Is it just a societal norm? (Breastfeeding related)

[Emerald95]

Inspired by last night's controversial opinions thread.
Many women on the thread were saying breastfeeding your child after 6m/1y/2y was weird and by that age a child should be on cow's milk.

I think it is odd to take away the milk made for your baby, and replace it with a cow's breastmilk made for a calf.
Why is giving a child cow's breast milk so normalised? Is it simply because that is what that generations before have done and thus become a societal norm?

I am not a vegan, or even a vegetarian. I am not against consuming animal products but it just seems very weird to be swapping milk produced by a mother for her specific child for milk made by a cow for her calf.

I understand when a child is older and away from their mother for longer periods of time at nursery ect that cow's milk would then be easier. But when the child is mainly at home with their mother, say under the age 3, why should she choose a cow's breastmilk over her own?

Those who hold the view that young children should move onto cow's milk instead of breastfeeding, why?

YABU- Cow's milk is better for a young child
YANBU- Swapping a young child from their mother's Breastmilk to Cow's breastmilk is weird

@Parker231 But ultimately, not as healthy as breastfed ones. There is no arguing that.

@Parker231you seem to care otherwise you wouldn’t be commenting on a thread about breastfeeding!

DC’s as babies and toddlers were actually healthier than their breast fed cousins. They had allergies, mine didn’t.

I care that those who use formula are supported and not made to feel guilty about their choices. You aren’t a better mother by breastfeeding or in any way selfish by using formula.

I am not saying I disagree with BF after a year but possing it as a hypothesis.....as we have a gestation period of 9 months it is very possible that are ancestors had new borns alongside under 1s alongside an under 2 and an under 3 if they were to bf every child to 5 women wouldn't have survived...their inborn motivation would have been reproduce and get each child to independence especially given mortality rates. So is it really natural to BF every child for years? It's to debate nothing else.

That’s because it’s at a population level not an individual level!

Good lord. Population level! Anecdotal "evidence" is irrelevant.

Studies show that women would naturally have a baby every 3-4 years as breastfeeding suppresses ovulation. From an evolutionary perspective, it would make more sense for a mother to have only one small baby to look after and protect rather than several small children

I don't think it's fair to attack or guilt trip mothers for any method used to feed a baby. Do you know the medical history of every Bottle fed baby or mother, do they know yours?

@CommissarySushiI don’t think we’re going to get very far here 😂

But how many mothers do you know who relied on that form of contraception and had two under 1? I know at least 2 ....so although it suppresses it doesn't do so reliability let alone for years.

It is relevant - the only babies health I’m concerned about are my own.

@jannierno one is attacking anyone. However you cannot argue with the huge mounds of evidence that show that, at a population level, breastfeeding is healthier than formula.

I have nothing against formula. If a baby cannot be breastfed then formula is a wonderful invention that keeps babies alive and growing. If I couldn’t breastfeed then of course I would be giving formula!

Yes I do know what you mean! I’m only going on what the research shows. Only 1% of babies are exclusively breastfed to six months so I would imagine that supplementing with formula or pumping would affect ovulation and that may explain it?

YANBU

I enjoy milk and I also nursed my children and weaned them off at 2 but I do side eye people who have an issue with women nursing their children with human milk and think they should swap to another mammal’s milk because it’s weird to them or they have their own personal issues around breastfeeding.

How does that make sense? How is the milk made from cow’s superior to the milk made from the mother’s?

Besides, over half the world’s population (65-68%) is lactose-intolerant.

Anthropologically children are supposed to be breastfed much longer than they usually are these days. Not just for health and nutrition but for ideal spacing of pregnancies - in cave dwelling times the older child would need to be able to walk well enough to keep up with the mother who would be carrying the new baby.

In these times it matters a lot less because formula is very good nutrition for babies and we have reliable contraception. There are some additional health benefits to breastfeeding but these are now thought to be much more marginal. It's also very convenient in the early weeks when feeds are so frequent. Overall though people can do what they want and like and what suits their family set up.

Breastfeeding worked fairly well for me so I did that in the early months. I then introduced some bottle feeds in preparation for going back to work. Planned to BF in morning and evening once I returned but once they were on mostly bottles they preferred that as the milk comes out faster when they are hungry! (I never let them just comfort suck as i didn't want to be a human dummy so they didn't have that association with the breast, though that in itself is a personal preference.) I pretty much gave up by 6 months and all was fine.

It really doesn't need to be controversial at all. Mothers should do what works best, that's it really. A very substantial proportion of the population was reared on formula milk and are perfectly healthy, you'd never guess who was and wasn't.

Your kids and your cousins kids are not the population so, yes, they are irrelevant to this conversation.

Much better put than me about pregnancy spacing!

That’s interesting about breastfeeding only being marginally better than formula. Can you point me in the direction of somewhere I can read about that?

I spend a lot of time nap trapped so I’m enjoying reading about baby development!

The difference being 'natural' breastfeeding would be every 20 minutes or so while carrying the baby/child on your hip and sleeping together and feeding throughout the night - with no dummies or bottles, much later introduction of solids. And hunter-gatherer women would be very slim and fit with low body weight and a high level of activity.

Very different from a modern scenario of babies feeding every 2-3 hours, being put down, sleeping separately, and mothers being mostly sedentary and well fed.

Things only really changed for humans relatively recently with the introduction of agriculture.
Before that for the vast majority of human history we were hunter-gatherers and evolved to breastfeed for years at a time.
With the introduction of agriculture humans started living in settlements, babies/toddlers were no longer carried all the time and could be left somewhere while women worked. Animal milks could be used. Breastfeeding durations became shorter and births spaced closer.

But I'm talking cave men and how the natural instinct carries down just like dogs will always have some wolf. Is that the reason why some are so judgemental?

I also think for some it's a feminist issue BF can be said to chain women bottle feeding and contraception was a liberator. Today we see returning to work as a negative in the 60s and 70s it was a step to equality

Sorry what do you mean?

Bottle feeding does help share the load. But I guess it goes back to how there needs to be more support for women particularly in the newborn days. Historically women weren’t trying to raise a baby on their own while their husbands was at work - they had the support of their whole family

@jannier Not attacking at all - just stating a fact that ultimately can't be refuted.