Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

At what age does breastfeeding become weird?

594 replies

TransatlanticCityGirl · 12/05/2012 23:16

My MIL made a comment today about a mother who breastfed her child until she was 5 years old - as in, 'can you believe it???? that's just not right!'

Which got me wondering, where do most people draw the line in terms of how old is too "weird"?

OP posts:
Whatnamethistime · 16/05/2012 08:29

I had to share this - my 2 (4 and 2) have been nursed a long time - the older I am stopping now - it's only been the odd 10 secs if he gets jealous for ages.

So they are playIng "I want boobies" alternately "feeding milk" and having each others "nibbles" (oldest can't get nipples right".

It's hard to retell in writing but it's very funny and very cute.

"I want boobies - give me boobies"

But it's all about the mother hey.

Whatnamethistime · 16/05/2012 08:55

Why not what perhaps we would all be healthier if that's how we ate??

PeggyCarter · 16/05/2012 09:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GnocchiNineDoors · 16/05/2012 09:13

This Morning are covering this topic today.

tiktok · 16/05/2012 10:46

Just checking we are using the right terms:

complementary feeding = breastfeeding alongside solid food. Has been going on forever - obviously. There's no evidence at all that, generally, babies were ripped from their mothers' breasts and solids started at that moment to replace breastfeeding (this did happen in some cultures - Sparta, ancient Mongolia - with some babies, who were taken from their families as toddlers to join the army/learn horsemanship away from their home.

whatme - can you respond to my points earlier about ancient societies and weaning age? Very unlikely total weaning from the breast took place as early as two.

startail · 16/05/2012 10:59

How about, walks, talks, swims and has passed a few Ballet exams!

PeanutButterCupCake · 16/05/2012 11:34

Anyone watching this morning about The Time cover?

I didn't know that there was no conclusive evidence that "prolonged" breast
feeding is a benefit.

It also causes men to want to leave the relationship too? Hmm

WTAF?

Whatmeworry · 16/05/2012 12:00

^I didn't know that there was no conclusive evidence that "prolonged" breast
feeding is a benefit.^

It also causes men to want to leave the relationship too?

Both true - but of course it requires you to look at hard data, not BF woo.

whatme - can you respond to my points earlier about ancient societies and weaning age? Very unlikely total weaning from the breast took place as early as two.

Didn't see them - but nearly all the research on prehistoric societies, coming at it from various ways has Homo sapiens stopping BF in year 2. (I saw one that said Neanderthals stopped in Year 3), which is similar to most modern developing countries.

Most evolutionary biologists and anthropolgsist believe the continual trend to wean children earlier and earlier was because it conferred evolutionary advantages to mother and child survival. I see the ongoing current trend in the OECD as merely a continuation of that.

tiktok · 16/05/2012 12:47

Please read my response, whatme.....it would be helpful to do so before responding to it. It's here: tiktok Tue 15-May-12 09:35:04

I explained that the evidence is that a majorly breastfeeding diet changed at about 2 to one that became mostly non-breastfeeding which makes nutritional and evolutionary sense. Breastfeeding did not cease at that time, but continued alongside solid foods, gradually decreasing over a period of years.

So the idea that people who continue bf after 2 or 3 are doing something unusual in human terms is erroneous.

tiktok · 16/05/2012 12:51

'No conclusive data' that breastfeeding beyond toddlerhood has benefits? It's hard to get decent studies for this as the older the child the more variables there are....but there's reasonable breast cancer data showing benefits to the mother of bf beyond 2.

I am not aware of data that shows it is harmful, or that 'it causes men to want to leave the relationship'....you are so sure that this is the case, whatme, perhaps you will share a reference? I would think that isolating an event that actually causes men to want to leave would be very difficult, but perhaps you know of a good study that controls for all the variables?

crashdoll · 16/05/2012 12:59

tiktok Nobody said it was harmful, just that it didn't have any benefits. Not that I said it so I have no idea if it does or doesn't!

Shagmundfreud · 16/05/2012 13:06

If it makes a mother and child happy, and is a better source of nutrition than other drinks then how can it have 'no' benefit?

Unless you're thinking that orange squash, cows milk or water are actually better for a child as a drink than human milk?

"the continual trend to wean children earlier and earlier was because it conferred evolutionary advantages to mother and child survival"

What - you mean the earlier a child stops breastfeeding the more likely the mother and child are to survive?

Confused

How does that work?

Shagmundfreud · 16/05/2012 13:13

Tiktok - have you read much on how long term breastfeeding affects palate development?

tiktok · 16/05/2012 14:19

Shagmund, of course you're right...breastmilk doesn't turn to dishwater just 'cos the baby is older than a baby :) It's still the same stuff, and as a drink it is obv nutritionally appropriate. For most mothers and bf toddlers/children, the milk is not as important as the role it plays in a close and loving relationship - the quantities taken are probably small, anyway .

I don't know anything much about palate development, but as we can infer from evidence, that for most of human history we were predominantly bf up to about 2-3 with bf continuing alongside that for quite some time, palate development probably develops as it 'should' ....no idea if earlier cessation of bf affects palate development in any measurable way, and what that might to do teeth, but I suppose some dental anthropologist somewhere has an idea :)

clarabellabunting · 16/05/2012 14:38

I think I remember reading an article about this which said that early humans would typically breastfeed their young until about 2 to 2 1/2 years. And that this was to do with the age the child's brain reached a certain developmental stage and the age human children would typically have quadrupled their birth weight by. So not at all related to milk teeth, etc.

And that this was somehow related to the evolutionary advantage humans had from being carnivores... It allowed their children to develop quicker, they were thus breastfed for a shorter period, and the mother could have more children in quicker succession.

Not that that tells us anything about how long people should breastfeed for today. Although it would call into question the phrase 'natural term breastfeeding'.

tiktok · 16/05/2012 14:44

clara, please see my points made here on this thread: tiktok Tue 15-May-12 09:35:04

Yes, early humans did introduce other foods to their children and they probably did eat meat from toddlerhood - this does not mean breastfeeding stopped, judging from what we see in pre-industrial societies including hunter-gatherer societies today. Cessation of breastfeeding was/is gradual, and bf would have less and less importance in the diet as the child got beyond toddlerhood....but it would still continue.

Part of the confusion lies with the word 'weaning'. It means 'introducing foods other than breastmilk' and 'ceasing breastfeeding altogether'.

witchwithallthetrimmings · 16/05/2012 15:00

the thing is clara you can use evoutionary arguements to prove anything. I could (and others have) that it is the slow rate of physical development that confers an evloutionary advantage as it allows for better brain development. I could argue that extended bf reduced the number of children and increased the gap between them allowing more children to reach adult hood. Of course eating other foods allows children to be left in the care of grandparents while the stronger mothers could go out and forage but this is all guess work and not related to the actual question of whether it is weird to breastfeed a pre-schooler.

clarabellabunting · 16/05/2012 15:04

I interpreted 'stopped breastfeeding' to mean exactly that. But maybe it was imprecise language used by the person who wrote the article.

So did early humans exclusively BF their children until introducing solid foods at 2 - 2 1/2? Is that possible?

I think the comparison is usually made with other closely related mammals like gorillas and chimpanzees - do they exclusively BF up until the point they stop completely or is there some crossover with solid food for them as well?

tiktok · 16/05/2012 16:19

I can only repeat what i said before. Dental and bone remains tell us when meat and grains become a major part of the diet but not when bf totally ceased. I doubt mrs h.omo sapiens kept to excl bf for 2 or more yrs cos toddlr hom sap would be able to get other food himself.

GodisaDj · 16/05/2012 16:44

I don't think I'd have the balls to tell this lady it's wierd GrinGrin

GodisaDj · 16/05/2012 16:45

link

Cabrinha · 16/05/2012 18:45

I said my piece earlier, and won't repeat myself.

But I've seen quite a few replies suggesting when the child walks, is being too old.

My daughter walked at 14 months. My friend's daughter walked at 9 months. The difference between 9 & 14 is huge! How could you possibly suggesting 'walking' as a cut off point?!! Nonsensical!

Whatnamethistime · 16/05/2012 20:54

this is a really interesting article on natural ages of weaning

A Natural Age of Weaning

by Katherine Dettwyler, PhD

Department of Anthropology,
Texas A and M University

My research has looked at the various "life-history" variables (such as length of gestation, birth weight, growth rate, age at sexual maturity, age at eruption of teeth, life span, etc.) in non-human primates and then looked at how these variables correlate with age at weaning in these animals. These are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, especially gorillas and chimpanzees, who share more than 98% of their genes with humans. I came up with a number of predictions for when humans would "naturally" wean their children if they didn't have a lot of cultural rules about it. This interest stemmed from a reading of the cross-cultural literature on age at weaning, which shows that cultures have very different beliefs about when children should be weaned, from very early in the U.S. to very late in some places. One often hears that the worldwide average age of weaning is 4.2 years, but this figure is neither accurate nor meaningful. A survey of 64 "traditional" studies done prior to the 1940s showed a median duration of breastfeeding of about 2.8 years, but with some societies breastfeeding for much shorter, and some for much longer. It is meaningless, statistically, to speak of an average age of weaning worldwide, as so many children never nurse at all, or their mothers give up in the first few days, or at six weeks when they go back to work. It is true that there are still many societies in the world where children are routinely breastfed until the age of four or five years or older, and even in the United States, some children are nursed for this long and longer. In societies where children are allowed to nurse "as long as they want" they usually self-wean, with no arguments or emotional trauma, between 3 and 4 years of age. This interest also stemmed from the realization that other animals have "natural" ages of weaning, around 8 weeks for dogs, 8-12 months for horses, etc. Presumably these animals don't have cultural beliefs about when it would be appropriate.

Some of the results are as follows:

  1. In a group of 21 species of non-human primates (monkeys and apes) studied by Holly Smith, she found that the offspring were weaned at the same time they were getting their first permanent molars. In humans, that would be: 5.5-6.0 years.
  1. It has been common for pediatricians to claim that length of gestation is approximately equal to length of nursing in many species, suggesting a weaning age of 9 months for humans. However, this relationship turns out to be affected by how large the adult animals are -- the larger the adults, the longer the length of breastfeeding relative to gestation. For chimpanzees and gorillas, the two primates closest in size to humans and also the most closely genetically related, the relationship is 6 to 1. That is to say, they nurse their offspring for SIX times the length of gestation (actually 6.1 for chimps and 6.4 for gorillas, with humans mid-way in size between these two). In humans, that would be: 4.5 years of nursing (six times the 9 months of gestation).
  1. It has been common for pediatricians to claim that most mammals wean their offspring when they have tripled their birth weight, suggesting a weaning age of 1 year in humans. Again though, this is affected by body weight, with larger mammals nursing their offspring until they have quadrupled their birth weight. In humans, quadrupling of birth weight occurs between 2.5 and 3.5 years, usually.
  1. One study of primates showed that the offspring were weaned when they had reached about 1/3 their adult weight. This happens in humans at about 5-7 years.
  1. A comparison of weaning age and sexual maturity in non-human primates suggests a weaning age of 6-7 for humans (about half-way to reproductive maturity).
  1. Studies have shown that a child's immune system doesn't completely mature until about 6 years of age, and it is well established that breast milk helps develop the immune system and augment it with maternal antibodies as long as breast milk is produced (up to two years, no studies have been done on breast milk composition after two years post partum).

And on and on. The minimum predicted age for a natural age of weaning in humans is 2.5 years, with a maximum of 7.0 years.

In terms of the benefits of extended breastfeeding, there have been a number of studies comparing breastfed and bottlefed babies in terms of the frequency of various diseases, and also IQ achievement. In every case, the breastfed babies had lower risk of disease and higher IQs than the bottle-fed babies. In those studies that divided breastfed babies into categories based on length of breastfeeding, the babies breastfed the longest did better in terms of both lower disease and higher IQ. In other words, if the categories were 0-6 months of breastfeeding, 6-12 months, 12-18 months and 18-24+ months, then the 18-24+ month babies did the best, and the 12-18 month babies did the next best, and the 6-12 months babies did the next best, and the 0-6 months babies did the worst of the breastfed groups, but still much better than the bottlefeeding group. This has been shown for gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, heart disease, and on and on and on. Likewise, the babies nursed the longest scored the highest on the IQ tests. One important point to notice is that none of these studies looked at children who had nursed longer than 2 years. Anyone 18-24 month or longer was lumped into big category. Presumably, the benefits continue to accrue, as your body doesn't know that the baby has bad a birth day and suddenly start producing nutritionally and immunologically worthless milk.

However, no one has yet proved, either way, that the benefits of breastfeeding either continue or stop at two years of age, because the appropriate studies have not been done. The trend during the first two years is clearly for continuing benefits the longer you nurse. Clearly the phenomenon of dimishing returns is at work here -- the first six months of breastfeeding are clearly much more important in terms of the baby's nutrition and immunological development than the six months from 3.5 to 4.0 years. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue to provide breast milk if your baby wants and you don't mind. It would be like saying, "Well Mabel, we don't get very much income from that oil well anymore. Used to get $56 a month in royalties, now we're lucky if we get $25 a year. Guess we should tell that oil company just to keep their durn money." And Mabel says, in return "Good grief, Clyde, don't be ridiculous. That check still buys $25 worth of food. Where has your mind gone to now?"

Clearly, babies born in the U.S. don't have to contend with all the diseases and parasites and contaminated water that babies in Third World countries do. We have more supplementary foods that we can generally trust to be safe and clean. We can get our children immunized, and get them antibiotics for infections when necessary. The fact that we can does not mean that breastfeeding is unimportant. Breastfed babies still have the "edge" over bottlefed babies, even in a squeaky clean environment with wonderful medical care. They get sick less often, they are smarter, they are happier. Another important consideration for the older child is that they are able to maintain their emotional attachment to a person, rather than being forced to switch to an inanimate object such as a teddy bear or blanket. I think this sets the stage for a life of people-orientation, rather than materialism, and I think that is a good thing. I also can't imagine living through the toddler years without that close loving connection to a child going through enormous changes, some of which are very frustrating to the child. I could go on forever, but will stop here.

I hope this has been of help. These ideas are developed much more eloquently and in much greater detail in my chapter "A Time to Wean" in Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives, being published by Aldine de Gruyter.

Prepared August 3, 1995. Edited February 10, 1997.

Last updated April 15, 1999, by sak. Contents copyright 1999 Sue Ann Kendall and Kathy Dettwyler. Thanks to Prairienet, the Free-Net of east-central Illinois, for hosting this site.

Return to the Kathy Dettwyler page.

entropygirl · 16/05/2012 23:13

Blimey. I am loving the fact that there is a range of three time the minimum there...but I guess that's honest at least, after all children are all different....

Whatmeworry · 16/05/2012 23:17

Dettwyler's stuff is quite old, since then its been shown that she didn't realise that humans sped up the weaning process by moving to complementary feeding. The increase in rate of caolory intake had various evolutionary benefits to mother, child and tribal group.

Yes, early humans did introduce other foods to their children and they probably did eat meat from toddlerhood - this does not mean breastfeeding stopped, judging from what we see in pre-industrial societies including hunter-gatherer societies today. Cessation of breastfeeding was/is gradual, and bf would have less and less importance in the diet as the child got beyond toddlerhood....but it would still continue

Very few pre-industrial societies BF children much longer than year 2, both now and in prehistory. There is a very noticeable trend in humanity from proto-history onwards to accelerate weaning. Formula is just the latest in a long line of human innovations in this space - another one that happened many millenia ago was genetic adaptation among some humans to drink other animals' milk.

Swipe left for the next trending thread