Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

Can't seem to change the way I think about BF

319 replies

twiglett · 12/07/2004 15:38

message withdrawn

OP posts:
mummytosteven · 15/07/2004 16:07

thanx Tiktok, will have a google rather than trying to pick your extremely knowledgable brain!

hercules · 15/07/2004 16:07

Surely we are only in the minority in this country which is known to be unsupportive of bf anyway. Worldwide people do bf for much longer - the average being around 4 years I believe.

bloss · 15/07/2004 16:24

Message withdrawn

Eulalia · 15/07/2004 16:25

tiktok - sorry didn't make it clear, I meant on a country-wide scale, ie attitudes are different to b/feeding in 3rd world countires. I realise the regional differences.

twiglett · 15/07/2004 16:30

message withdrawn

OP posts:
Eulalia · 15/07/2004 16:32

mummytosteven - here are the figures. These are % figures and its all squigly due to it being in a table. You can get all this at Breastfeeding in the UK - current statistics

Prevalence of breastfeeding* by country
England & Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK
1995 2000 1995 2000 1995 2000 1995 2000
Birth 68 71 55 63 45 54 66 69
1 Week 58 57 46 50 35 37 56 55
2 Weeks 54 54 44 47 32 34 53 52
6 Weeks 44 43 36 40 25 26 42 42
4 Months 28 29 24 30 12 14 27 28
6 Months 22 22 19 24 8 10 21 21
9 Months 14 14 13 15 5 7 14 13

*Any breastfeeding ? exclusive breastfeeding rates were not recorded. However, 28% of breastfed babies received a bottle feed of formula while in hospital (down from 36% in 1995). Mothers whose babies had a bottle were much less likely to be still breastfeeding at 2 weeks - 40% gave up during this time compared with 13% of mothers whose babies were exclusively breastfed (see below)
One in four babies had been fed solid foods by the age of three months, although this was down from more than half in 1995. The proportion receiving solids at 4 months fell from 91% to 85%. In each case, breastfeeding mothers were slightly less likely to introduce solids early.

Do mothers stop breastfeeding before they want to?

Baby's age when breastfeeding stopped Percentage of mothers who would have liked to breastfeed longer
< 1 week 90
1 - 2 weeks 93
2 - 6 weeks 87
6 weeks - 4 months 69
4 - 6 months 48

6 months 37

seems that most do want to stop by the time they get to 6 months. However 37% still wanting to continue is a big percentage.

Slinky · 15/07/2004 16:33

Don't normally "do" breast/bottle debates - my days of worrying about that have well and truly gone but I did want to add:

that my 3 kids who were breastfed for a max. of 4 months (less for No 3) have incredible immune systems. No 1 had ear problems (not infections) due to enlarged tonsils. These removed at 5 have cured the problem and she hasn't had a day off school for sickness since Reception (now Year 3).

Chicken pox for all 3 has been the only illness. None of them have EVER had a tummy bug (TOUCH WOOD!) even though I regularly brought one home from the nursery I worked at (thanks to the thoughtful parents who sent their ill kids in ).

None of them have ezcema/asthma/hayfever even though I have asthma and DH has hayfever.

I don't usually go for "anecdotal" evidence BTW.

Incidently, I have 2 friends who long-term breastfed. One did it for 15 months, the other for 2.5 years. BOTH of them regret doing it for so long and wished they'd stopped earlier.

The one who did it for 2.5 years is pregnant again - and has said she will be stopping before 1 year. The child who was breastfed for 2.5yrs funnily enough has a very poor health record - and is usually ill every 6/8 weeks.

mrsflowerpot · 15/07/2004 16:34

I don't think anyone has said that long term breast feeding is harmful, have they? Or did I miss one? We all know it's beneficial, I don't think anyone is disputing that. What people are saying is that they don't/didn't want to, for whatever reason - and I think that it's a genuinely interesting point to explore. Like it or not, we do all have preconceived ideas about all kinds of things. Perhaps what we should remember that if you've breastfed at all you have given your child a fantastic start, whether that's weeks months or years, and stop trying to score points off each other. It's a really sensitive issue, obviously, and I think what we have here now is one set of people who think they are being told they are disgusting, and another set who feel they are being told they have endangered their children's health. Neither is the case, surely as in all parts of your life you do what works for you and your child. It's never going to be the same for everyone.

carla · 15/07/2004 16:39

Wonderfully said, MrsFlowerpot

mummytosteven · 15/07/2004 16:42

thanks very much for that, Eulalia. I also tracked down the statistic for initiating bfing at my hospital, Liverpool Women's Hospital - 49.2% which is somewhat lower than the national average. I looked on your link and that had some extremely interesting information about increased likelihood of giving up bfing where baby has a bottle of formula in hospital - though unfortunately I could not tell whether they had included cup feeds of formula within the "bottle of formula group" or not (policy at my hospital was to do formula top ups in cups, not bottles)

emkana · 15/07/2004 16:49

Well, it was said that extended breastfeeding is 'abusive'...
and I think it's very sad that jollymum hasn't returned here to take that back!
Otherwise fully agree with your post, mrs.flowerpot.
One other point though: What about the health benefits for the mother with longterm b/feeding? Less risk of various cancers, osteoporosis...
isn't that a compelling argument for extended b/feeding?
With regards of the 'keeping them babies' argument: Does anybody here actually know any longterm breastfed child who seemed particularly babyish or overly dependent or whatever? This really seems to be an argument that's not backed up by any facts whatsoever!

carla · 15/07/2004 16:55

Let's put this thread to bed. Too many Mumsnetters getting cross, when we don't need to. Each person to their own

zebra · 15/07/2004 16:56

Jollymum did imply that LT bf was "abusive" and offered no advantages Flowerpot.

I just think that nobody gets to be the "perfect" parent. We all have weaknesses and selfish failings which (usually) doesn't make us awful parents, just not perfect, either. I am glad that br'feeding, at least past one year, is one of the things I got right. Plenty other stuff I have got very wrong, even when I knew better.

twiglett · 15/07/2004 17:03

message withdrawn

OP posts:
tamum · 15/07/2004 17:08

OK, i am going to bow out now, I agree that we don't want to get too wound up over all this, but I just have to say that I agree with twiglett, I haven't seen any scientifically convincing evidence that the good effects of breastfeeding on children's immune systems continue after a year or so. I am not saying I'm against it- how could I, I've already admitted that my daughter was nearly 2 when she stopped, I just haven't seen any really convincing scientific evidence for long-term continuation having a significant benefit in the developed world. I can quite see why people react against posts like jollymum's, but I fail to see why we shouldn't be allowed to discuss the research.

carla · 15/07/2004 17:09

Twiglett, .... just me..XXXX

carla · 15/07/2004 17:11

I've got my starched apron on .....

carla · 15/07/2004 17:18

Come back, Twiglett .....

Eulalia · 15/07/2004 17:20

Apologies for my earlier outburst have calmed down now.

I repeat I've not been able to find (so far) much research on health benefits for extended breastfeeding. However if I may repeat for the third time this paper does suggest it "interesting evidence for an enhanced protection remaining for years after lactation" see earlier post for more details...

And here are plenty sources from the link hercules posted earlier -

Nursing toddlers are SICK LESS OFTEN
The American Academy of Family Physicians notes that children weaned before two years of age are at increased risk of illness (AAFP 2001).
Nursing toddlers between the ages of 16 and 30 months have been found to have fewer illnesses and illnesses of shorter duration than their non-nursing peers (Gulick 1986).
"Antibodies are abundant in human milk throughout lactation" (Nutrition During Lactation 1991; p. 134). In fact, some of the immune factors in breastmilk increase in concentration during the second year and also during the weaning process. (Goldman 1983, Goldman & Goldblum 1983, Institute of Medicine 1991).
Per the World Health Organization, "a modest increase in breastfeeding rates could prevent up to 10% of all deaths of children under five: Breastfeeding plays an essential and sometimes underestimated role in the treatment and prevention of childhood illness."

I will however try to find more on this if it helps.

As bloss has said our childhood is a gradual process and building up immunity is too. B/feeding does help a 2 year old in that respect. Obviously it's not nearly as important as a newborn or 6 month old or a year old, the importance gradually tails off but proving the point that we aren't wasting our time by continued to b/feed our babies.

Signing off now for the day, spending too much time on this. Apologies again and thanks for an interesting discussion.

carla · 15/07/2004 17:23

Twiggletbme back... Haven't followed this thread at all, but BF dd1 for 4 months, then couldn't do it with dd2 at all. No opinions from me!

twiglett · 15/07/2004 17:26

message withdrawn

OP posts:
tamum · 15/07/2004 17:30

OK Eulalia, I hate myself for keeping on about this but i'm too much of a scientist to resist (spend half my life criticising other people's papers and grant applications; it's just too ingrained)... how does "interesting evidence for an enhanced protection remaining for years after lactation" suggest that long term Bfing is best? If it persists beyond lactation that makes it sound as though we're talking about after weaning, surely?

tiktok · 15/07/2004 17:39

Just to answer some Qs: the WHO guidelines on this are really directed at governments and healthcare systems, not at individual mothers. The WHO does no campaigning or education direct to mothers. The global strategy on bf is just that - for the world. It states - with evidence - that babies should be fed exclusively on breastmilk for six months, in order to achieve 'optimal nutrition', and that governments and healthcare systems are charged with making that possible, removing barriers to it, and so on. There is not as much robust evidence that breastfeeding for two years and beyond (alongside other foods) is 'optimal nutrition' across the world, because the trials and research that would make it possible to be certain of this have not been done, though there is plenty of epidemiological evidence and others that breastfeeding continues to be beneficial to the child. It would be quite hard to exhort governments and healthcare systems to enable all mothers to breastfeed to age three, four or beyond - for many, this would be impossible to do.

Other studies - such as several on breast cancer - show that there are measurable health benefits to mothers (in all countries) of continuing to breastfeed for what we in the west perceive as an extended time.

I think common sense tells us that breastfeeding a toddler when the only alternative fluid is dirty water and not much of that, and food is in scarce supply, is a very useful thing indeed. In the west, we don't have those major problems with supplies of water and food, so it becomes less of an acute health or nutrition issue to breastfeed into toddlerhood. However, breastfeeding is still a valid nutritional (and nutritious) option for mothers and babies, and in individual cases, it may enhance relationships and become a pleasant and loving way of nurturing(in the fullest sense of the word).

For cultural and other unknown reasons, some people recoil at the whole idea, and of course that is up to them!

What is not fair is to make up spurious reasons based on no research whatsoever for this response - there is no evidence (apart from people's opinions) that mothers bf for an extended time solely for their own pleasure or that they are doing so in order to keep their child 'a baby' for longer ( I am tempted to say, 'so what'... with the proviso the child is not being harmed and is happy. Some parents keep their four year olds in Thomas the Tank engine pyjamas!).

I can accept that some people just don't like the idea because it doesn't sit with them comfortably. I don't think they are any worse as parents, just as I don't think extended bf people are better.

By the way, contuiing to feed ( by breast or bottle) a toddler or child at night does not mean they are being encuraged to wake up and stopping feeding doesn't mean they won't wake. Everyone wakes up in the night. Babies and children who don't disturb their parents have learnt to get themselves back to sleep without doing so, that's all. They may only wake for a short time and be hardly aware of it.

twiglett · 15/07/2004 18:04

message withdrawn

OP posts:
tiktok · 15/07/2004 18:18

Er...that's what I thought I said, Twiglett. It's not the feeding that 'makes' the child wake. It's the feeding that settles the child after waking. When the child doesn't feed, then he has learnt to/been taught to settle himself. You are probably right about the degrees of wakefulness, with the child who expects to feed rousing himself more (though the work of Dr Helen Ball's sleep lab shows babies feeding more or less in their sleep, and mothers of toddlers and older report their children hardly being awake as they feed....though it may rouse the mother more than she wants to. I think there is a wide variation in this).