Nutritional value past 1 year - the truth please!

[muddler]

So medical profession and various books say there is no nutritional value in human milk past a year. I am still bfing 1 yo ds morning and night as he loves it (and I love the cuddles) and he won't drink any other milk from any ither vessel!
Is it really nutritionally useless? Might as well wean if it s, having my boobies back would also be nice

Human milk expressed by mothers who have been lactating for more than 12 months has significantly increased fat and energy contents, compared with milk expressed by women who have been lactating for shorter periods.
(Source: Mandel D, Lubetzky R, Dollberg S, Barak S, Mimouni FB. Fat and Energy Contents of Expressed Human Breast Milk in Prolonged Lactation. Pediatrics. 2005 Sept; 116(3):e432-e435)

In the second year (12-23 months), 448 mL of breastmilk provides:
o 29% of energy requirements
o 43% of protein requirements
o 36% of calcium requirements
o 75% of vitamin A requirements
o 76% of folate requirements
o 94% of vitamin B12 requirements
o 60% of vitamin C requirements
(Source: Dewey KG. Nutrition, Growth, and Complementary Feeding of the Breastfed Infant. Pediatric Clinics of North American. February 2001;48(1).)

I don't think its of no nutritional value. Its certainly as much nutritional value as cow's milk, not more. A baby can stay alive on nothing but breastmilk. Its certainly a good supplement for a fussy toddler.

I think the adantages of breastfeeding are still there even with a toodler but it does dimenish over time. Ie. the colustrum makes a huge difference to the baby's health. If you manage to breastfeed a few weeks it helps your baby's immune system. There is evidence that if you make to six months your child might be brighter.

Are you enjoying breastfeeding? If so, why do you want to wean.

Of course it has nutrirional value - how could it not?

Which books are these? Nutritionally useless??
Plain water, cows' milk (0r goats'/sheeps' milk) are nutritionally valuable for humans of any age so what is it about human milk that makes it suddenly 'know' when your baby reaches one and turn into something less good than water or alternatives from a different species?
Utter nonsense.
Carry on feeding for as long as you and your baby want to.

Why says it has no nutritional vaue? Which meds and which books??? Why on earth would it stop having nutritional value? Does something happen overnight between when the baby is 11 months 30 days and 12 months - the body changes the milk to dish water???

Tik, milk changes. I think it's a fair question to ask. How does it meet the needs of a baby who is being weaned? I think that half the time DS (8 months) is feeding is because he finds it comforting. He will take a bottle of EBM, but only if he's desperate!

Ilovemydog - I don't think it is a sensible proposition If the question is 'how does breastmilk continue to nourish a baby well as he grows?' then that's easy enough to answer.

But why would it have no nutritional value at some arbitrary date?

Tik, OK, touche.

Oh, and saw padiatrician re: DS weight issue. He wrote in red book: '(DS) is a healthy baby. Breastfeeding must continue...' and weighing at discretion of mother...

(and DS, while skinny, hit the 50th percentile for length... am looking into sponsorship from basketball teams...)

Ilovemydog - breastmilk changes - thats precisely why it is still nutritionally valuable beyond 1 year! It adapts to meet the needs of your child, at the stage they are at.

No other milk you can give does that.

OK, I'm converted!

I know no scientific info on this, but I know that my DB was exclusively bf'd till just over two years old - he didn't want to give up the boobie, and refused to eat solids apart from the occasional piece of fruit. I'm guessing if human milk had no nutritional value beyond 1 year, DB would not have survive past 1. Besides the guidelines are to bf for two years, so there must be some value.

I don't think it's that the milk has no nutritional value - it's going to be as nutritional as it always was - it's that at that age the child can get all the nutrients it needs from other sources - so it's not necessary.

Surely breastmilk has to be healtier than some of the things kids eat. When you get posts like "help- my two year old will eat nothing but crisps" then maybe extended breastfeeding a toddler isn't so bad.

Anyway breastfeeding does not last forever. I am sure that AnnVan' brother is now weaned.

It's not necessary at any point. A baby can get all the nutrients it needs from formula, but breastmilk is the better option if it's practical in the individual circumstances. A one-year-old can get all the nutrients it needs from solids plus cows' milk or formula, but solids plus breastmilk is the better option if it's practical in the individual circumstances.

Thanks most of these have been helpful.
Tiktok I know you are a bf guru on this site, but really no need for the extremely patronising post. I have fed my baby for a year, I am not stupid, I have read in a number of sites and books (yesterday in what to expect, toddler years in the library which prompted me to ask). 3 GPs at my practice believe bm past a year not to be of much use. I wanted some medical evidence to support my choice, some sensible responses to a genuine query.
So that some posters feel the need to talk down to mums

I don't think tiktok was being patronising to you at all - any hint of it in her post, I took to be aimed at the muppets who give out this 'information' with nothing to back it up.

What to Expect is not IMO very bf friendly, and GPs are hardly experts in the matter. Terrible that they are still perpetuating this kind of crap

But it is a matter of common sense really - if BM is perfect up to one year, then is it really possible it suddenly changes overnight to become rubbish?

I think the better way to say it is that breastmilk is no longer nutritionally neccessary, rather than of no nutritional value. And whilst this is technically true, there are other reasons why breastfeeding remains inportant.

The immune system is not fully developed until about the age of 5, so up til this point you are supporting your childs immature immune system. After 12 months as your baby feeds less often the immune factors become more concentrated, so even if you are only nursing twice a day your toddler is still getting a serious amount of immunilogical support.

Nursing also helps with the development of oral/facial muscles, meaning teeth grow in straight and also means that thier speech is clear.

Aside from these physical effects, there is also the huge emotional side to bf, babies and toddlers can be soothed through teething, illness and tantrums. Night waking is easily dealt with as you can nurse them back off to sleep. Add to this the fact that the longer you bf for the lower your risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer and osteoporosis and you have several very good reasosn to carry on for a bit longer!!

I think Tik's frustration was actually aimed at the "medical" dimwits who make these ridiculous and misleading statements, not at the mums who ask the questions.

muddler, stop being over-sensitive. I was not being patronising, and my post was not directed at you but at the books you have read and the medics you have spoken to.....I was challenging the misinformation you have heard, and rolling my eyes at the sources of it.

I am not going to apologise for my post because I am not guilty of what you accuse me of

Sheesh. I'll not bother in future, shall I?

Technically breastmilk isn't "necessary" at all because we have wonderful formula

That doesn't mean that it isn't far superior and full of extra goodness that you don't get from breastmilk substitutes.

I'm sure most GPs would also tell you that it is nutritionally necessary for a child over 1 year to have a certain amount of dairy produce (or a substitute in cases of lactose intolerance) to meet their calcium requirements etc. So if it's important for a child at this age to have milk, then it must be all the better for it to be species specific surely?

That's my opinion anyway. Can't claim any particular expertise

Tiktok, apologies if I misunderstood. I have had much good advice on this site over the past year and am grateful for it. But please don't call me over sensitive when diplaying a fine example of that trait yourself. I have read many of your posts in the past - most incredibly helpful to those posting. But please don't believe the guru hype - no one person's opinions are above offence.
Consider me gone from this forum

Muddler, I don't think you need to go.

Please don't go. TikTok just has an odd posting style. If you disagree with her then she gets a bit uppity!

There are plenty of other posters on this site that will give you good advice re bf. I think that if you want to continue bf and your ds does then carry on!

As other posters have said, it may not be necessary but it can't hurt! And it's either bf or cow's milk so why not bf. On the other hand, if you would rather stop your ds will not suffer nutritionally. He'll just get it from other sources.

Breast milk and breast feeding has been associated with a lesser chance of both mother and baby developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer (needs more research) and of the child becoming obese, so the benefits continue and increase the longer you breast feed. However, its everyones personal choice and I stopped bf at 6 months. According to a new report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective, published by the American Institute for Cancer Research (2008) states that the evidence that breastfeeding protects women against both pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer is convincing. Protection against ovarian cancer is suggested as well, but the evidence is currently too limited to make any recommendations. The AICR (2008) cancer prevention report notes that babies likely receive cancer protection from breastfeeding, too.