to have laughed when my fil told my dh

[biddysmama]

that he should stop me from breastfeeding now as dd is too old? (shes 2,ds is 1 and im pg)

do people do what their husbands tell them to? ive got a mind of my own thanks very much

Actually most people across the world don't stop once alternatives are available. What makes you say that?

Average weaning age globally is 4year or just over. In the West it's just weeks so you can see that ExtBF is actually still the norm for our species.

You are right about there being more problems with establishing feeding in the West. Very few women can't make enough milk but many more are led to believe that they can't because the norm in our culture is FF.

Women don't understand what's normal in bf because they aren't surrounded by it. Poor support then leaves them feeling as though FF is the only option.

I personally would like to see better education and support for BF and for those women who want to continue to feed and for less focus to be put on bf initiation rates. I applied for NHS peer support and they asked if I was comfortable convincing FF new mums (on the PN ward) to BF. I wasn't and so didn't continue with the NHS.

And extBF is part of normalising bf, helping other women see how bf happens.

My Dsis tried to bf in hospital with no support but had no idea how to position the baby, she held him face up rather than face to breast because bf isn't normal in our family/friends and so it was all new to her. If we lived in a society where women bf their babies in public every day, no one would bat and eyelid and my dsis would have known which way to hold her son to the breast.

Whatmeworry - actually most bf problems can be overcome with the right support and lack of milk production is only a real problem in a very very low percentage of cases. Milk supply usually needs time to establish. I had problems with bf - many many - but it is a case of perseverance and having the right Info and support in many cases. Of course there are women who have problems which is why it is wonderful that there are alternatives for baby but let's be honest, at other times, it really is a case of perseverance and getting through the first few months of bf which is one odnthe hardest things I have ever done.

You are so right kellykettle - I had to educate myself on practically everything about bf (I now support others who want to bf) and there is so so little real info on what is normal in bf. I see it on here all the time with some of the rubbish that people come out with about bf.

southernfriedtofu - "I rarely report posts"
...unless they disagree with me...

I knew nothing about bf when I had ds apart from my dmil had bf dh till he was 4 and in my ignorance thought that was very weird. It was only when I joined la leche league because I was struggling so much in the early days did I really learn about bf. I certainly never planned to feed for so long. I dont suppose many people do. You get to the 6 month mark, one year mark, then the WHO says till at least 2 and beyond etc etc. We have lots of allergies in our family and the reading I did at the time pointed to many benefits in natural term breastfeeding.
Neither of my children have the allergies/excema/asthma in our family (although ds is allergic to cats!) and I have absolutely no way of knowing whether this is because I bf but I gave it my best shot.

I had no support in hospital for either child in order to bf. WIth ds I followed their advice ie give a bottle, he's too big for breastmilk alone, you dont have enough milk adn we dont have enough time to help you as I knew no better and trusted them as after all they were the "experts". Thankfully a voluntary organisation put things right for us.
8 years later I had dd and knew my stuff so was able to happily ignore the same advice about she's too big for just breastfeeding and needs a bottle. Because I wouldnt give her a bottle I was ignored by the staff who were giving out bottles to all the other women on my ward.
I had no trouble feeding her.

Lots of women bf despite the advice given not because of it. I dont really care who bf or bottlefeeds - why would I? I do object to being called perverse though for it. I wouldnt have complained. It's pretty well known there are opinions like this out there.

whatmeworry - what are the reasons so many women cannot produce milk for that long? I know that it is very rare for a woman, who is breastfeeding correctly to not produce sufficient milk and the milk doesnt run out. I'd be interested to know the reasosn that cause this to happen?
Imo it's lack of support, lack if bf being normalised, bottle feeding culture etc but happy to be enlightened as to the many reasons why they "cant".

I was thinking of this thread this morning. DD3 (16 months old) and I were in bed and she was asleep next to me. She rolled onto her side and did her little arm flaps (this means she wants milk) all without waking up. She then found my nipple (eyes shut - like a nipple seeking missile - how do they always do that?) and latched on, little hands cuddling my breast. She had maybe 10 sucks and then sighed and rolled back over.

I love it when she does this, absolutely love it - I think it's the sweetest thing in the world. She walks (has been since 9 months), feeds herself and can even ask for it in her own way (kind of pings my bra strap).

How is it creepy? I know that she isn't yet 2 but I know I will still feel the same way when she is.

DD2 stopped BF just a week shy of her 3rd birthday - we were down to an early morning feed by then - it was our special time together. It is about so much more than nutrition (though obviously that's a major part of it) and if people don't get that then I actually feel sorry for them.

Imo it's lack of support, lack if bf being normalised, bottle feeding culture etc but happy to be enlightened as to the many reasons why they "cant"

Dunno, you'd have to ask the 95% who give up by 6 months. I assume by putting " can't" in inverted comments you don' t believe it though.

Btw there is a very good summary of all the research till 2007 by the US Dept of health over here

link

Fascinating reading. Big difference between BF and no BF, far less between 4-6 months and longer is the takeaway.

The other big thing, aside from the nutrition, which I think is pretty clever is the transferring of antibodies. So baby comes into contact with germs, breastfeeds, mums body responds by making antibodies and transferring them to the baby/child via breastmilk = child gets an immunity boost/less ill than it would have. Brilliant! If you could buy something that did that I don't know a single mum who wouldn't (well, maybe one actually).

But when I'm feeding DD I'm not particularly thinking "oh good, she's getting vitamins/antibodies" or "this is better than a cuddle/will calm down this tantrum". It's just a continuation of what we've always done and I respond to her need. She chooses to bf, I just don't stop her.

I believe a Childs natural immunity isn't fully developed until about age 5-6 (someone correct me if that's wildly wrong) and so antibodies via breastmilk are there to support them. This is also coincides with weaning - roughly.

All fascinating to me but really wasn't a manor reason in choosing to bf or continue, it was just instinct (though like many have said, not easy, problem-filled in the early days and had meant I've had to become a mini-bf "expert" (relatively speaking) in order to defend our choices or to get past poor advice).

Many women believe it's normal to give up at 6 months. I did. It's the whole "exclusively for the first 6 months" I think. Plus follow on milk is so normal to us that many just assume this is the next step.

Plus comments like "it's perverse" hardly encourage women to continue!

Plus there is the perceived/real difficulty of bf and working patterns, concern about what your baby will have in daycare if your bf and not FF.

Research shows that most women who quit would like to have continued got longer. Just because they stopped doesn't mean they couldn't produce enough milk or that they didn't want to continue.

That's a lot of "plus"

"Also for very many women it's very hard to BF - for a whole number of reasons many women cannot provide enough milk for that long"

Lack of support etc are very real reasons for not being able to continue breastfeeding. I dont know any physiological reasons for, as you say "many women cannot provide enough milk for that long" which is why I asked what the whole number of reasons were for the milk not coming.

Did you mean that women are not able to establish bf so unable to provide milk in the early days hence dont get an established supply that is nutured over time and suppply and demand applies or that the milk stops coming for other reasons?

I can and do completely understand why someone stops at 6 months or 2 days or never bfs. I have nothing against them and dont see it to be weird or peverse. It's a shame that people cant also see that feeding past this isnt weird, hippy beardy or peverse, sick too. Thankfully I am a confident person who doesnt make decisions based on random people on the internet or even in rl!

I tried BF my first 3 DC, but didn't manage for very long, predominantly due to lack of correct information or support. This time I was absolutely determined to BF and not give my DD a drop of formula and it is that determination that got me through the early days/weeks of constant feeding and a lot of pain.

I used to think extended BF was 'weird' and 'for the benefit of the mother' and other such things, although I doubt I could have ever given a good reason why. Now, I realise that my views were due to ignorance, because although I had BF, I didn't really know that much about it.

Now, I plan to feed until my DD self weans and I have to admit, I'll be disappointed if that is before she is 2 years old. I'll carry on because I want to do my best for her and because of the health and emotional benefits to my DD.

As for those who do think women continue for themselves, I can't 'make' my DD feed now, at 2 1/2 months if she doesn't want to, so I can't see anyone making an older DC continue unless they want to.

Well, after reading that US report I think the advice - based on known data - should be:

• BF out to 4 months has huge health benefits
• BF out to 6 months still has si

What does "si" mean?

I tend to go by the WHO who recommend 2 years and beyond. Admittedly I havent read your link as I can't be arsed. DD is nearly 8 and I wont be having any more children.

People carry out natural term breastfeeding for many reasons and it's often far more complex than simply because of proven health benefits (although I expect for many this is the reason). As previously explained it is far more than just the transference of milk but unless you've done it I understand that's incredibly difficult to understand.

Hmmm, now I remember why I left MN all those months ago...there are some very odd views on here.

But then, I am pregnant and still feeding my one year old so am obviously selfishly not in my right mind.

I fed my son when i was pregnant with my dd ninkynonker and he eventually self weaned at 19mths. my dd is nearly 2 and still bf - she loves her milk and i love the benefits and comfort it gives her.

The thing that gets me is that breastfeeders on this thread have largely been balanced in their views on the whole feeding issue, with a live-and-let-live attitude. This is my experience generally of breastfeeding women (if its even possible to be grouped together just because of our feeding choices).

If I took my pro-bf stance and used the language or ignorance used by some of the anti-bf posters I would be called breastaspo of bf nazi or some other deeply insulting term.

I have seen didyousees posts on various other topics around MN and I am not convinced they are not just someone on a wind up anyway.

Oops finger trouble - teach me to MN at work :(

Anyway, after reading that US report and a few bits around it I think the best advice - based on the actual known data anyway - should be something like this in the West:

• BF out to 4 months has huge health benefits.
• BF out to 6 months still has significant benefits but latest research is also showing purely BF is less beneficial than supplementing with solid food
• After that diminishing return start to kick in far more, as once a child is eating solid food, walking etc there are a whole load of other, bigger considerations for health and welfare than how the child gets milk.

The WHO advice is aimed at developing countries as well, where pure water and good food are not as easy to come by, so BF is a safer option for longer, until the child's digestive system can cope. But in the West going onto FF after a few weeks is not a huge risk owing to pure water, large scale inoculations, easy access to safe food etc etc.

I also read up around the social benefits - there too things are not as clear cut as often presented. There seems to be quite a lot of dispute about IQ and psychological benefits, the concerns being that EBF parents are likely to be caring parents anyway and thus stimulating and bonding with their child, and the EBF demographic in the Western studies may confer genetic IQ bias.

Btw the average age of BF ending being 4 worldwide is a made up number, averaging the theoretical age of human BF ending compared with a number of factors with other apes and monkeys, no one supports that seriously in any research.

So what the data is actually pointing to, for a Western country is up to 4 months of BF definitely helps a lot (but it's not an absolute necessity), solid foods + BF till 6 is still better, and do what you want after that, there are far bigger issues to deal with by then.

Oddly enough that was about the same advice as when I had mine in the 90's, and pretty much what the BBC program concluded as well.