In thinking that Jo Frost should shut the fuck up about breastfeeding

[spudulika]

... as she clearly knows nothing about it.

If you want proof have a look at the new Jo Frost magazine (no need to buy it of course, just do what I do - rifle through it at the supermarket ). Article on breastfeeding 'how long, and when to stop'.

She seems to think that 'weaning' means stopping breastfeeding.

And she feels the need to say 'I'm the biggest fan of breastfeeding, but I don't think mothers should be made to feel like the scum of the earth for not doing it. Whatever choice you make is fine!' To which I want to respond: if I wanted to read vapid platitudes about breastfeeding I'd go to Netmums. It's free. Whereas your magazine costs... bloody loads.

It's just not asseptable.

She needs to pull her socks up.

Alabama is right - all the guidelines and research about breast feeding come from WHO and it is based upon the developing countries . They advise breast feeding and breast feeding for as long as possible because of the food shortages and contaminated water. There is also a wealth of evidence now that Even if you breastfeed your child- the food they are weaned onto makes just as much impact on their entire wellbeing. So if you bf and then make poor choices about solids for your child then essentially you can undo the ' goodness' of breastfeeding. Not on opinion - my daughters paediatric dietician informed me of both these points. Interestingly too there are no guidelines applicable to the uk as to the best time to start weaning . They all apply to the 3rd world.

I think YANBU to object to someone who is seen as an expert on childcare, strongly implying that BF is something that happens for 4-6 months and ceases when solids are introduced.

This seems to tie in with the formula ads which also seem to imply that BF is for 6 months and after that you do something else.

These messages mean that a lot of people (that I have met) think that you BF for up to 6 months.

You know chicken, I CAN'T find any mention of her having done any sort of childcare course. I don't know where I got the information about her having studied at Nescot - was years ago. NESCOT would have been her local college (she's a Surrey girl).

"There is also a wealth of evidence now that Even if you breastfeed your child- the food they are weaned onto makes just as much impact on their entire wellbeing. So if you bf and then make poor choices about solids for your child then essentially you can undo the ' goodness' of breastfeeding."

Sorry - where is this 'wealth of evidence' that breastfeeding is irrelevant if child goes on to have a poor weaning diet? There's actually some evidence that breastfeeding for the first year or so of life has a PROTECTIVE effect in relation to childhood obesity and arterial stiffness in adolescence. Also that breastfed children are more likely to be accepting of a wide range of weaning foods because they've been exposed to different tastes through their mother's milk in the run up to weaning beginning, unlike ff babies whose food always tastes the same.

"Not on opinion - my daughters paediatric dietician informed me of both these points."

It's the paediatrician's opinion. A paediatrician at our local hospital routinely tells mums of twins they won't have enough milk for their babies and so will definitely need to top up with formula.

They are not experts in lactation or necessarily in infant nutrition. And some of them talk bollocks. Especially when they're fishing around for information which will make women feel better about stopping bf early.

I agree with the OP actually.

BF/FF politic aside, it is crap information.

She styles herself as a childcare expert and so she has a responsibility to give accurate information.

Milk is meant to form the main part of a baby's diet until they are 12 months old. So milk feeding shouldn't stop at 6 months - whether the milk is breastmilk or formula.

I don't think it matters how your child is fed. Both are good forms of nutrition, bf better from a public health perspective.

I dislike bf being framed as some sort of moral imperative that 'good mothers' do.

It's just feeding your child, It doesn't make you a good parent.

Some people breastfeed. Some people don't. Get over it.

I went to a breastfeeding "support" group with DD2. The other women there were talking about another member of the group who had, shock horror, been seen to put on a form that she was mixed feeding. Cue a sharp intake of breath and head-shaking. How exactly is that supportive? As I had mixed fed my DD1, and ended up mixed feeding my DD2, I felt I could never return, so I ended up with no breastfeeding support.

As for Jo Frost says about breastfeeding, of course it's fine to chose either. You're still feeding your baby!

I don't get this part of the OP; "She seems to think that 'weaning' means stopping breastfeeding"

It does, doesn't it? Or rather weaning means gradually (ahem) weaning an infant from being reliant on milk (breast or formula), with a view to them getting their nutrition from other sources.

Extended BF (or FF for that matter) is surely just a bit of extra something (particularly comfort) once a child gets beyond their first year. If a child's diet is good, it's no longer needed. Obviously that point might be reached later with some DCs than with others.

"I dislike bf being framed as some sort of moral imperative that 'good mothers' do.

It's just feeding your child, It doesn't make you a good parent."

So - where have you read, other than the odd stupid comment on mumsnet or one of the other internet forums, that breastfeeding 'makes you a good parent?'

Would want to add - it's not 'just feeding your child'. Most people who breastfeed feel it's vastly more than just a food delivery system. It's a way to comfort and engage with their baby.

Why shouldn't she have an opinion on it? Who is anybody to say what anyone else should or shouldn't have views on? I see constant judgements here of people who do or don't breastfeed when nobody is actually equipped to make any observation about feeding anybody else's child. They only have experience of feeding their own, whichever method.

Jo Frost doesn't have children but from reading some of the posts here, she makes better decisions for the families she's helping than some of the posters do for their own 'DCs'.

Isn't it common sense that even if the child was bf, if they have a bad diet/lifestyle than it will counteract the benefits of bf. Bf is not a cure all, if you have bad lifestyle choices you are likely to get certain diseases wherever you were bf or not.

spud Well, my DDs probably feel totally unloved in that case as they've had formula too. Perhaps I should have carried on ebf DD1 and actually succeeded in starving her to death, as I nearly did.

lololol that she wanted to be an actress

and now she is

as for her breastfeeding article, I personally will not be wasting any of my time on it

"the eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn of the crow"

FF is also a way to engage with and comfort your baby. It has the benefit that someone other than the mother can do it.

I BF ds for 18 months. I agree that it's "vastly more than just a food delivery system". But then so is bottle feeding. BF beyond a few months has the edge but it is not quite as superior as (properly executed) FF as some people seem to believe.

Actually when I (or ds or dp) cook dinner for the rest of us, it's also "more than just a food delivery system".

"Extended BF (or FF for that matter) is surely just a bit of extra something (particularly comfort) once a child gets beyond their first year. If a child's diet is good, it's no longer needed. Obviously that point might be reached later with some DCs than with others."

What do you mean by 'extended' breastfeeding? Do you mean breastfeeding beyond the end of the first year? Breastmilk continues to be an important part of many children's diets beyond this point, just as unprocessed cows milk is an important part of the diet of children who aren't being breastfed. Toddlers need to get their protein from somewhere. I'd rather my toddler had had breastmilk, which is a 'superfood' than be getting their protein from cheese-strings or cows milk. As for it being 'necessary' - well it's not 'necessary' from birth, if we have an adequate substitute, as we do. But when it comes to the welfare of children we usually look beyond doing the absolute bare minimum don't we?

Re: what my OP was about - the article was 'How long to breastfeed'. The paragraph subtitle was 'when to stop breastfeeding'. The words that followed were about babies needing more than breastmilk from between 4 to 6 months. For me, the article seemed to be saying that you 'move on' from breastfeeding when you introduce solid foods.

And if you want to get a flavour of the magazine's general attitude towards breastfeeding - have a look at this: it's a response to the widely reported comment about breastfeeding being 'creepy' by Katherine Blundell, the deputy editor of Mother and Baby, from a while back. The 'At Home' response pays lip service (as is politically correct) to the notion that 'breast is best' it basically says that it's ok to think bf is disgusting as long as you have freedom of choice (which implies that there are people out there who are seriously proposing that women SHOULDN'T have the right to choose how to feed their baby, which of course they're not).

here

It's a shit magazine, with shit coverage of breastfeeding issues.

"FF is also a way to engage with and comfort your baby."

No - it's true that ff can also be lovely, though it usually involves less skin to skin contact, which in the early days is so important and pleasurable for babies.

"spud Well, my DDs probably feel totally unloved in that case as they've had formula too. Perhaps I should have carried on ebf DD1 and actually succeeded in starving her to death, as I nearly did."

You read my comment about breastfeeding also being about comforting and engaging with your baby and drew from it that I think ff babies are therefore 'totally unloved' ?

And then the comment about starving your child to death?

Defensive? You?

Seriously - it's stupid interpretations and straw-man arguments like yours which poison this debate.

Actually the construction of the breastfeeder as the 'good mother' is well documented.

Research has identified that in a well intentioned bid to drive up rates of breastfeeding, bottlefeeding has become to some extent stigmatised, and women feel this.

The whole when do you stop thing is another minefield but I think most women who have been breastfeeding fo six months are capable of decising when to stop without Jo Frost's input.

"It's a way to comfort and engage with their baby." so's bottlefeeding. As extremely social as extended family can do it too.

Spud - it is your refusal to acknowledge the human aspect of this argument that causes you to come across extremely badly in this debate. Every woman will have a personal experience be it guilt or joy with bf once they become a mother. To feel this has no place in the 'debate' means that you fail in your objective to promote bf before you have even started.
By not engaging with these experiences and dismissing kind words as 'platitudes' you come across as having an axe to grind not someone who wishes to change society's norm regarding infant feeding.

"Actually the construction of the breastfeeder as the 'good mother' is well documented."

Can we have some references please?

"Research has identified that in a well intentioned bid to drive up rates of breastfeeding, bottlefeeding has become to some extent stigmatised, and women feel this"

What - even though 95% of women use formula by the end of the first year of their baby's life? Again - given that formula use is ubiquitous in society and in the media - what official support is there for the opinion that ff is 'bad'?

"so's bottlefeeding"

Difference is that bf involves a fair amount of 'non-nutritive suckling'. Bottlefeeding doesn't. And it's this that you can argue makes bf helpful when it comes to comforting a child. Most people won't prepare a bottle, or whip out a bottle to comfort a child who's frightened or hurt. But women regularly put their baby to the breast to comfort them when they're unhappy or frightened. Plus the fact that breastmilk also contains hormones which are known to act in an endorphin like way on babies - calming them and making them feel better.

And both breast and bottlefed babies can enjoy cuddles from the extended family.

Re: the value of other people feeding the baby - I've yet to see any research showing better emotional outcomes for ff babies that you might assume would come from this. Actually what research there into this issue comes from the Telethon Institute in Australia, which has published a couple of large scale studies showing lower rates of emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviour in children breastfed as babies.

Interestingly the groups which have the highest rates of ff in the UK also have the highest rate of family breakdown and absent fathers. Not saying there is any causal effect here, but acknowledging that some of the desire to get fathers in particular involved in feeding their baby might grow from that.

Telethon Institute:

"Breastfeeding and mental health
Breastfeeding has a beneficial effect on overall childhood health and development"

We published research results in 2009 which showed that children who are breastfed for longer than six months have a lower risk of mental health problems as they enter their teen years.

The research team analysed data from more than 2000 children involved in the Raine Study. Just over half were breastfed for six months or longer, 38 per cent were breastfed for less than six months and 11 per cent were not breastfed.

The participants underwent a mental health assessment when they were two, five, eight, 10, and 14 years old. At each of the assessments, the research team found a link between breastfeeding duration and behaviour. For each additional month of breastfeeding, the behaviour score improved. This remained valid after adjustment for socio-economic, social and other factors impacting on parenting."

here

here

"To feel this has no place in the 'debate' means that you fail in your objective to promote bf before you have even started."

Sheesh - where have I said individual experiences don't count?

The whole point with platitudes is that they diminish the importance of those feelings.

The response to widespread disappointment, anger and sadness that women feel about their experiences of feeding is 'it doesn't really matter how a baby is fed', or 'as long as you are able to do what suits you' or 'don't beat yourself up about breastfeeding not working'. Which is CRAP and completely inadequate. I could find you hundreds of media articles and parenting books which put forward these sentiments as the last word on breastfeeding.

But I'd be hard pressed to find you a parenting book, magazine article or leaflet which characterises women who don't breastfeed as poor mothers. But apparently these views are commonplace and are to be found in all sorts of publications.

'stupid interpretations and straw man arguments' regarding a woman who turned to ff when she felt her baby was failing to thrive.

she read a book about kids once

now she writes them