So perhaps we should be breastfeeding for 7 years?

[ThomasTankEngine]

See here

I think it is fine to make remarks about bf. What isn't fine is to tell posters they are odd or weird for their choice of how to feed their child.

Accepted Franny

are you saying Nadine that breastfeeding rates and the length of bf have reduced due to evolution
but it is culture specific
are you saying that cultures where bf haven't fallen and people still bf for 2+ years are less evolved

hello franster

Wellie, if chips (and presumably our ape ancestors) bf for 25% of thier life-span and we feed between a few months and (say) 7 years, so

That's chimps not chips!!
mmmm am hungry now!

chasingsquirrels and all the other b feeders out there who go on and on about breastfeeding and people who bottle feed being selfish.

1. get a life

2. each to their own.

3. if someone doesn't wand to breastfeed
   so be it

i tried breastfeeding, and found it very very difficult and very sore my baby was constantly crying and hungry. so i changed to formula my baby settled down and started to be more content.

i would never ever contimplate breatfeeding again. but does who do decide to then good luck to them.

but i think those of you who think that those who ff a any less of a mother then you need to wind your necks in and let be

where EXACTLY did I say that I think less of people who don't bf? I didn't, in fact I said I don't take a view on it - it is down to the individual, I understand, but don't personally agree with, all the fuss about it. You feed your baby how you choose to feed them, as long as you DO feed them! All I was pointing out was that the poster I was responding to, had in her own post shown that she was selfish - see the wording of it. I didn't agree that anyone should take a view on her for that, or that anyone should judge anyone else for the millions of selfish things that the vast majority of people do - as long as those selfish acts do not harm other, which as I also said in the vast majority of cases ff wouldn't do.

hippychick - no one on here is attacking ff, so you don't need to come on here and aggressively defend your decision to do so! You haven't been criticised!

at the idea of bf chips....

SweetyDarling, I'm being a bit tentative here because I'm just speculating, but I think the question of what an older child might get from bf is very interesting.

I've been doing a bit of reading about bf and immunity, the way it's a dynamic process, with immune factors in breastmilk influencing the development of the baby's immune system, especially gut immunity.

It seems that early life development of the immune system is very important because it's about striking a balance between being immune to infection, but not overreacting to harmless food (allergy) or to the body's own tissues (auto-immune diseases).

So... (speculative bit here), it might be that extended bf has less of a role in nutrition, but continues to adjust the balance of the immune system. (If that's so, and there aren't a huge amount of nutrients in the bm, then my earlier argument about famine wouldn't work, obviously).

That's just me wondering, but what is known is that allergies and autoimmune diseases are on the rise - it seems our immune systems are out of whack, but no-one knows exactly why. The "hygiene hypothesis" is interesting but can't fully explain the rise in incidence.

I guess what I'm thinking is that if we're able to bf for extended periods, there probably is a reason for it - the reason might not be valid for us now, but on the other hand, it could be important - we just don't know.

Yikes, bet you weren't expecting an essay!

Message withdrawn

Oooh, an evolutionary biologist! Can we pick Mr P's brains?

I undertand that it just has to be not detrimental in order to continue. But what I'm thinking is that bf would inevitably have some costs, in terms of whatever is in breastmilk being lost from the mother's body.

Ergo (my theory, ahem), there shoudl be an advantage somewhere which offsets that.

what about the LURVE hormones - might it be the oxytocin thing that makes us do silly things in other contexts.
or might it be the benefit of spacing children?

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

[puts down pitchfork]

Spacing children is definitiely a factor for early bf. Hmm.... oxytocin, interesting! Or some reason no-one has ever though of?

Message withdrawn

yes I was thinking that pruni, I mean that if you are able to produce really good quality food then there is a benefit to doing so because it is bound to take up less energy than hunting/gathering it whatever.
and the "drain" on the mother's body isn't that great is it? especially once the toddler is not feeding like a new born?

Exactly, and as Pruner's Dh would probably point out, if it doesn't kill the mother then it won't have an evolutionary impact. Over thousands of generations the ability may fade away if there is no real reason for it, but the argument that because we can do it there must be a reason or benefit to it is just unscientific.
We can all do heaps of useless stuff. I know I do useless stuff all the time!

I don't really understand how the "ability" would fade away. I mean, children can breastfeed. Women can lactate. there isn't anything fundamentally different about feeding at 2 weeks or 2 years.
I think the reasons behind many of our difficulties with bf are cultural but I don't think this is an evolutionary process by any means.

Harpi, I was referring to Wellie's comments re unused, energy draining abilities/organs (appendix for eg) fading over time. ie ie that we wouldn't be able to do it (the ability would have faded away) if it wasn't necessary.

Fio Fio, what bout birds and fish!

yes but the ability to breastfeed IS vital for the survival of the species.
"extended" bf isn't different in any respect in terms of the process.