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

Hmm... Let's see... What is more beneficial to a growing toddler - cows milk or breastmilk with all it's benefits and antibodies?

A tough one.

Not!

Rita morgan read my post again it says SELF weaning!!!!

There are no fewer antibodies in milk past 6 months than before. In fact, as babies become more independent and into contact with more germs (crawling/playgroup/things on mouth) the antibody benefit becomes more important.

I'm not sure about ExtBF being self selecting, most of the term breastfeeders I know had terrible problems establishing bf but then, actually, I can only think of one person who found it very easy anyway.

But whatever, you keep pointing out that there is little physical benefit on bf past 4-6 months. I dispute this but even if I didn't, what I am saying is that it's not a reason why women should stop feeding their children or why it's wrong and "perverse".

You can throw all this research that says feeding our children the milk that has evolved for our species, that is specifically designed for our babies as individuals is just as good as modified cows milk made in a factory but I don't need to see it. I can see what my two year old gets from breastfeeding that she's never had from a drink. Even if I expressed it, it wouldn't be the same.

I have read 500+ posts and still no one has given me a reason to wean at 6 months or why ExtBF is wrong/unnecessary.

I can't go round in circles on this one anymore.

"Antibodies are abundant in human milk throughout lactation" (Nutrition During Lactation 1991; p. 134). In fact, some of the immune factors in breastmilk increase in concentration during the second year and also during the weaning process. (Goldman 1983, Goldman & Goldblum 1983, Institute of Medicine 1991).

Thanks for saying this kellykettle - I said in an earlier post how breastmilk becomes even more concentrated later on in breastfeeding. I too see the benefits of extended bf in my toddler and it's fascinstining how some people on here are so desparate to dismiss the benefits of exbf (based on dodgy research funded by formula companies that has no real
Basis and out of some weird insecurity it seems?! )

At the of the day - like you - I know that my dc have had great benefits from
Drinking MY milk and that my dd continues to do so

Also I kind of figure that the bfing the toddler has to be good for the new baby. It surely has to be good that a toddler is getting some liquid gold before and when the new baby comes

And that video on bfing is lovely and destroys silly arguments about bfing toddlers very effectively.

But whatever, you keep pointing out that there is little physical benefit on bf past 4-6 months. I dispute this but even if I didn't, what I am saying is that it's not a reason why women should stop feeding their children or why it's wrong and "perverse"

I never said it was perverse FGS!

And its not circular, it's a very simple - the critical thing is getting enough calories down your mewling infant's gob and making sure they don't puke it up. In societies with poor water and hygiene, breast milk is critical, in the west there are viable alternatives.

Breast milk is superior to Formula, no one disagrees with that. But it is more critical to get enough food, so mothers who cant produce breast milk must use formula.

What happens once solid food starts, is that BF is no longer the biggest deal for child health it was beforehand, because the critical deal - shovelling High quality calories in - has shifted.

It's not wrong to carry on past 6 months, but conversely the research also implies the penalties for stopping at about that time are also fairly low.

Ie if it works for you, go for it - but there is no longer any great risk in stopping if it doesn't.

whatme I disagree that it is not a big deal as I see how it helps my dd all the time with how it helps her teething, colds, her skin and it does have increased benefits as it keeps helping to lower the risk of certain childhood cancers, diabetes etc - the benefits of six months is good, the benefits of six months is greater. You go on about how important food is - breastmilk and what it gives a baby/toddler is one of the most superior things you can give a child so your constant argument against holds no water at all and I dont really get what your point is?! breastmilk beyond a few months IS extremely beneficial and it has been shown that the milk becomes more concentrated and packed with antibodies etc. To try and dismiss this is odd!

Urine actually has higher antibody levels than breastmilk and isopathic. I doubt anyone will suggest a swap mind.

Does giving a child antibodies make them biologically dependent when they should be producing there own?

This is just a question - not taking sides before the rabid decide to attack.

Also as a child gets older their digestion changes - I wonder when it changes to the point that the protienaceous antibodies are digested and not absorbed.

I'd like to see that research, to be fully informed.

Seems we've been discussing different things then whatme because I was defending ExtBF. I also never said you said it was perverse, I am not just responding to you.

BF isn't just about getting calories into your child. FF is.

Pamsco no links because I'm on my phone and can't remember where I read it but I understand that the human immune system is fully developed around the same time that the soft palate changes and children lose their latch and wean so it appears that the antibody support from BM lasts as long as the child needs.

If I was bf a 6 month old and wanted to stop I wouldn't be swayed by antibodies or nutrition.

I also don't dwell on it, it was just something I linked to because of the talk of there being no benefit to BF past some arbitrary cut off.

I was FF except for some donated BM when I was tiny (preemie) so it would suit me for FF to be as good as BF. DD is the only child in my close family to have ever had BM. If research came out saying that BF and FF were interchangeable without consequence I'd have plenty of reasons to be thrilled. I also wouldn't regret having BF my DD to 2.8yrs. I don't do it for the list of benefits of BF v formula or cows milk. I don't ever think about formula or cows milk!

Besides, DD may choose to live on a diet on fried food and coke when she's older. I doubt bf offers much protection against the effects of that.

WHatmeworry - if something I were given my child on a spoon everyday were proven to have no medical benefit whatsoever I wouldnt bother with it. Even if bf were proven to have no medical benefit whatsoever I would have still continued bf. Do you see the difference? As said earlier if you have no personal experience of breastfeeding a child by this magical cut off point of 6 months then it is very hard to truely understand what it is really like and that is so much more than simply putting food into a child.

Still waiting for those many reasons why so many women cannot produce milk for long periods of time.......

giving not given

Ps Pamsco ridiculous comparison of BM to urine IMO. Urine isn't designed to nourish our offspring and I think this thread would have had more agreement if the OP had been suggesting she'd like to feed her child piss for the health benefits.

If you don't want to BF, don't. No extBF-ers on this thread have suggested anyone should.

Anti-BF-ers appear to feel more passionately about disparaging BF than I do about knocking FF/cows milk.

Didnt even bother to reply to pamsco comparison of bm to piss. Imagine the uproar if anyone compared formula to piss.

rainbow I agree as bf is more than nutrition. But those of us who are still to contemplate extBF want to know of any detrimental impact the ones I worry about are:

are older children more impacted by rejection if milk dries up or you have to stop before self weaning?

is it detrimental to my health - no point being depleted of nutrients to the point of accelerating my own demise and not seeing my boy grow up - I am an older first timer my body may not cope so well.

as previously posted - does it undermine independent immunological health?

Obviously The Boy will determine a lot of this but if over the next 2-3 months of research I do find empirical studies that turn me to plan for parent led weaning at c6 months then so be it. I'll be led by baby first then empirical data 2nd. It is great hearing personal experiences but these are sample sizes of 1, 2, 3 maybe 5 or 6 which is not significant to those of us who have nerd tendancies.

Kelly, Rainbow that was the point. Obviously lost.

Hohum.

yes apparently the emotional benefits of drinking piss are huge..FFS...

Still waiting for those many reasons why so many women cannot produce milk for long periods of time.......

I told you, I don't know why - all I know is lots of women report it as an issue, and then have to use FF. Some are devastated as they wanted to BF.

Just read the bulletin borads yourself if you are so curious!

Whatmeworry It's not wrong to carry on past 6 months, but conversely the research also implies the penalties for stopping at about that time are also fairly low. 

Ie if it works for you, go for it - but there is no longer any great risk in stopping if it doesn't.

WHO disagree with you and so do I ?Breastfeeding is a life and death issue in under-resourced countries. A recent meta-analysis reported marked reductions in mortality (especially due to infectious disease) with breastfeeding even into the second year of life)?

Get educated.

I think comments on this thread like Pamsco just show the absolute hang ups that people have about bm. Now that is truly weird.

Extended breastfeeding reduces infant mortality in places that lack safe, clean water by protecting babies from common childhood diseases because breast milk contains protective antibodies from the mother that formula feeding does not provide.

But breastfeeding can also transmit HIV.
These findings show that giving the infants of HIV-infected mothers an antiretroviral drug daily for the full duration of breastfeeding safely minimizes the threat of HIV transmission through breast milk while preserving the health benefits of extended breastfeeding.

Just amazing

Pamsco I understand nerd tendencies for decision making. My DH says I can't make a decision without google and a spreadsheet.

I don't know, all I can say is when the time comes you'll make the right decision for you. Probably based on instinct rather than empirical evidence. I have good days and bad days with BF and if my decision was based on research alone then I'd struggle tbh. It's a relationship isn't it? It has to work for both of you.

A colleague decided to bf because diabetes ran in her family and she felt bf would offer protection to her DS over FF. However, she hated every minute of it. I'm not sure I'd have stuck with it in her situation.

As far as I know, BF helps things like osteoporosis because although it depletes certain things from the mothers body once you wean you get additional benefit than if you'd not fed. I'm just off to hairdressers but I'll have think about sources of info or these things so you can have a read.

On immune development, again, I understand it supports it. By how much? No idea. It's like you say, small samples and anecdotes don't really help when trying to get an overall idea.

^> are older children more impacted by rejection if milk dries up or you have to stop before self weaning?

is it detrimental to my health - no point being depleted of nutrients to the point of accelerating my own demise and not seeing my boy grow up - I am an older first timer my body may not cope so well.

as previously posted - does it undermine independent immunological health?^

Afaics see there are no detrimental issues with EBF, in fact there are still health plusses - but by the same token there are no great risks in the West if you give up BF once the child is eating solid foods (the magical 6 month mark), and in the West it is safe to stop 1-2 months before that if you need to.

And the evidence of psychological/IQ benefits are disputed, the objection being the data is confounded with demographic groups and mothering behaviours (ie if all non EBF mums in a sample were from the same upscale demographics and spent the same time with child but with a bottle/ham sandwich/whatever instead, would the outcome be any different?)

pamsco are you now trying to suggest that BF post 6mths may actually be detrimental to mother and/or child?

Oh and the weaning thing. I think it depends how you manage it. Cold turkey probably isn't nice for mother or baby at any age. Weaning seems to be a gradual thing in most cases whether mother or child led which probably helps an adjustment.

If I didn't feed DD when she was a baby she'd cry. Now she'd just tell me she wanted milk and she was upset. I guess it's the same message just harder to hear, for me at at least, when she could explain why.

Pamsco - you really have a lot of research to do if you think there is anything negative by extended bf - all the extended bf children I know have gained both health and psychological benefits from bf. Your posts are quite weird and I think I can't be bothered to even try to explain if you have such strange ideas about bf. Weird - and agree with kellykettle about how odd it is that people here will try to dispute the benefits of exbf - why so insecure about it?!