anyone seen this months junior magazine-peadiatric nutritionist says she 'draws the line' at breastfeeding two-yaer-old

[violeteyes]

weird letter written in with someone claiming to be worried that a friend was still bfeeding her two-year-old! expert really quite derogatory, as well as above, said that was bad for mothers health; setting herself up for problems later;not nutritionally any value......
although she said she supported breastfeeding up to six months and no specific cut off was advised, the implication was that 6 months should be it
i was really shocked at the tone of the reply

at hc, and at Junior and so called nutritionist.

I told my midwife I was still feeding DS (2.8) at my booking-in appointment for this pregnancy and she seemed very pleased (although surprised).

Poor show by Junior, definitely.

LOL at "this would have had more impact if the GP had known what sunny D was, I think."

Can someone post a copy/transcript of the article in question please?

"Q. A friend of mine who still breastfeeds here two-year old son insists that this is the best way to nourish a child. Is this OK?
A. You don't say whether your friend is exclusively breastfeeding her sone, or whether he eats solids as well. I advocate the benefits of breastfeeding, but draw the like for a two year old. I'm sure your friend has the best intentions, but I think she could be creating problems for herself.
Breast milk is perfect for babies - it provides the optimal amount of nutrients and allows the mother to pass on antibodies that can help reduce the chance of her baby developing infections and allergies. However, once a baby is six months old, milk alone will not meet all their nutritional requirements. Milk is also quite low in iron and, as the baby's stores of iron will have depleted by siz months, other sources will need to be introduced.
Babies are ready to move onto solids by six months, plus they need to develop the hand and eye coordination needed to get food into their mouth. Eating is also important in developming their speech as it helps them learn how to form sounds.
Breastfeeding is also detrimental to the mother's health, as the calcium required for milk not only comes from the stores in her bones, buy also her diet. The nutritional benefits of breast milk will also be insignificant, as he is unlikely to be taking large volumes. He will aslo have a good set of teeth by now, so she may have been nipped a few times too!"

Sorry for typos. She draws the line

Bit cross at the biting bit. FGS.

well hc I see your four and a half years and I raise you two years - I've been breastfeeding now for six years and five monhts (oh all right, with a gap of four months inbetween dd2 and ds, but I was pregnant then), I am very healthy and I hate rubbish like this.

Didn't I read somewhere that breastfeeding can actually protect you from osteoporosis? And from breast cancer?

Really makes me cross, such rubbish.

And actually ds bites me on a daily basis and it is agony sometimes, but I'm persevering because I'm convinced that it's the best I can do for him, esp as he's not the healthiest of children.

at this.
Just had a quick look at effects on bone mass and only found one decent study and even then you had to have breastfed for more than 8 years to see any difference. Most studies show that bone mass recovers well after breastfeeding. I feel a letter to the editor coming on!

To be sort of fair, the "expert" seems to be referring mostly to exclusively bf a 2yo, which I think most would agree wasn't a good idea. But then goes seamlessly from that into rubbishing the whole idea.

pooka, what is the name of the "expert" and which edition (nomth, or however they number them) of Junior is it? (i.e. I may write and complain, but don't want to fork out for my own copy...)

I've got some good references on bone mass, too -- will look them up this evening. Basically, it recovers even if you keep on bf IIRC.

did anyone actually read the peadiatrician - nutritionists response before getting up in arms about this
just because it doesn't tow the mumsent party line doesn't mean it isn't an appropriate respoinse

You don't say whether your friend is exclusively breastfeeding her sone, or whether he eats solids as well. I advocate the benefits of breastfeeding, but draw the like for a two year old. YES A CHILD EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFED AT 2 IS A BAD THING

I'm sure your friend has the best intentions, but I think she could be creating problems for herself.
Breast milk is perfect for babies - it provides the optimal amount of nutrients and allows the mother to pass on antibodies that can help reduce the chance of her baby developing infections and allergies. However, once a baby is six months old, milk alone will not meet all their nutritional requirements. TRUE TOO WHICH IS WHY WE WEAN FROM 6 MONTHS ON AND IF NOT WEANDED BY A YEAR THEN THERE MAY BE PROBLEMS

Milk is also quite low in iron and, as the baby's stores of iron will have depleted by siz months, other sources will need to be introduced. YES

Babies are ready to move onto solids by six months, plus they need to develop the hand and eye coordination needed to get food into their mouth. Eating is also important in developming their speech as it helps them learn how to form sounds. YES

Breastfeeding is also detrimental to the mother's health, as the calcium required for milk not only comes from the stores in her bones, buy also her diet. HAVEN'T SEEN THE RESEARCH ON THIS EITHER WYA BUT NOT REALLY THAT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE PARTICULARLY NOT FROM SUCH A HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERT

The nutritional benefits of breast milk will also be insignificant, as he is unlikely to be taking large volumes. He will aslo have a good set of teeth by now, so she may have been nipped a few times too. PRETTY SURE THIS IS TRUE TOO

Breastfeeding toddlers is normal in Third World countries and way back in our past because babies then didn't get enough nutrition from their food. Breastfeeding helps protect them from diseases and deficiencies. However in the western world, there is enough nutrition and adequate healthcare to make bfing toddlers unnecessary.

So it is very much a personal choice and not necessarily because it is better for them. There are no proven health benefits for breastfeeding toddlers in the UK today.

Rolls eyes and sighs at so-called "expert"...

It seems like a wilful misunderstanding of the question to assume that someone bf a 2yo is bfeeding exclusively with no solids and to base her "advice" on that...

Anyway, here's an interesting link on bone density while bfeeding, showing that extended bfeeding is probably beneficial to bone density, complete with scientific references

D'oh, bfeeding a 2.4 year old has obviously addled my brain

Here's the link

Oh for heaven's sake! Why would anyone assume a b/f 2yo is exclusively breastfed?

Daft 'expert'. A few sandwiches short of the full picnic.

I did, mud, which is why I made at least one of the same points below.

You don't say whether your friend is exclusively breastfeeding her son, or whether he eats solids as well.

I advocate the benefits of breastfeeding, but draw the line for a two year old.

NOT, YOU WILL NOTICE "ADVOCATE THE BENEFITS OF EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING, BUT DRAW THE LINE FOR A TWO YEAR OLD" -- IT'S "BREASTFEEDING" FULL STOP.

I'm sure your friend has the best intentions, but I think she could be creating problems for herself.

WELL, YES, SHE COULD BE. IF SHE'S EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFEEDING, WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT SHE IS.

Breast milk is perfect for babies - it provides the optimal amount of nutrients and allows the mother to pass on antibodies that can help reduce the chance of her baby developing infections and allergies. However, once a baby is six months old, milk alone will not meet all their nutritional requirements. Milk is also quite low in iron and, as the baby's stores of iron will have depleted by siz months, other sources will need to be introduced.
Babies are ready to move onto solids by six months, plus they need to develop the hand and eye coordination needed to get food into their mouth. Eating is also important in developming their speech as it helps them learn how to form sounds.

YES, ALL GOOD REASONS WHY EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFEEDING A TWO YEAR OLD WOULD BE A BAD IDEA. BUT THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE ORIGINAL LETTER THAT THE FRIEND WAS EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFEEDING. REALLY, WHO EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFEEDS A TWO-YEAR-OLD? NO ONE I CAN THINK OF. WHO NON-EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFEEDS A TWO-YEAR-OLD? LOTS OF PEOPLE. WHICH IS IT MORE LIKELY THAT THE FRIEND IS DOING? NON-EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFEEDING. WHICH IS IT THAT THE EXPERT GEARS ALMOST THE WHOLE REPLY TOWARDS (WITHOUT MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT HE/SHE IS DOING)? EXCLUSIVELY BREASTFEEDING.

Breastfeeding is also detrimental to the mother's health, as the calcium required for milk not only comes from the stores in her bones, buy also her diet.

DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM IN IT COMING FROM HER DIET BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS TYPICALLY TAKE IN EXTRA CALCIUM ANYWAY. AND THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE IS THAT IT DOESN'T DAMAGE CALCIUM IN BONES LONG-TERM. THE FACT THAT THE "EXPERT" DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES ME . PLUS THERE ARE RECOGNISED BENEFITS TO THE MOTHER IN BREASTFEEDING FOR THIS LONG LOWER RATES OF SEVERAL TYPES OF CANCER (BREAST, OVARIAN, UTERINE TO NAME A FEW) AND LOWER RATES OF ARTHRITIS. THE "EXPERT" CONVENIENTLY DOESN'T MENTION ANY OF THAT WHEN MAKING THE SWEEPING STATEMENT THAT BREASTFEEDING IS "DETRIMENTAL TO THE MOTHER'S HEALTH".

The nutritional benefits of breast milk will also be insignificant, as he is unlikely to be taking large volumes.

NO MORE "INSIGNIFICANT" THAN THE BENEFITS OF WHATEVER HE'D BE DRINKING INSTEAD IF HE WEREN'T DRINKING BREASTMILK! AND WHATEVER THAT IS WOULDN'T HAVE THE IMMUNE FACTORS, ETC. (SEVERAL OF WHICH ACTUALLY INCREASE IN BREASTMILK ONCE THE CHILD IS OVER ONE). SO WHY IS IT A BAD IDEA TO GIVE HIM HUMAN MILK BUT (BY IMPLICATION) A GOOD THING TO GIVE HIM COWS' MILK?

He will also have a good set of teeth by now, so she may have been nipped a few times too!

PERSONALLY I GOT NIPPED A FEW TIMES BY DS WHEN HE WAS 6-8 MONTHS. NEVER BEEN BITTEN SINCE. WHAT IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE MORE TEETH THEY HAVE THE MORE YOU GET BITTEN, RATHER THAN THAT MOST MOTHERS MANAGE TO TEACH THEM NOT TO BITE? AS THE "EXPERT" CLEARLY HAS NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THIS IS A FAIRLY SILLY COMMENT.

There are no proven health benefits for breastfeeding toddlers in the UK today.

There are proven health benefits to breastfeeding toddlers in the US today, though (where the Academy (or is it Association? I can never remember and am too lazy to Google) of American Pediatricians has actually done the research). Breastfed toddlers have, statistically, fewer infections than their non-breastfed peers.

It's not a huge effect (certainly not enough to prescriptively say that anyone "should" breastfeed their toddler), but it is statistically significant.

But has anyone done any research on how many infections they get after they stop bfing? My theory is that they are protected only whilst you are feeding them, once you stop they get just as many infections as everyone else.

So it balances out.

Right. Tis Junior November 2007. Issue 99.

P. 105 Nutrition Q & A

Specialist Paediatric Dietician at St James's Hospital, Leeds, Dr Elaine Crabtree answers questions on salt intake, vitamins and getting your child to eat breakfast.

The question is one of 4 - the second question answered.

At the bottom of the page:

Got a question about your child's nutrition? Drop us a line at:
Nutrition Q & A, Junior Magazine, 2 Balcombe Street, London NW1 6NW or email [email protected].

The main junior letters address is Letters Dept, Junior Magazine, Berwick House, 8-10 Knoll Rise, Orpington, Kent, BR6 0EL. or email [email protected].

Wierd = didn't realise they were in Orpington. Just round the corner!

maybe she just mixed up extended bf, with exclusive bf...

there's eveidence to say that the more a woman lactates, the less periods she has (which is benificial) and that calcuim is then added to the mother's bones.

therefore, mothers who don't bf, are loosing calcuim depoisits by not bf!!

silly woman

It's an interesting theory, but do you have evidence to support it?

Anecdotal evidence (which I agree is a bit rubbish, but it's better than no evidence at all) from extended breastfeeders would suggest that it isn't the case.

I agree it would be interesting to see the results if someone did do the study.

(Personally, too, I would rather have an infection say, chicken pox hit an articulate four-year-old who is toilet trained and can be reasoned with than a two-year old who doesn't understand and is still in nappies so you have to deal with the whole chicken pox-nappy interface . So even if your theory is right, it still seems like a winner to me.)

Oooh no, gimme a baby with chickenpox anyday, at least they don't scratch their skin to shreds!

the mother passes on her immunity to the child whilst bf, but then the child produces them thereafter for her/himself.

so, babies that have been bf do have stronger immunity and therefore resistant to airbourne/waterbourne infection!

What a silly, silly reply. Anyone breastfeeding a child with nothing else at two years old is in the vanishingly unusual camp.

What a wasted opportunity - she could have said what a two year old might be eating as a healthy diet, and explain that human milk can form a healthy part of that diet, and is also an enjoyable part of relationship between mum and child.

Actually, I would blame the sub-editors at Junior - this is an inadequate reply and the expert should have been told to re-write.