To think that "97% of women can breastfeed" is a load of crap

No I’m really not. I’m simply saying 6 months of breast feeding isn’t worth worrying about,there are far bigger parenting choices to concern ourselves with.

I think you’re taking the breastfeeding debate very personally and are now trying to spin things round to reassure yourself and deflect the guilt onto others.

Of course the ‘ideal’ is exclusive breastfeeding followed by the best diet possible. One doesn’t make a lack of the other any better. But this conversation is about breastfeeding. I agree there are many parents I know who breastfeed followed by a shit diet for 17 years, and I think on a balance of probabilities, 17 years of health food matters more than a year of breast milk. But it isn’t either/or.

I’m not the one pushing my choices on others. Formula is only used for a year, mothers feed their children for 18 years. For some reason 17 years of UPFs and pesticides are ok but one year of formula isn’t!😂

Are you feeding small children and teens with a ‘tight budget veg box’? If so, hats off to you, if they’re not anorexic.

No you wouldn’t. I manage it on a tight budget cooking from scratch with a veg box and a supermarket order, both delivered. We don’t buy expensive processed food and buy only a small amount of meat, no takeaways full of god knows what or fast food costing ££££.

You’re choosing not to do it.

Having never given birth myself I’m certainly no expert on breastfeeding but from an evolutionary biology perspective the ability of female mammals to lactate & feed their young in infancy is pretty fundamental. Individuals who couldn’t would not be passing on their genes to future generations because the babies would not survive so natural selection would strongly favour those who could lactate successfully.

Would that evolutionary pressure be enough to push the figure up to 97%? No idea. 🤷🏻‍♀️

But surely formula is a UPF? Why is an exclusively UPF diet ok for infants but having any UPF daily is damaging for older babies and children?

Well no because breasts are attached to your body. To feed my kids an exclusively organic diet I would have to go to multiple shops and spend a fortune and even then it would be very difficult to implement. Not at all the same as a free available appendage attached to your body.

Ds had been admitted to hospital because he kept vomiting but wasn't ill so the consultant wanted to do an mri of his brain to rule out various things. The paediatrician on the ward (not his consultant) came and asked a load of questions about his health from pregnancy onwards. She asked if I had breastfed him and I said I couldn't because of his cleft palate and she said I should have tried harder.

That seems too much like common sense for the ‘fed is best’ crowd.

You won't have been included in that 1% because exclusive breastfeeding means absolutely nothing except breastmilk, vitamin D, and small amounts of water (for older babies) so any solid food means you're not exclusive breastfeeding. Which is why I think its much better to look at stats of how many mothers breastfeed at any amount as that will show a better picture of breastfeeding rates.

Well no because breasts are attached to your body. To feed my kids an exclusively organic diet I would have to go to multiple shops and spend a fortune and even then it would be very difficult to implement. Not at all the same as a free available appendage attached to your body.

No I’m not posters are though with breast milk and formula.

We know what UPFs do to health, they’re far more damaging than a few months without breast milk but still parents carry on feeding UPFs daily to their children, ditto food that is full of pesticides.

If we follow the logic of the pro breast feeding posters on here most are failing parents. There is no grey area. Hypocrisy at its highest.

No I’m not posters are though with breast milk and formula.

We know what UPFs do to health, they’re far more damaging than a few months without breast milk but still parents carry on feeding UPFs daily to their children, ditto food that is full of pesticides.

If we follow the logic of the pro breast feeding posters on here most are failing parents. There is no grey area. Hypocrisy at its highest.

What you’re doing is taking a situation and making out it’s black or white - that there are no such thing as grey areas, or reasonableness, either you feed your child organic hand produced meals OR you give them a can of Monster and packet of crisps. You’re using this false binary to remove all responsibility because ‘where does it end’.

As a society we’re very good at striking a balance without that then progressing to an extreme.

There is such a thing as a ‘reasonable’ diet.

I’m not denying the rates could be higher but I’m sure that understates the true position. I don’t know that I was ever asked how long I bf my kids but I definitely weaned both at under 6 months (baby led - they were grabbing food and ready), so depending on how the question was asked I might not have been included in the stats, even though neither child had a drop of formula.

But feeding your children any foods that aren’t organic and have UPFs in surely isn’t good enough. Anybody can feed their children organic, UPF free food. It’s a choice to feed children foods that aren’t the best and have way more impact on life than a few months of breast milk.

I do judge people who don’t make a ‘reasonable effort’ to keep their child healthy yes.

I’m not up at 4am baking sourdough and churning my own butter, but I follow some people on Insta whose children’s diets are just appalling. Chocolate for breakfast, sugar poured on cereals for toddlers, ‘lunch’ just a grey sausage roll from a multipack with a handful of crisps.

The number of obese children at DD school is horrific. Particularly the boys - they look like James Corden at the age of 7.

And anyone who hands their under 5 year old a tablet (unless on a flight to Australia or during an upsetting hospital procedure for instance) has failed as a parent IMO

And non organic food with UPFs in throughout childhood and adolescence? I mean it’s poison right.

People are absolutely shamed for excessive screentime and anyone whose child has no access to any books or opportunities to exercise probably should be shamed.

No many can’t, their MH, circumstances, babies, their bodies …. all sorts of reasons mean many can’t.

Having a pair of boobs does not instantly mean you can and should BF.

Another mother here with a dangerously ill dehydrated and malnourished baby that ended up in SCBU thanks to BF. The minute all my babies had formula they were happier, more contented and healthier, as was I.So wish I hadn’t wasted the time I did trying to do it. A few months of BF soooo wasn’t worth the pain and suffering.

Organic UPF free food throughout childhood, no screens, access to books and exercise are all things it probably is worth bellyaching over but funnily enough nobody seems to scaremonger and shame mothers into any of them.

You can drink in moderation and breastfeed though. The amount that passes to the milk is like a shot in a swimming pool. I do think there's a lot of nonsense in the media and old wives tales about having to restrict your lifestyle. For example, avoiding fizzy drinks and "windy" vegetables. People seem not to know that milk is made from blood. The fibre from cruciferous vegetables that can cause wind does not pass into the bloodstream. The bubbles in fizzy drinks do not make your blood fizzy.