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

Your focus is very much on hard scientific proven benefits as the reason for bf. For most people on this thread who bf it's not. There been lots of description of the relationship it creates etc and this being a huge factor in continuing.

The WHO is for everyone as you say not just developing countries but is aimed at all babies.

Tbh right now I am more concerned in the benefits of buying dd a paperjamz pro series microphone but noone is answering the thread...

I think you're getting hung up on the technical/statistical whys of breastfeeding whatmeworry for most extended feeders I imagine they don't base their decision to not wean their child based on research papers. Its interesting to know but it's a complex decision.

Oh and I think the wean at 4 months in the West thing was torn apart - wasn't the research funded by FF/infant food supplement companies? I think they found serious bias in the study.

Oh and the West really is the minority world, are you saying the majority world wean at 6 months or less bringing the average right down below age 4?

I fail to see how something we have evolved to do could be deemed to be pointless or with diminishing returns at just months. Mother Nature has had millennia to get this right and FF has been around for decades but we assume that science can equal bf at 4 months? Rubbish.

Did you see my comments about antibodies. Point me to the formula or solid food which changes according to the germs the child has come into contact with? Nutritional value is only part of the story.

xpost with rainbow on the stats thing. Slow to post today, trying to multi-task and MN is never a good idea.

And Paperjamz pro series microphone - that was like another language to me!

whats a paperjamz?????????!!!!!!!!

My office printer gets paperjamz all the time. Is it a cool, street way of spelling it?

Can't be bothered to read the 400+ posts, but OP, you are great. I respect choice, but it is fact that WHO recommend BFing until at least 2, babies need some sort of milk until at least 1 and we are constantly told to give our children cows milk for it's benefits.... why not just give them their 'own' milk?? The mind boggles. I do feel aibt icky when I see my DSs gulp down breastmilk for cows - I have pretty much moved on from dairy - it just 'aint right!

Oh God Bois don't make me think about dairy. I love cows milk, I have craved it throughout this pregnancy but I cannot think about what's in it or I want to be sick.

It's like the book Fastfood Nation, I became a vegetarian for about a year after reading that because I couldn't look at meat and not feel sick. It was a terrible year!

I drink milk in my tea etc but have read a lot of stuff about how our tums are not designed for cows milk and that its not a great thing to drink!

Personally I think that as soon as the calf can walk (isnt that from birth?) they really shouldnt be having breast milk. THose cows are so perverted and sick. Surely they could drink human breast milk from a bottle or cup?

Oh wait, I sound like a twat.....

Leave your knowledge there hairfull, don't for Gods sake go googling "whats in milk?". I did it after reading a thread on here and have regretted it ever since.

whatmeworry you're right about the average age being a made up number - or at least a quick google supports your statement but you must agree that the average age is likely to be years and not months?

A good book, if you are interested, is Breastfeeding Older Children by Ann Sinnott. I found it quite an eye opener.

rainbowinthesky Thu 01-Sep-11 12:28:43
Personally I think that as soon as the calf can walk (isnt that from birth?) they really shouldnt be having breast milk.

ROFL

--Add message | Report | Message poster rainbowinthesky Thu 01-Sep-11 12:28:43
Personally I think that as soon as the calf can walk (isnt that from birth?) they really shouldnt be having breast milk. THose cows are so perverted and sick. Surely they could drink human breast milk from a bottle or cup?

Oh wait, I sound like a twat.....--

Brilliant rainbow... Just brilliant!

Oh and I think the wean at 4 months in the West thing was torn apart - wasn't the research funded by FF/infant food supplement companies? I think they found serious bias in the study

Here is Lancet review of all evidence 2011 Fwiw. Conclusion was:

"Exclusive breast feeding for six months is readily defendable in resource poor countries with high morbidity and mortality from infections"

But:

"In the West, exclusive breast feeding for six months is linked to reduced risk of infection. Nevertheless, the studies are observational and some evidence suggests that introducing solids (rather than formula) before six months may not significantly affect risk of infection. By contrast, exclusive breast feeding to six months raises concerns shown in box 2"

The Box 2 referred to shows that exclusive B/F leads to higher levels of anaemia, plus a higher incidence of food allergies and risk of coeliac disease.

So it looks like its swings and roundabouts after about 4 months I'm afraid.....(Subject to variances based on baby weight, sex, health etc etc etc)

BMJ Jan 2011

Oh and the West really is the minority world, are you saying the majority world wean at 6 months or less bringing the average right down below age 4?

The average of 4 years is a made up number and everyone who has looked at this agrees the average is likely to be a lot lower. The data that I could find on a lunchtime Google is very contested (no surprises there....) but even the WHO doesn't push BF beyond 2 y/o, so I'd suspect thats around the upper bound and the actual average is lower than that.

By the way, anyone who knows their anthropology will know that one of the big survival benefits of domesticating cattle, goats etc was allowing women to wean their babies earlier :o

Yes, that's the one. The one published in the BMJ. Pulled apart because it was funded by the infant foods industry. There were, unsurprisingly, lots of threads about it on MN I think.

Yes, what I found on a quick google at lunchtime suggested 2.5-3.5 years rather than 4.5 years which was Katherine Dettwylers assumption based on many different comparisons I think. Still years and yes, I agree, nutritional benefits might not be as great once weaning onto solids starts (we'll ignore the 4/6 month thing for now) but as it has been pointed out on here numerous time, BF beyond 4/6 months a year is about far more than nutrition.

Antibodies, nutrition, comfort - they are all still there so why should women be made to feel weird for choosing to continue giving these things to their babies via breastfeeding?

I am not saying people should feed their children past any age they are not comfortable with or at all if that's there choice but to say that extBF is weird, perverse or has few benefits at 4 months is wrong.

Formula/cows milk (as we drink it) is always the same, its contents do not change to meet the babies requirements, combat illness etc. A strong positive in support of ExtBF but not addressed in the research you quoted I am sure. That focuses on nutrition. BF is more complex.

And yes, domesticated cattle & women being allowed to wean their babies earlier can be super, gives women choice etc etc doesn't mean we should have to wean or are weird for choosing not to. It also doesn't mean it's as good or better for the baby.

The argument on the thread seems to have boiled down to extBF is weird, has few benefits and is comparable to other non-human milk products and what I am trying to say is its not. Can you agree with that?

whatever you say didyousee whatever you say...

you poor love, you really cannot see it can you? oh dear... oh dear, oh dear, how awfully sad and pitiful...

ps, love the fact that I affect you so much whereas all your posts only make me pity you more! and amuse me too

PLEASE GET SOME HELP LOVE!

Chill out hairfullofsnakes for god's sake.

Actually whatmeworry I have just glanced at the BMJ research and it wasn't concerned with the benefits of breastfeeding at all but the optimal period of exclusive breastfeeding. They concluded that between 4-6 months was best and the 6 months exclusive breastfeeding perhaps increased the risk of coeliacs disease, allergies and low iron (amongst others).

However, it was concluded by many that 3 of the 4 researchers had taken money from the infant feeding industry in the last 3 years (although not for this paper) and that they were selective in the evidence they used to support their paper. The WHO states suggests that they believed the paper was biased by the infant feeding industry link.

There were some excellent critiques of the study at the time but I didn't save any links so don't have anything to hand but can find them if you wish.

You'll need another paper to support your claim that there is little difference between breastmilk and formula past 4-6 months I'm afraid. This paper didn't attempt to do that and was discredited (BMJ faced a lot of criticism for publishing I recall).

people should mind their own business - to each his own. BF babies are fine, so are FF ones. Extended BFing is fine too. My SIL is still feeding her 4.5 year old - do I care - NO! I BF last time until 17 months, yay me. Next time I'm thinking far less than that if at all and I don't care what anyone thinks. IT'S MY DECISION.

didyousee - and her hole digs deeper! this is better than watching telly! yes love, you need to chillax and find some help...

love you don't affect me so i am chillllllled - actually you do have a sort of effect - in the sense that you make me laugh out loud and make me pity you at the same time,

your mind is amazing love - and not in a good way

WHO statement* sorry