Don't flame me for starting another BF debate but is BF after age of 2 more about comfort than nutrition?

[doradaisy]

Work colleague admitted today that she still BF her almost 4 year old, she did so with all her DC up to age of about 4. Another more blunt friend replied with 'come off it, for god's sake that's mad' kind of thing. Said BFing work collegue went on a rant about how WHO recommend up to age of 2 and beyond and how she could count with one hand the number of times her children have been on antibiotics, and how cow's milk is SO bad for children and really unnatural, etc, etc and the comment (which annoyed me a bit) that 'her children could not turn around in years to come and blame her for bad health'... We were all a bit silenced and she looked relaly embarrassed.

I piped up that I thought WHO recommended til 6 months, as I did for my PFB DD. I also mentioned my DTwins, 18 months, only got BF for 6 weeks (as pediatrics recommened formula due to jaundice, etc) and have never been on antibiotic

Am just a bit put out at the ranting and her seriously defensive tone and her total moral high ground about it all. I said, in a measured tone, that if she'd decided to BF for so long it was more about 'comfort and less about nutrition'. Am I fair?

I get on quite well with her, but feel like she was fighting a losing battle to convince us. I can see she's doing the right thing but also said 'she knows it's not our cultural norm' - sounds like she's trying to be a bit controversial, no?

Each to their own of course, but why was she being so defensive?!

(goes to hide under a table and wait for the fighting to start )

Also, the importance of breastfeeding does not decline after solid food is introduced, because introduction of solid food increases the baby's pathogen load. If you google 'weanling's dilemma' you can read the basic biology on this.

If you are going to contradict WHO health guidelines and tell people they don't really apply to them, shouldn't you be providing a statement from the WHO to back this up?

all you need do is read their own advice, from their own reserach papers, not from pro- bf - websites

Sorted.

I just wanted to pick up some points that have been made:

Yes, formula contains more iron than bm, but the iron in bm is more bio-available, meaning that most of the iron in formula comes straight out again and is not used by the body. So iron in bm makes more of a difference.

Also the immune system matures at about 7 years old. It's central organ, the thymus gland, is half the size in formula fed babies than it is in bf babies.

Just because individual babies are less sick than formula fed babies, this doesn't mean anything. Overall, the average of thousand and thousand of babies, formula fed babies are sick more often and for longer.

Also when babies under 12 months 'self-wean', it's usually a nursing strike and not an indication that they actually want to stop.

And about 2% of mothers are truly unable to breastfeed. The other 'unable' ones just suffer from a lack of support.

I think in general, if people decide to do EBF for a longer time, its advisable to not share too widely as you will always get feedback like this

its just not worth it

in parallel can people stop fucking going about the WHO stats, BORED, they only ever come out in the EBF debate

when else do we m,ention WHO stats? never. nuff said

Haven't read the whole thread - sorry,hate it when people say that usually-but the reason your colleague is so defensive is that if you breastfeed older children you either have to keep very quiet abot it,or you are constantly dealing with the "FGS,that's mad" response which you say she experienced from colleague 2.It is enough to make anyone a bit twitchy,defensive,and prone to over explain and justify why they have decided to parent in that way.

Weird really - Colleague 1 admits to EBF,Colleague 2 says FGS that's mad,and when Colleague 1 reacts she is being unduly defensive??

Porca - I imagine it only comes out in threads like this, because at least someone (well, not someone, but the world health organisation) supports Breastfeeding toddlers and beyond, without resorting to calling it creepy or weird, or saying it should be done in private.

When it comes down to it, Breastfeeding is good for the child and the mother, with health benefits for both. Why the hell should anyone have to defend themselves when they've chosen to bfeed.

Whatmeworry I didn't know Dettwyler had been 'debunked'. May I have some references please? (Not in an angry 'back up your statement' way, just because I'm interested, and her writing has been important for me, so I'd like to know.)

That poor woman. Being forced to defend feeding her children to work colleagues.

She must have felt really uncomfortable and may well be fretting about it all now.

If it were me I would a. feel really upset that my choices had been insulted and b.feel crap that I had responded in such a defensive way. c. worrying about how people would now see me as the 'mad creepy one'.

All because someone else decided to call me a nutter for feeding my children.

That all makes for a jolly workplace ennvironment

www.who.int/nutrition/topics/infantfeeding_recommendation/en/index.html

"As a global public health recommendation, infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health. Thereafter, to meet their evolving nutritional requirements, infants should receive nutritionally adequate and safe complementary foods while breastfeeding continues for up to two years of age or beyond."

That's what I could find. Whatmeworry , could you link to the updates, I couldn't find any? Also interested to see the Kathy Dettwyler stuff because I like to keep up to date with BF information.

OP- you were wrong, c'est la vie, but it would be kind to acknowledge this to your colleague :)

I've seen blogs where Kathy Dettwyler is criticised for comparing humans with primates, because human society has evolved beyond the average primate society.
There is also doubt over the often quoted "average age of weaning is 4.something", and speculation that the average age worldwide would be nearer to two years.
However, debunking myths and world averages aside, if a mother continues to breastfeed her child as long as they both want, it is no business of anyone else. No Breastfeeding mother should have to defend her actions to anyone.

You and your colleagues' reactions are precisely why many women who extended breastfeed keep quiet about it / don't do it in public.
FWIW my DS2 (18 months) had a week long attack of norovirus last week and couldn't keep anything down (esp cows milk) other than my milk.
I took him to the GP who said that if I hadn't been feeding him he would have become so dehydrated he would have had to be admitted to hospital for IV fluids.
I'm sure my work colleagues are sick to the back teeth of me mentioning that I'm still feeding DS2, but I'm not trying to be boring, I work in a very female dominated profession where we have 6 staff about to go on mat leave with their first babies and I'm making a small attempt to normalise breastfeeding.

its just makes me laugh faverolles, noone gives a fuck about the WHO then when it comes to the EBF debate, up they pop!!!!!

just think its noones business and the less said the better IMO

I have actually become loads MORE accepeting of EBF via MN, so you know

P, I think WHO gets brought up a lot with c sections as well, because I they changed their guidelines on it.

WMW, I haven't read any pro breastfeeding sites. I had my kids when the internet was in its infancy. Are you going to provide a link to where they say people in developing countries are exempt from the recommendations?

My info on pathogen loads after introduction of solid foods are from academic papers that discuss why there is a divergence between primate and human weaning times. It has no connection to pro breastfeeding debate.

If you want to state your opinion, then do so, but don't dress it up as 'basic biology' when it is in fact in direct contradiction to the facts of basic biology.

Porca - yes, I think I know what you mean, but when your choices are criticised, it's only natural to find some figure of authority to back up what you're doing.
In the case of Breastfeeding, that figure is the WHO.

Why is my comforting kiss and cuddle not as good as giving my child a comforting drink of breastfeed milk?

YABVU.

I don't believe anyone said a kiss and cuddle was 'not as good'. However, for my DS, in certain situations, breastfeeding works better and faster. What you do with your child is your business, so don't judge me for what I do with mine!

And also can I just point out that the statistics saying bf babies are healthier than ff babies have obviously never asked me.

Dd1 was bf for three weeks until I gave up for my own sanity. I hated it, she didn't seem to like it much she's a stubborn independant little madam now and yet she's the healthiest kid. And I had a breastfeeding counsellor (sp?). She never had a cold till she was over a year old, I swear on Mumsnet, and she's fit, slim, active and doing well at school.

Dd2 was bf for seven months and fed like a dream and I loved it. Then the novelty wore off and I was glad to have my boobs back to myself. She is a bigger child than dd1, she has always got a cold and is an incredibly fussy eater. Neither of them have ever needed antibiotics for anything though.

So if the WHO or WHI or whoever bloody else has an official opinion on the 'benefits' of breastfeeding over any other kind of milk would they come and include me in their report?

In my opinion, there is no difference between the two, you do what suits you and if you want to feed your child like a baby for years it is perfectly up to you and nobody elses business. As with so much in life.

And I can comfort my child as well as any breastfeeding mother thank you very much. My children aren't deprived just because they don't get an instant snack whenever they demand it.

Now could the universe FUCKING PLEASE get over this issue?

You sound a bit cross, MrsJasonBourne.

afaik, the only reason they WHO put the limit at 2 was because that is the oldest age western researchers can study the effects. After that there are not enough women feeding to give reliable results about the nutritional effect. But there is no reason to imagine breastmilk suddenly declines in quality, or that a child over 2 suddenly ceases to absorb what has been a perfect nutrional source until that age.

MrsJasonBourne, your individual experience with bf/ff and health is irrelevant. For the fucking millionth time, ON AVERAGE BF babies are healthier. That is a fact, and you cannot change it or disregard it because it doesn't match your sample size of 1 child.

FFS.

No one said you couldn't comfort your child, don't make shit up.

I'm not making shit up. Every time I read a statistic about breast feeding it goes completely against my entire experience of breastfeeding. So there. I'm just commenting on my own personal experience. But of course you know this because you know about every single case of breastfeeding ever and therefore am more qualified to judge. And the inference that breastmilk is a comfort and therefore the superior comfort was annoying. It would have been even more annoying if I'd read that remark whilst desperately trying to breastfeed my first child with both of us in tears and feeling like a fuck up.

I am allowed to be offended by your remark and I am allowed to say so. Sorry if that's Un-Mumsnetty but tough shit.

I wish the colleague had started the conversation with me.....she would have got short shrift as I examined her back......wow you stopped so early, what a shame for your child. Do you know what all the research says......are you mad?
Well I would not but you get my drift. I bf to 25 months but even at 12 to 18 months a couple of mothers kept commenting on it at a play group....and Leary had some issue.....maybe they wanted to justify what they had done, or how long they did it being the right thing. People are so insecure and threatened by others doing something different and I think it is some defense so they don,t feel like they may have made the wrong choice.....easier than reading the research and just admitting.....
Well I understand it is best for my child to bf beyond 3 or 6 or whatever months but actually I am going to do what is best for me. Everyone pretending they are always doing the best for their child.....no sometimes we put ourselves first and I admire those who make choices that clearly put the child first, rather than put them down.i do see breeding beyond 6 months as one of those choices As it is not always a pleasure to do by any means however convenient it is.

WHO suggests bfeeding until two or "as long as mutually desired". I'd pretty much say that breast milk as nutritious if not more than cows milk. And even if it's just for comfort, so what??