured by that stage and can start processing foreign objects and start producing antibodies against them. Why would you think my immunology professor would make this up? Yes, he did "say so". And? His lectures were always referenced with the relevant papers.

Roger Marbles raises an interesting point - why be so keen to believe the WHO on this when many official recommendations on many nutrition issues are built on shaky foundations?

muffinn

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Because the immune system has matured by that stage and can start processing foreign objects and start producing antibodies against them. Why would you think my immunology professor would make this up? Yes, he did "say so". And? His lectures were always referenced with the relevant papers.

Roger Marbles raises an interesting point - why be so keen to believe the WHO on this when many official recommendations on many nutrition issues are built on shaky foundations?

Why don't you ask your professor for studies to back it up ?
Aren't you curious yourself or you'd rather just take someone's word for it and leave it like that ?

I always question something and ask for proof if it is contrary to what I know/believe in but maybe that's just me.

TaraFoxglove

muffinn wrote: »

Why don't you ask your professor for studies to back it up ?
Aren't you curious yourself or you'd rather just take someone's word for it and leave it like that.

I did read up on it myself at time, obviously. It was part of our coursework, so of course I did. And I said in my last post, there was back up in the form of citations at various points in the lecture slides. So it WAS backed up.

Bottle_of_Smoke

IF you were to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months would it not be a massive pain in the tits to start bottlefeeding? Getting the temperature/quantity right and carrying the bottle and all that nonsense after becoming fully used to the natural way being as simple as it is

EileenG

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

IF you were to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months would it not be a massive pain in the tits to start bottlefeeding? Getting the temperature/quantity right and carrying the bottle and all that nonsense after becoming fully used to the natural way being as simple as it is

Definitely. I can understand why some women choose not to breastfeed, or why they give up in the early days due to lack of support, but by the time you've got to six months, you're an expert at it, and so is your baby. Breastfeeding is literally no effort at all, while bottle feeding involves the same amount of hassle as it does for a newborn.

EileenG

www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/b/breastfeedingpositionpaper.html

Paper with lots of references, and not based on third world countries either.

Roger Marbles

EileenG wrote: »

www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/b/breastfeedingpositionpaper.html

Paper with lots of references, and not based on third world countries either.

So here is the line on the two years breast feeding hypothesis from that paper:

Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that a child breastfeed for at least two years.

And here is the citation for this statement:

World Health Organization, United Nations Children's Fund, US Agency for International Development, Swedish International Development Agency. Innocenti declaration on the protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding. New York: UNICEF, 1990.

Here is the document:

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/1990-2005-gb.pdf

The evidence in that study supporting the benefits of two years is scant with no reference to a single direct trial at all. The only link is to a prior publication which cites an observational study (Grade C evidence) on malnourised children. Wow.

taz70

deemark wrote: »

I thought that the point of breastfeeding was to feed the baby

Quite.

true-or-false wrote: »

Not a product that's better, just a replacement. I totally agree with TaraFoxglove in terms of the pressure. I'm not having children any time soon, but even I've seen a lot of pressure to breastfeed. I think that breastmilk is best for a baby, but I don't think mother's who want to use formula should be villainised.

Good lord, you need to get out there and see all the mammies and their pressure to bottle feed. Breastfeeding advocates have NOTHING on this lot!!

true-or-false wrote: »

AFAIK by that time from what I've seen from kids I know, purees etc. should begin to be introduced to the baby's diet. I can only imagine how much a mother worries about the health of her child, and how hurtful it must be when people act like she's hurting her child by not breastfeeding, be it by choice or by necessity.

Yes, solids (not just purees, but real food) can be introduced at six months BUT the main source of nutrition until a year old is milk. It used to be that solids were introduced MUCH later (9-12 months), but when early formulas were introduced, so many babies were dying from malnourishment, that the recommended age for solids was brought forward!

Don't be kidded into thinking that most formula-feeding mothers "can't" breastfeed. In terms of clinical reasons why breastfeeding is not possible, the number is incredibly small - certainly nothing like the figures in this country. "Can't be bothered" might be a more accurate description. If this offends, I'm not sure I'm sorry. Their choice to feed their child an artificial product, so suck it up, princess, and stand by your decision.

true-or-false wrote: »

As an aside, I wasn't breastfed at all, from birth, and I turned out fine.

Ah yes - I wondered when anecdata would be presented!! If you're fine, then OF COURSE, it must be all OK....

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Exactly.

I feel really sorry for women who actually can't breastfeed for various reasons with all this "breast is best" pressure. Personally, I WILL breastfeed if I ever have kids but only for six months max. And I won't be shamed in doing it for any longer than that. It's not needed.

I don't get this at all. You WILL breastfeed, but then at six months change to what - formula? So it's like saying, I WILL feed my children a healthy diet until 2 years, then they can just have McDonald's. You know, cause healthy choices just aren't needed anymore.

Honestly, it's the most ridiculous reasoning I've heard. Breastmilk is a food source (indeed, the best food source for a baby), so why mot continue giving it until your child no longer needs to rely on it? It makes no sense to arbitrarily switch to an artificial food.

EileenG wrote: »

The food pyramid is a given, of course, but one daughter has just been told that women can't breastfeed if they lift weights, and shouldn't breastfeed past six months, it stops having value at that point.

Sorry - I do have to agree with this one. To be fair, it would be dangerous to breastfeed whilst lifting weights. I can't imagine doing a squat with a baby hanging off my boob (even with a sling!). Mind you, I could probably manage some bicep curls if my baby was really hungry.

EileenG wrote: »

And of course, they can't breastfeed if they exercise, drink coffee, wine or eat cabbage or curry.

Jaysus, there's about half a billion women in the subcontinent who need to be told this IMMEDIATELY. How ridiculous - no curry?

TaraFoxglove

taz70 wrote: »

I don't get this at all. You WILL breastfeed, but then at six months change to what - formula? So it's like saying, I WILL feed my children a healthy diet until 2 years, then they can just have McDonald's. You know, cause healthy choices just aren't needed anymore.

Why do people always use MacDonald's as an example as if that's what people will start feeding their kids? :rolleyes: It such an extreme choice for a for instance.

taz70

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Why do people always use MacDonald's as an example as if that's what people will start feeding their kids? :rolleyes: It such an extreme choice for a for instance.

Perhaps because in this instance it is an equivalent? Sure it's food, but is it the best choice? Probably not.

But if this is too extreme for you, then perhaps the comparison could be between a good quality, homemade wholegrain bread and the spongey white rubbish you get at the supermarket. It's essentially the same thing, but why give your kid the inferior product when you're perfectly capable of providing the better food choice. And I still don't understand that given that you're likely to choose to start on a healthy path, why just switch to something that's inferior?

Actually, give there is a link between formula-feeding and childhood obesity, perhaps McDonald's is the right comparison after all!

EileenG

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16707982

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21552718

www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/sustained.html

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)02168-6/fulltext

I've also found a pile of dense PDFs you can look at if you want.

But I'm wondering why I'm busy supplying evidence that breastfeeding is good, instead of TaraFoxglove supplying me with the evidence that it is useless. Just because a baby won't die without breastmilk after six months is not evidence that it isn't better for it. If a six month old baby's immune system is as developed as it needs to be, why make any effort to feed it well after that?

TaraFoxglove

taz70 wrote: »

Actually, give there is a link between formula-feeding and childhood obesity, perhaps McDonald's is the right comparison after all!

Really? Despite all those kids I know who were given formula and... aren't obese?

EileenG wrote: »

If a six month old baby's immune system is as developed as it needs to be

The secondary immune system is always evolving and developing in a person, in response to being bombarded with new foreign object all the time. The point is that in neonates, they aren't equipped to deal with foreign objects until several months in so they need to "borrow" antibodies from mother.

hamsterchen

EileenG wrote: »

Definitely. I can understand why some women choose not to breastfeed, or why they give up in the early days due to lack of support, but by the time you've got to six months, you're an expert at it, and so is your baby. Breastfeeding is literally no effort at all, while bottle feeding involves the same amount of hassle as it does for a newborn.

I can only confirm. DD is 16 months, I'm full time working and still breastfeeding, in the afternoon and in the night and was at home till she was 12 months.
With the introduction of solids and as the baby gets more efficient at sucking the feeds get rarer and shorter and it is so much easier to pull up the top and feed the baby for 5 to 10 minutes rather than cleaning, sterilizing, preparing, measuring the right dose etc. The financial factor is not neglectable either. Everyone is complaining about money and it makes me wonder how someone can complain about not being able to pay utility bills or mortgage while at the same time spending money on formula when they can actually have the whole nutrition for the baby for free.

homeless

gosh this is my first time ever posting on this forum after lurking for years!
reading comments like "none of the formula fed babies i know are obese" is hilarious. For someone who is supposedly studying immunology its not the most scientific thing to say. the studies that Eileen linked must be a load of crap so!!! I also know people who've smoked all there life and lived to 90 therefore smoking must be good for you!
Now i think we're still waiting on those studies that prove breastfeeding beyond 6 months has no immunolgical benefits to a baby.

Roger Marbles

EileenG wrote: »

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16707982

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21552718

www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/sustained.html

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(99)02168-6/fulltext

I've also found a pile of dense PDFs you can look at if you want.

But I'm wondering why I'm busy supplying evidence that breastfeeding is good, instead of TaraFoxglove supplying me with the evidence that it is useless. Just because a baby won't die without breastmilk after six months is not evidence that it isn't better for it. If a six month old baby's immune system is as developed as it needs to be, why make any effort to feed it well after that?

Well tbh Eileen you backed your evidence above by citing the WHO and DOH and I've looked through the WHO data so far and there is no evidence of the sort.

I'd prefer instead of providing references and me going reading through them all, you would post up up your thoughts on one specific trial that backs up your point and then we could discuss it.

For example, if I were to discuss the use of statins in men with cardiovascular disease, I would post up the S4 study and then we could discuss both its good and flawed points. This would give for much better dicussion rather than just linking to some groups guidelines because if you had read the WHO's document, you would have come away much like me:

I mean your first trial there doesn't represent a normal group population. It's children who are seriously immunologically compromised due to their haematological malignancy. That's like me saying because statins show modest benefit in this particular group of men with angina, all men should get statins. Plus the intervention group were only fed for 10 months, not 2 years, and they were fed for 2 months less than the controls. They also only compare the results at 6 months and somehow extrapolate a longterm recommendation based on that. My recommendation would be from the trial: breastfeeding up to the age of 6 months shows statistically significant benefit in children with this specific illness.

I wonder why I'm busy analysing these "references" when none of them support any of your statements on 2 years breast feeding.

Roger Marbles

homeless wrote: »

gosh this is my first time ever posting on this forum after lurking for years!
reading comments like "none of the formula fed babies i know are obese" is hilarious. For someone who is supposedly studying immunology its not the most scientific thing to say. the studies that Eileen linked must be a load of crap so!!! I also know people who've smoked all there life and lived to 90 therefore smoking must be good for you!
Now i think we're still waiting on those studies that prove breastfeeding beyond 6 months has no immunolgical benefits to a baby.

Linking loads of studies or supplying loads of references doesn't prove anything. It's what the studies actually show....that is the point.

hamsterchen

so far we haven't seen any evidence to contrary so we could always say that it's impressions against impression, isn't it?
Well, my personal impression is :

1. when dd had teething problems, we didn't spend nights walking and singing to her to calm her down. She was most comfortable sleeping next to me and sucking when needed and that's what we did. Due to her gum problems, she didn't want to eat her solids so she breastfed and we had no problems at all.
2. when she got a stomach bug at 9 months from our neighbourgh's twins, she didn't end up in hospital with dehydration, like they did. she fed. yes, she fed almost endlessly and what came in went out fast, but she was fine, not a sign of dehydration. and she didn't scream with stomach pain, because breast milk is easier to digest than formula.
3. she never needed antibiotics, only sick with head-cold and cough and her biggest problem at the time was that we didn't allow her to spend the whole day outside.
4. even now, at 16 months, when her teeth are coming out, she maybe in pain and down a bit but when she feeds from me, she is much better immediately, doesn't even need calpol or other usual medication for bad teething pain.

These are my impressions of a breastfeeding mother, so if someone tells me that there are no benefits from breast milk after 6 months, I can only say, yes, maybe, but after she got the same bugs other kids who she meets had, she didn't end up on 2 doses of antibiotics or in a hospital, in fact she breezed through all her problems, the only difference was, she was feeding a lot more from me.