Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Infant feeding

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

Original poster

funny how bf is almost looked down upon after 6 months

38 replies

robinredbreast · 03/01/2008 09:27

just struck me, reading these boards, how after 6 months bf support really if virually non existent .....except on MN of course

i have also been told my a gp friend of mine and a pharmacist friend theres no nutrisional [sp] value in bf after 6 months and from many family that bf past 6 months is odd and only for the mother, and you'll getting your shirt pulled soon with dd asking for bitty grrrrrrr

OP posts:
RuthChan · 03/01/2008 11:01

I agree with you.
A friend of mine is also a doctor, who told me that there was no nutritional value after 4 months!!
(She now has a 2 month old of her own, so I look forward to hearing whether her opinion changes through personal experience!)

I have just finished breast feeding after just over a year. I could have quite happily gone on longer and may do with DC2.

It does seem that people are more uptight about BF in the UK. Here in Japan, I have many friends who BF for anything up to 2 years.

binklegoestoLondon · 03/01/2008 11:03

I wonder why these medical professionals would say that if it wasnt true? What is the proof of nutritional value after six months?

Obviously the composition of the milk wont change so is it something to do with the way it is absorbed by growing cells or something just curious?

madness · 03/01/2008 11:06

dh is a gp and doesn't know a thing about bf, well except for what I have told him

MaeWest · 03/01/2008 11:12

I think for some people it is related to the 6 month guideline thing, that and the fact that formula manufacturers are pretty good at marketing.

DH was talking to a work colleague who expressed surprise that I was 'still' feeding DS (who was all of around 8 months at the time) and pretty much said 'But you're allowed to give them bottles after 6 months' with the implication that carrying on was unecessary. I've carried on being unecessary and DS is now 17 months

lulumama · 03/01/2008 11:15

am really interested to know what happens at 6 months to make breast milk somehow non nutritious and pointless??? surely the fact that women can tandem feed points to how amazing breast milk is, and how adaptable.. ? i really wish i had had MN when i had my babies, and then i would have breastfed.. it is something i deeply regret..but anyway... it is the UK that seems to have a downer on BF, the average for weaning off the breast world wide is a hell of a lot older than 6 months !

lulumama · 03/01/2008 11:17

i agree Maewest... there are so many brands of formula and within each brand, there are different types..

first milk, hungry baby milk, follow on milk, toddler milk.....milk with added probiotics , fish oils etc.... closer to breastmilk, closest ever to breastmilk blah blah blah

no wonder people do not have confidence in one product. i.e breast milk.. being able to nourish a baby from birth to toddlerhood

MaeWest · 03/01/2008 11:19

Oh, and I've had the 'it's just for comfort' line from friends and family too. So what's wrong with a baby being comforted?

edam · 03/01/2008 11:23

Weird, isn't it? Why do otherwise reasonably intelligent people think that a substance that is packed full of everything a baby needs and tailormade to each individual baby's requirements suddenly goes from brilliant to useless overnight? Just shows how hostile our culture is to b/f.

Being charitable, I can only assume they have vaguely heard something about the guidelines being b/f to six months and never stop to actually think about what that means. Being cynical, I'd say they are falling for PR spin from formula manufacturers. Who don't come out and say this, but imply it. Because they can advertise 'follow on' milks from six months - a product that was invented purely to get round the advertising ban.

tiktok · 03/01/2008 12:05

binkle, you ask why they say this. I can assure you it is nothing to do with the way the breastmilk is absorbed by cells - this doesn't change. They have just misunderstood. They know it doesn't change to water overnight, though some think it somehow gradually becomes poorer in quality, which it doesn't ( samples of milk from mothers who have breastfed beyond six months have been looked at in research, and it seems it does gradually increase in protein and/or fat (I can't remember which without looking it up, sorry!) which makes sense, to allow the older baby/toddler who needs less volume because he is eating and drinking other things, not to miss out nutritionally).

So they misunderstand : when a baby takes some of his nutrition from other sources (which most do at about six months) it clearly means he does not rely on breastmilk as a sole source of nutrition, and they interpret that as saying the baby doesn't 'need' breastmilk and then make the huge and illogical leap to saying it has no value.

sweetkitty · 03/01/2008 12:11

A MW who came to visit me after DD2 was born was surprised I was BFing her and said that she believed that it was wrong to BF after 6 months as it was only for the mothers sake. If we have health professionals sprouting scuh rubbish at new mothers no wonder the BF rates in this country are appalling.

ReverseThePolarity · 03/01/2008 12:15

I do think follow-on milk advertising has quite a bit to answer for too. People see it and assume that because it's on the telly, you have to give it at six months.

(I used to think this before I discovered MN and started bfing ).

RuthChan · 03/01/2008 12:17

My doctor friend claimed that the reason it was no longer necessary was that the baby no longer needed its mother's immunity after a few months of age.
Personnally, I think that my DD gained an awful lot more from my BF than just immunity.
She loved BF and certainly would have gone on for more than the 1 year that she did, had I allowed her to.
The immunity obviously continued for more than just those 6 months or so too. She was never sick until I quit BF and has had a cold or flu almost constantly since.

ReverseThePolarity · 03/01/2008 12:53

RuthChan, isn't it something like six years before a child builds up his/her own natural immunity? I've heard this figure mentioned when discussing "extended" bfing; maybe your Dr was confusing months with years!

turkEgyptlets · 03/01/2008 14:21

It's not just the UK though. I started the other thread about my Dr saying it had no nutr. value and I am in Singapore. I must say I am so surprised to find this opinion in Asia. Still, bf is somehting you would never ever see a singaporean doing. only us western gals with out baps out in restaurants, cafes and parks. I would seriously bet that bf rates here are far lower than UK. Would be interesting to find out.

tiktok · 03/01/2008 14:32

Ruth, obv your friend does not know about how bf confers immunity....it is not just a 'broad spectrum' of immunity, plugging the baby's 'immunity gap' at birth. It also confers immunity dynamically that is, as and when it is needed. When the bf mother comes into contact with pathogens, her breastmilk then contains antibodies to those particular pathogens...and when the baby next has a feed, he gets a dose of them. This amazing property of breastmilk continues for as long as the mother is bf.

Anyway, as you say, babies bf for a zillion other reasons apart from immunity.

pippylongstockings · 03/01/2008 14:34

I agree with the comments made re advertising - they should ban it! Advertisers are making you think it is something you NEED to have - let's face it we all want to do the best for our children and we are all learning all the time - so we are a fantastic market for them!

I fed my ds1 till 9 months, and still bf my ds2 at a year and will see how it goes.

determination · 03/01/2008 14:39

I had this with dd1 until around 18months, at that point i started telling people that dd1 will be getting "mummies milk!" through the school gates! Think they believed me!

I carried on to feed her until she self weaned at 25 months. will do the same with dd2...

VictorianSqualor · 03/01/2008 14:42

When I decided to BF DS I said I would do it for the first six weeks. At six weeks, he ahd a growth spurt which nearly stopped me bfing but I didn't have any milk or bottles so didn't have much choice!

After his spurt I carried on, and said I'd do it to six months, at almost 9 months I stopped because I had to go to work and he was biting me lots.

I really do not know why I was saying I would stop bfing at 6months, 6 weeks was because so many people said to me to do it that far and they get a great headstart, then I gave myself the 6month time limit. I'm sure I must have picked it up from somewhere though.

katwith3kittens · 03/01/2008 14:46

I'm just starting to get this now, DS2 is 1 year old. Its typically family members, but I suppose I'm around them more, so they see it more

My SIL fed her 2nd till 15 months, so you'd think she'd be sympathetic to a point, BUT, just this weekend suggested feeding an 18 month old to be abhorrent.... we are not in some third world country you know .... was her remark

StarlightMcKenzie · 03/01/2008 15:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Jackstini · 03/01/2008 15:20

Ask the health professionals why they are going against the guidelines from the World Health Organization?
Maybe they get confused with bfing and exclusive bfing.
WHO advise to exclusively bf for 6 months, then continue bfing alongside solids for at least 2 years
Kellymom is a really useful site - link here www.kellymom.com/bf/bfextended/ebf-benefits.html to extended bf facts that include:
In the second year (12-23 months), 448 mL of breastmilk provides:
29% of energy requirements
43% of protein requirements
36% of calcium requirements
75% of vitamin A requirements
76% of folate requirements
94% of vitamin B12 requirements
60% of vitamin C requirements

Sounds pretty useful to me (still feeding 21 mo dd)

pippylongstockings · 03/01/2008 15:20

I agree it really suits me for those occasional early morning starts - much rather we snuggle in bed having a feed at 6am than get up and make a drink etc.

To me when I look at my DS2 feeding he is my little baby but a friend said to me 'gosh he's nearly a toddler!' - so I guess it does look odd to those who don't see it on a regular basis.

Jackstini · 03/01/2008 15:32

Aha - found the "how long should I feed thing" that gives the benefits at different ages. Give this to your Doctor!
members.tripod.com/~bmsg/howlong.htm

VictorianSqualor · 03/01/2008 16:22

I think that's the key issue though isn;t it pippi?
When you start feeding your baby it is a tiny little thing, when you are still feeding however long later, it just happened gradually, it's not like you went out and picked up a 1year old and started feeding them! But to someone else, it is just a one year old child, not necessarily a baby, they havent been there for every little bit of growing.

chocbutton · 03/01/2008 20:01

don't want to hijack this thread, but I am interested to know how people actually stop BF'ing. Do you just stop one day or gradually? Hope I don't sound too thick, but I am still Bf 12mth DS and have no plans to stop, and reading this thread made me wonder how I will stop? Will DS just refuse milk one day? I can't imagine turning away from him if he wanted milk? Not criticising anyone who has stopped at all by the way, just wondering how I'll do it and what you have all done. Hope this makes sense, think I need an early night......