Breastfeeding - so at what age do YOU consider it still acceptable?

[PontOffelPock]

Straw poll on what age child MNers consider tips the balance from acceptable to unacceptable for extended breastfeeding?

Honest opinions please, are you (secretly or otherwise) horrified by a 5 year old BFing, or does your horror kick in at 6 months?!

Asking because I am considering how long to continue BFing with DS (1 yo) and admit to be more than a little swayed by 'what people think'!

I've only read the first page. I stopped BFing DS at 20mo. I was pregnant and had no desire to tandem feed. Outside LLL I don't know any women who have fed as long as we did.

DD is 5mo and I guess we'll stop when she's around 2. We'll see what works for us though. If she has a strike before then we might just stop at that point.

It certainly seems a lot more common than I would have expected before reading this. Maybe if they published a stat saying 2% for example kids are bf to 4. People wouldn't be surprised to see it. Maybe they did when there was a tv prog about it.

naty 1

I'm not sure how common breastfeeding to 4 is.
Threads like this will appeal to those who do or have breastfed older children, but then most women who do will also tend not to broadcast it in real like.
When I breastfed my 4 and 5 year olds very few people knew apart from my very close family and friends at LLL.
My kids were at playgroup/nursery yet not a soul knew that they were being breastfed- neither did my GP or HV.
Such are some negative reactions from some of the public- plus most children that age won't breastfeed when they are out and about so it's not seen in public very often.

There's not a chance it's 2% - I think only 3% are still feeding at 6 months!

35% are still breastfeeding at 6 months - the very low figure (not sure if it is 3%, might only be 1%) is for EBF at 6 months.

I thought it was 2% of babies exclusively breastfed for 6 months.

That means no solids, no formula for 6 months.

Ah right sorry got mixed up. That does actually make far more sense.

I do think that "only 2% of babies ebf for 6 mths" is a ridiculous statistic to focus on. Strictly speaking neither of mine were ebf for 6 mths as with both I tried them on some simple solids eg. rice before that milestone. But I continued BFing them both for an extended time afterwards.

Very true at the which is why I just find it so but would never in a million years tell someone so. Probably the way I was brought up as Mum is very pro breastfeeding but said she would find beyond 2 years weird in private or not.

Personally I have no problem with it ultimately it makes me feel uncomfortable as I can see others reactions.

Oops posted too early.

No idea what it is. Been nearly a week now. Try feeding when drowsy and in the bath . She's better than she was though as at first she shoved it away frantically now she lets it near just doesn't suckle.

Juggling

Your children will not be included in the 2% statistics then.

Reaching 6 months isn't a milestone. That statistic is focused on because of the current guidelines which say babies should be exclusively breastfed for 6 months. Why is it ridiculous?

I bf til DS was 9 months when he self weaned, completely refused. I have to admit that I find it rather odd to see children who run, talk clearly, throw themselves down slides etc feeding. I guess I'm saying that it seems odd above the age of 2. I remember the initial sadness then joy at getting my body back. It felt like I was becoming my self again. Each to their own.

I think some of this "oddness" perhaps relates to the need to get babies off the bottle at 12 months- and for good reason.
Many of these children do go on to have comforters, dummies or suck their thumb because of an ongoing need to suckle.

All higher primates suckle their offspring for several years- why are humans any different?
There is a biological imperative to breastfeed primate toddlers so why should it be "odd" when humans do it?

I think the oddness is to do with it not being a part of modern culture. There are plenty of places in the world bf a toddler would be completely normal. I saw a look of it in India. Women with scarves over their faces and veils on their head with their boob out feeding their toddler and no one batting an eye except maybe me come to think if it . Maybe they are what influenced my extended feeding.

It's ridiculous because it's taken out of context. If it was always quoted with "and 10% give solids alongside bf, and a further 5% any bm"...

(disclaimer: made-up numbers)

Just been mulling over this 'when they can ask for it, it should stop' idea....

Aren't babies 'asking' to be breastfed from the moment they are born? If they didn't 'ask', how would we feed 'on demand'? At first, they open their mouths, they root around searching for the nipple, they cry. Later, they ask with their eyes. They still cry. They open their mouths in anticipation. They gnaw at their own hands. They dip their heads, trying to get nearer to your breasts.

Still later, they reach for you. They pat your breast with a tiny hand, or sometimes try to put it in your top. They might even start head-butting your chest.

So they're doing all this 'asking', from day one. Why is it when they acquire language, it's suddenly unacceptable?

Guidelines being as they are you would expect it to be a low number EBF at 6 months, this is a good thing as it means people aren't delaying solids past that date. (It's actually 1% - I just looked it up). There is a steady drop off between 4 and 6 months which is to be expected as that is what current guidelines say.

I do think they should publish the 34% figure though, that's far more encouraging. I had actually thought that the infant feeding study went further than 6 months but it doesn't. I suppose as a government funded survey it is concerned with adherence to DOH guidelines rather than anything else, but it would be interesting to see if there was a survey about overall duration of breastfeeding.

im sure tje ifs goes beyond 6m. Will check tomorrow

It does sound better. So people are following bf advice but not solids.
I thinks that is because of mixed messages on the weaning... it's best to wait.. but if you choose to.
Also as advice has recently changed soon have older kids weaned at 4m with no obvious problems from it.
What does surprise me are the people weaning before the 17 weeks with no reason to do it.
I think the message is mixed because it doesn't seem to be conclusive.

This is the info on solids if anyone is interested. Long document though.

I thought so too SPB but the 2010 one doesn't seem to at all. I could have sworn I remembered it having figures for 9 months and 1 year, but could have imagined it. I can't find them now anyway.

Lol - apparently 15% of mothers who introduced solids before 3 months cited the reason for introducing solids as "Baby could sit up and hold food in his/her hand" Advanced 2 month olds!

Now my head hurts and I'm a biologist and we like TLAs (3 letter abbreviations)

We have now got 1) EBF (extended BFing) meaningless term as some people think it means 6 months and 6 years
2) EBF (exclusive BFing) advised to 6 months
3) NTBF (natural term BFing, a polite, but equally meaningless version of 1)

So DD2 was EBF (1) but not EBF (2) she stopped gaing weight and was given solids early on medical advice as she screamed at the sight of a bottle.

And, although NTBF(3) was always my aim eventually I did suggest it was getting silly and DD2 agreed.

Ah starball

I do not believe in using the term EBF (1) - when a mother feeds her child until the child self weans she is not extending anything! If you wean your child off the breast, parent led, you are cutting breastfeeding short as far as I'm concerned.

That is funny Bertie. Maybe hold the food, but 15% sit up, surely be sat up. Lots I know couldn't sit too well at 6m.
I think that would be a good reason for blw as few could get much in their mouth at 3m.