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 )

I haven't read all the posts but i still want me say.

I extended bf (along with blw)with my twins, until they were well over four. I came under huge pressure from people who thought it was impossible to actually do (ffs) and then later from people who thought it was creepy and weird. As they started school, they would occasionally ask if they were poorly or hurt. It very naturally petered out. They are seven and a half now, and nobody had fed for a good two years. My milk stopped ages ago, but a couple of weeks one of them came into my bed at night with a roaring earache. I gave him calpol and it didn't touch the sides. as we lay in bed it occured to me that latching on might help with the ear, so i offered, and he took. Anyone who's got a problem with that can fuck right off.

Hi all! I'm back!

Am amazed at the number of posts and also at the different perspectives on it all, such am emotive issue.....

An update. I met work collegue (extended BFer) yesterday and actually told her I was thinking about the issue a lot over the last few days. I said she was right about the WHO stats as I geniunely thought it was 6 months max for western countries. There you go.

I also said it was completely her choice and of course she's doing the best for the children and also said other work collegue was being a bit harsh.

Sorry fellow posters, how boring of me, I'm not added to the controversary but rather trying to resolve it

Interestingly, she did say a friend of hers BF her DC til they were 7 but she said 'this was a bit extreme', whereas she was planing to stop at 4.

TBH, feel a bit more educated about BF by the whole experience. And can I add, I think BF is great - wonderful for bonding with baby, for immunity, for mother's own mental health, etc. I had a good experience BF DD1 but sadly the twins were a different kettle of fish. I don't feel guilty however, as I did my best (6 weeks tandem feeding was no mean feat actually) and guilt is not good for mothers mental health I've discovered.

That said, I was happy to wean my DC to bottles at about 6 months. Maybe it's the cultural in my family (can't underestimate that) as my mother fed us til about this time and my sisters their babies.

Even work collegue said it was slightly 'unconventional' (her words) to be feeding her children until 4. There lies the issue. I think it's not yet the societal norm - don't you think?

Very unmumsnetty, but sending hugs to all the mums out there, let's face it, we're all trying to do our best. I hope this hasn't become too emotional for anyone out there

I am still BFing my DD, 20 mths, and it is to do with comfort as she doesn't really need the nutrition as she eats and has been since 6 mths. I BF her morning and night, and it is a habit, (as another poster said), and about being close to one another. She still enjoys it and I don't mind so for now we'll continue.

OP, that's really great you've gone back and had this conversation with her. Well done.

Deadsouls... Your LO is actually still getting an immense amount of nutrition at 20 mths

Op what's all this sorry fellow.posters how boring of me stuff? What is of you think we want?

stealthpolar is was a joke:)

Followed this thread early on - but just come back to read update from OP. Really glad you spoke to your colleague as I would have been upset about original conversation. Not sure 16 months counts as extended bfding, but I definitely don't talk about it with folks who I sense will be judgemental. It is really powerful to see reflection in action.

Whatmeworry said:
The biology is basic - when 100% of the calories are from milk (up to about 6 mo) and the Childs immune system is rudimentary, the benefits are at their highest. Once they take solid foods the importance declines as the % of calories declines, and their own immune systems develop. By 2 yo the % of calories from any bf is a small% of total and they have their own immune systems.

Correlation is not causation. You're drawing all sorts of conclusions from a cultural trend - declining breastfeeding as a child ages, and increasing consumption of cow's milk. You cannot therefore argue that cow's milk is a good source of calories whilst breastmilk is not.

Whatmeworry said:
Most humans have adapted genetically to drink cows milk, so it's a perfectly good source of calories once their systems can take it.

Absolute nonsense. Globally, the reverse is true and those who are lactose intolerant are in the majority.

i guess theres probably many many reasons for peoples feeding choices. If its comfort or nutrition, theyre both positive reasons. I wouldnt want to do it myself, and was desperate to stop once it got past about 6 months with all mine, and I think id feel pretty crowded if my older children were demanding breastfeeding, but if the mother doesnt mind, and it fits in with the rest of the family, i couldnt really care less how long someone does it for. I know several people whove breastfed till 3 or 4

Fascicle - great post. It seems that certain posters always come on bf threads to say how bf past a certain amount of months isn't beneficial when it so clearly is beneficial. I do wonder what their problem is sometimes and wonder if they are trying to convince themselves for some reason

Correlation is not causation. You're drawing all sorts of conclusions from a cultural trend - declining breastfeeding as a child ages, and increasing consumption of cow's milk. You cannot therefore argue that cow's milk is a good source of calories whilst breastmilk is not.

I wasn't talking about cow's milk, I was talking about all calories other than mothers milk, which you can see at a glance from my statement. And it's got nothimng to do with culture, its got to do with calories - one mother can't produce enough calories after about 6 months old so has to supplement with other foods - so in that case it is purely causation.

Absolute nonsense. Globally, the reverse is true and those who are lactose intolerant are in the majority.

My comments were within the context of the OECD, which again was clear in teh original post as i aws pointing out that the WHO guideleine in full are aimed at developing countries as well.

Fascicle - great post. It seems that certain posters always come on bf threads to say how bf past a certain amount of months isn't beneficial when it so clearly is beneficial

My point is that the benefit declines as the % of the calories from breastmilk goes down, once you get to a point where the vast majority pf calories come from elsewhere you are better off spending your time focussing and energy on the quality of those calories.

The reason I make these points is so women who do not EBF do not need to feel in any way inferior for their decisons, because, in the OECD, the nutritional differences are tiny. The proof of the pudding is in the eating (literally), you can't tell by pre-school who has been fed how.

I am bfing a 2.5yo and would never ever in a million years say this at work (unless I was asked a direct question I suppose) for exactly this reason.

I'll post properly once I've breastfed my 28 mo dd back to sleep

You can tell sometimes. My LO has slight patches of eczema, even my own doctor has told me that bf helps and she probably would have been a lot worse without it. Compared to a few toddlers I know who were raised on formula and have been so bad with their eczema they have had full body stockings/in hospital etc, my milk helps. There is still a lot of goodness in breast milk beyond a certain age, I have experienced the benefits, I see the difference it makes compared to babies/young toddlers who haven't had it. I see it all the time.

Unfortunately my DD3 has a full body stocking, regularly gets infected eczema and needs anti-biotic cream or oral anti-biotics, has steroid cream, suspected wheat allergy and has had many many admissions for bronchiolitis/viral induced wheeze/asthma attacks (depending on her age as to what they call it!).

She was ebf to 6m (even when tube fed due to bronchiolitis) and is bfing now at 2.4y but I don't regret bfing her and will do it again with DC4 when they are born.

DD2 has already had arthritis at age 3 after her immune system went into overdrive after a nasty virus. She was ebf to 23w (started solids off her own bat) and is bf now at 4.3y. Don't regret that either.

We have crap genes in our family and nothing I do will stop those genes from being expressed in one way or another (DH and I have atopy and auto-immune diseases either in our family or we have them [multiple times in the case of atopy for each of us]). You can't escape genetics .

The only thing that pisses me off is when I am told by MW not to talk about my children (I am a peer supporter) as that goes against the 'bf and stop your child from getting asthma/eczema/allergies' message they seem to want to promote over the more scientificly accurate 'bf and give your child the nutrition their body expects which doesn't statistically increase their chances of developing asthma/eczema/allergies but as this is over a population level not an individual child level you can't predict if your child will or will not develop these conditions' message.

surely at any age breast milk is better for the child than cows milk, by virue of the fact it's designed for humans and not calves?

Yes, ariadne1!

And surely any benefit, no matter how small is still a benefit?!

But anyway, well done OP for chatting again to your colleague, in her shoes that would have meant the world to me.

Yes ariadne! Seems odd that certain posters want to argue about this!