At what age does breastfeeding become weird?

[TransatlanticCityGirl]

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"?

NCT line is not breast is best....its breast only. Fine for me as I loved it, but if anyone asked an NCT antenatal person about bottle feeding, they aren't allowed to advise them. That was the pat line still around the time I left which was 4 years ago. I suspect it is still the same.

I believe breast is best and that there should be more encouragement, i hate some of the formula advertisements, but I don't think we should make bottle feeding mothers feel like they are bad parents. New mothers can be riddled with insecurities anyway no?!

I think the issue with the lack of encouragement and acceptance of breastfeeding in the UK and the issue of 'how long is too long' are two very different ones.

hmmm I am fairly sure we had how to make up formula correctly in one of our classes (a year ago)...so maybe they have eased up. Or maybe we had a rouge teacher!

yes sorry I let whatme's insistence that not only are there no advantages to extended bf, there are no advantages to BF full stop drag me off topic. It just bugs me that some pregnant first time mum will read that sort of shit and make a decision they could seriously regret based on misinformation. But I suppose if you are the type to take the rantings on MN as a more reliable information source than the NHS/who guidelines then there is probably not that much anyone can do.

"So the nice guidelines and cochrane have it wrong do they?"

Whatmeworry has argued at length on this board that EVERYONE who supports the view that breastfeeding has got significant benefits has got it wrong. Not just individuals on mumsnet but whole organisations, the NHS, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the RCOG, you name it. They're all wrong wrong wrong. And not just wrong but engaged in an unpleasant conspiracy to fool the rest of us. And she knows because she's done a rigorous survey of the evidence. On her own.

Whatmeworry has argued at length on this board that EVERYONE who supports the view that breastfeeding has got significant benefits has got it wrong. Not just individuals on mumsnet but whole organisations, the NHS, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the RCOG, you name it. They're all wrong wrong wrong. And not just wrong but engaged in an unpleasant conspiracy to fool the rest of us. And she knows because she's done a rigorous survey of the evidence.

Its not just me, you are just wulfully ignoring the complete lack of evidence -BBC:

"Dr Mary Fewtrell, who specialises in childhood nutrition at University College London, said that there isn't any research into the health benefits of continuing to breastfeed children up until school age

She said that "even for the health benefits of breastfeeding beyond a year or 18 months, there is little research" and that this was far more a social than a nutritional issue"

There is plenty of research that shows breast fed children have less health problems than ff ones - there is just very little research into the benefits of long term bf. The fact that research doesn't exist doesn't not by default mean that there no advantages.

Having fed past 4 (absolutely not in public although I don't see why I shouldn't) I does not breed separation issues - in fact the opposite - my children are happy, confident individuals with no clingy tendencies.

My youngest was desperate to start Playgroup.

What people want us everyone to fit into a society norm. Well this over sexualise society, where we hot house children into growing up into mini adults way before they should - isn't one I want to fit into.

The problem people have with long term bf is simple - they cannot see that babies and small children are just that, tiny and dependant, that dependency doesnt stop at 2 or 3 or 4.

My baby sitter is doing a psychology degree - she was taught that if human babies were born at the "right" stage of physical deveoplement they would be 2, but we give birth "early" because of size.

Every parent does what they feel is best for their children.

Is this still going strong?

My god.

"Its not just me, you are just wulfully ignoring the complete lack of evidence"

Sorry, the complete lack of evidence that what - breastfeeding has benefits for babies?

The complete lack of evidence that the NHS has based 20 years of breastfeeding promotion on?

And why the fuck should we have to provide evidence that breastfeeding has benefits when it's simply part of the normal physiology of motherhood and infancy. I think hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have proved it.

Where is the evidence that entirely replacing it with a synthetic substitute which forms the WHOLE of an infants nutritional input for the first six months and the bulk of calories for the first year, is also entirely safe and has no implications across a child's lifetime? We haven't invented research which would be able to control for all the variables over a lifetime so we have absolutely NO idea how this radical change in infant feeding practices actually impacts on people's health in the medium and long term. It's one massive uncontrolled experiment.

Where are the posts on this board by you protesting about the lack of wide scale, good quality research into formula milks?

And why the fuck should we have to provide evidence that breastfeeding has benefits when it's simply part of the normal physiology of motherhood and infancy. I think hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have proved it.

Well, a dispassionate look at the evidence shows that the human species has moved away from reliance on pure BF as fast as it can over all the millenia.

Where is the evidence that entirely replacing it with a synthetic substitute which forms the WHOLE of an infants nutritional input for the first six months and the bulk of calories for the first year, is also entirely safe and has no implications across a child's lifetime?

This is the killer fact, that the majority of mothers in the West do not use EBF, or even much BF, and their children and childrens children grow up perfectly OK - in rude health for the most part, in fact.

That is why, outside of a sector of middle class mummydom (and a minority, albeit a noisy one at that), the whole BF woo hasn't taken off in the West.

Whatmeworry I wonder if you might find it useful to consider where your passionate anti-bf (which is how your posts come across) is coming from. Why care? Why devote so much time frankly hitting your head against a brick wall?

Please do bear in mind that many women and their children enjoy a most wonderful bf relationship for as long as (per WHO) is mutually desired. To read yours and others' posts is disappointing. Live and let live. Now please, give it a rest before you work yourself up even more.

"Well, a dispassionate look at the evidence shows that the human species has moved away from reliance on pure BF as fast as it can over all the millenia."

Sorry - what on earth are you talking about?

Babies have LONG been given solid foods in addition to their mother's milk. Sometime earlier and sometimes later than is given to them.

But in evolutionary terms the almost wholesale switch to

"This is the killer fact, that the majority of mothers in the West do not use EBF, or even much BF, and their children and childrens children grow up perfectly OK - in rude health for the most part, in fact."

Well tell Andrew Lansley that then he can go ahead happily and close down the rest of the NHS without a worry!

You can't get a doctors appointment at my clinic unless you phone within 2 minutes of the switchboard opening and that's because it's over run with people - mothers and young children included, who have health problems.

And maybe stop using the word 'woo' as a description of everything about breastfeeding promotion - including the mass of expensive and complex research that current recommendations are based on? Because frankly it's annoying and silly.

"the whole BF woo hasn't taken off in the West."

I think take an overview of human history, the bit where ff is the normal way of feeding a baby only occupies a space as big as a hair's breadth. Actually probably less than that. Whether women choose to give their baby their milk or not, all women in the West still go through the beginnings of the process of lactation, and nationally 78% now leave hospital breastfeeding. So not a minority choice. I'll give you that there are class and racial differences in breastfeeding rates. But then working class children always tend to get the worst of everything in life in the UK: diet, education, housing, so no change there.

Interrupted by phone call and missed this bit: "But in evolutionary terms the almost wholesale switch to synthetic milk as the sole food for newborns is the most radical, fast and frankly untested development in the history of human nutrition"

whatme - you say "Very few pre-industrial societies BF children much longer than year 2, both now and in prehistory."

That is not just true. I don't know what else to say - you must be making this up. There are many anthropological studies showing the cultural normality and frequency of bf beyond 2.5 - Dettwyler's research (not all that old - especially if we are using her observations as an indication of what early humans prob did thousands of years ago) is a drop in the bucket, and there are many studies from different places that show feeding patterns which move the child onto a foods alongside breastmilk from toddlerhood onwards, with breastmilk taking a smaller and smaller role over a period of years.

" There is a very noticeable trend in humanity from proto-history onwards to accelerate weaning."

Not sure what you mean - you are not explaining if you mean 'add other foods" or "cease breastfeeding". Whatever - not sure of your point either way! It still does not mean there is anything unusual (let alone harmful) in continuing to bf alongside other foods into childhood.

I am still waiting for the 'hard data' you say exists, to show that bf beyond babyhd 'causes men to want to leave the relationship'. It must exist, because you were so adamant yesterday that reading 'hard data' would reveal this disturbing fact.

In the west child obesity is on the increase. As is childhood diabetes, allergies, asthma. So in fact I think the West is doing something very wrong in terms of our childrens health. There may well be many factors in this, but bf does seem to reduce the chances of these things.

You can't get a doctors appointment at my clinic unless you phone within 2 minutes of the switchboard opening and that's because it's over run with people - mothers and young children included, who have health problems.

And that's because they are all FF is it Shaggy?

Actually, my experience is it was just those the MC Mummies who were BF fiends who were the most likely to rush off to the doctor the minute young Tarquin developed the slightest sniffle or deviation from perfection - because it just shouldn't be happening, dammit :o.

Milk is good for small children, necessary until about 2 years and still a good source of nutrition til 5ish - that's why we (as a society) provide free school milk up to Reception age, free milk vouchers for those on low incomes etc. And if animal milk is good, human milk is better.

Drinking cow milk is pretty weird actually, and very unnatural, especially after early childhood. It's so unnecessary and a bit icky.

Whatmeworry your last post summed up nicely: why are you so bitter? Can you find some help in rl to resolve your issues about bf?

And just so we know what 'hard data' means, whatme, I will not accept a quotation in an interview. Picking a sentence out of Dr Fewtrell's, in a BBC article, is not research evidence, right?

I happen to know about Dr Mary Fewtrell about her research, and about her reaction to the way it has been reported. She and colleagues are raising questions about public health policy of excl bf to 6 mths, and asking if it is too rigid for every individual. She is firmly of the view that the evidence in favour of supporting breastfeeding on health grounds is very strong; that excl bf to 6 mths is fine (just not essential or easily-achieved for every individual baby as a date on a calendar); she is perturbed at her and colleagues' questions in the BMJ being 'taken over' and misinterpreted and used as an argument against support for breastfeeding for all mothers. She is not engaged in primary research, anyway, and is not challenging the evidence of the health impact of bf/ff, and is looking at the literature as a basic for public health guidance.

There is very little hard data on the 'benefts' of bf beyond infancy. But as the milk remains the same, and has the same nutritional qualities, there is no reason to think benefits lessen in some way. We do have some pretty good data on breast cancer risk reduction, for mothers who breastfeed a child over 2 - for some women, that' an important thing to know.

Lemon Curd I hear?

"my experience is it was just those the MC Mummies who were BF fiends who were the most likely to rush off to the doctor the minute young Tarquin developed the slightest sniffle or deviation from perfection - because it just shouldn't be happening, dammit"

my son is Breastfed (17) months and I have taken him to the doctor twice.
Take that anecdotal evidence and...well you know.

"And that's because they are all FF is it Shaggy?"

Of course most of them do, but then who knows whether it's that which is the reason they're constantly at the doctors with their children who have infections, constipation, vomiting and skin problems?

Point I was making is that despite the fact that you say that the vast majority of children in the UK are in 'robust health' there are many mothers who spend their life in a doctors waiting room with their constipated, vomiting and wheezy kids. And the ones who make the most surgery visits with small babies tend to come from the groups which have the lowest rates of breastfeeding.

"Actually, my experience is it was just those the MC Mummies who were BF fiends who were the most likely to rush off to the doctor the minute young Tarquin developed the slightest sniffle or deviation from perfection"

I think you'll find that if small babies are unwell then it's not uncommon for mothers, MC or otherwise, to want to talk to the doctor.

Im not liking this talk of being able to pick out bf children in playgrounds I have to say. Course you cant. Not even individual ones, it would be a stab in the dark.

Make a good game though?

More anecdotal evidence - my 7 year old has only been to the doctor once in his life, for an illness (as opposed to routine checkups) and my 3 year old has not needed to go yet. Both bf into the toddler years.

You are in a middle class bubble, whatme.

Try living in an area where mothers who breastfeed are ridiculed by their families, who are criticised by their friends, who are told they are 'disgusting', who struggle to breastfeed in the face of poor support from HCPs, whose parents are telling them to give that baby 'proper milk', and who are fighting off the relatives trying to get the baby on solid food.

Oh, and when you have tried living there, where maybe 90 per cent of babies are on formula from a few days old, take a look at the health statistics while you are at it.

With more breastfeeding, babies born in areas of deprivation and poor health would have greater resiliance to the negative health effects of where they live. Of course formula is not a direct cause of ill health - and in areas where there is good health and where the baby's family circumstances are good, the effect of ff is minimised - and no one can predict the effect on any individual baby. But it plays its part in the multi-layered complexity of factors.

Drinking cow milk is pretty weird actually, and very unnatural, especially after early childhood. It's so unnecessary and a bit icky.

Given that a large number of humans have actually had a genetic shift to be able to drink it, its hardly unnatural.

Or rather its unnatural in the same sense that talking, or walking on 2 feet is unnatural, as once we did neither as a species.

So drinking cow's milk is ok (for the minority with a genetic mutation) but drinking human milk isn't