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

Aside from "because we want too" we'll keep going past a year with DS because its so very easy and good for him when he's ill.

At 9 month's he's very on-off with his eating (some days he stuffs his face, others we're lucky if he eats a rice cake!) but he just tops up with his BM. He had a nasty cold / teething at the same time last week and ate almost no solids for several days. He BF more often to make up for this, and I think it kept him cheery through it. I'm looking forward to being able to do this into his toddler months as I can't imagine anything better than being able to keep getting something nutritionally valuable down him when he gets all those bugs!

Really

I have not seen that.

Nancy66, I'm rather and at your statement about Tiktok

Ah, here comes Nancy...care to back that offensive statement up? Or shall we assume you are merely mudslinging?

Muddler, well done for feeding way beyond what many people would deem normal / necessary / customary etc.

I truly think Tiktok's frustration is aimed exclusively at the people who should be informing us, but are in fact perpetuating this stupid myth. She has to overcome this type of misinformation time and again, and does generally demonstrate the patience of a saint. I don't think any of her words were aimed at you, honestly.

The way I counter it is thus;
Me "Are you recommending NO MILK at all? For a toddler?!!!"
Them "No"
Me "Rightyho. Breastmilk rather than cow's milk it is."

Nancy, if I took you and your often remarkable ignorance seriously, I'd feel justified in asking you to back up your accusation of 'dangerous' (let alone 'inappropriate' which I suspect means no more than 'dares to ask Nancy where the heck she gets her info from' - and I am still waiting for an answer to my question www.mumsnet.com/Talk?topicid=breast_and_bottle_feeding&threadid=635875-A-question-about-breastmilk#1 2953177 on this thread).

But seeing I don't take you, or your remarkable ignorance seriously, I'll not bother, shall I?

Feel free to answer that question, though!

LaVie, I was not disgreeing with muddler - only pointing out I had not directed my so-called patronising opinions at her. I do get 'uppity' when people promote poor information, if by 'uppity' you mean irritated and exasperated.

Tikok, if I had just an ounce of your patience, grace and politeness in the face of some of posts you deal with I'd be a lucky woman indeed. If I thought I knew anything about bf'g before I found MN, then just reading here has been a degree level course. This site is an incredible resource and for my money Tiktok is a major part of that.

[If it weren't for the fact that this is MN I'd do a hug now... Given that it is, I'll back away gently ]

Big hug ('hugz' even ) to sparkle - thanks! I know I have never said anything that was 'dangerous' and Nancy's silence on this very point, when challenged, rather backs me up

No I agree sparkle- I have had my share of disagreements with Tiktok but one thing that is unquestionable is her knowledge and endeavours to promote breast feeding and dispell myths.
Thanks by the way, it was some of your advice that helped me even reach 6 mths, which is a long time for me

tether

Hi Muddler

Great question!! I BF till DS was 5 months old. Then I gave it up because he had cow's milk protein allergy and my choice was either to go completely dairy free myself or put him on a prescription formula. I cried a great deal as I loved BF-ing but as he was only a month away from weaning, I decided to go for the formula. Two GPs told me not to beat myself up as there is NO NUTRITIONAL or IMMUNE benfits from BF-ing after 6 WEEKS.

I contacted old colleagues at World Health Org and Unicef and had this verified. We are all sold the line about BF-ing to 6 months because BF-ing is safer than formula in the 3rd world. And yes, BF-ing is wonderful for all sorts of other reasons like comfort and closeness but despite all the hype and millions of books by "gurus", you should do what is right. Even BF-ing experts who promote BF-ing in developing world as a living agreed with UK GPs.

Just do what is right for you.

cornishzulu, you say "Two GPs told me not to beat myself up as there is NO NUTRITIONAL or IMMUNE benfits from BF-ing after 6 WEEKS, " and "even BF-ing experts who promote BF-ing in developing world as a living agreed with UK GPs."

Well....technically there are no 'benefits' to breastfeeding, as it is the nutritional and physiological norm for the species, and just as there are no 'benefits' to breathing (as opposed to using an oxygen mask) or walking (as opposed to using a wheelchair), breastfeeding gives nothing over and above the human body's needs.

But I don't think that's what they meant

So they are wrong....and there is a ton of research to show the health impact of breastfeeding/not breastfeeding on babies in the UK, way way way beyond six weeks. I can give you references if you want them!

So you're revealing the astonishing and possibly libelous news that WHO are fabricating scientific research and lying to us all?

xx

wasting, good point! Makes me wonder who on earth these 'experts' are who promote bf who know so very little.....

No. Breatfeeding has never been the norm. Even before the invention of formula, human babies have been fed with milks from other animals, in cases where babies were orphaned or were unable to be wetnursed.

There are plenty of benefits to breathing and walking and your argument is simply illogical.

It is a well-established fact that babies run out of iron at 6 months of age and need a varied diet to thrive. So, get off your soapbox. You are not a researcher,or an expert... merely someone with an opinion. You know what Dirty Harry said about opinions...

Oh dear, oh dear, cornish. What a daft post.

How on earth do you know whether I am a researcher or an expert or not?

It is certainly true that some babies in the past have been fed on alternative diets - though of course there was a risk of death. There is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of infants throughout history have fed on human milk for a long time - that's how we evolved. Human milk feeding is the physiological and nutritional norm - it's not in the least controversial or opinionated to say that, surely?

"Well-established fact that babies run out of iron at 6 mths"- ackcherly, they don't, although it is true that iron stores start to lessen (not 'run out') about then. And I thought you were talking about '6 weeks' anyway?

Of course babies need a varied diet after about 6 mths - I wasn;t saying anything different!

Try to be a little less confused next time you post, why doncha?

You don't write like a researcher and you don't think like a researcher. Your posts are simply bovine responses to people who disagree with you. End of.

breastfeeding has never been the norm?

Cornishzulu, what are you on? Of course breastmilk is the norm for human babies, just as cows' milk is the norm for calves and ewes' milk the norm for lambs.

In the distant past babies who didn't have access to human breastmilk quite simply died. End of.

Were you perhaps thinking of Romulus and Remus? You do know that is a myth, don't you?

You really are quite rude and your response manifests your level of ignorance.

Cornish, may I suggest that you don't make personal attacks on people? The comment, 'you don't think like a researcher' is bit off.

A debate should be about facts...

And frankly, your facts are wildly inaccurate.

Why on earth would a researcher have to feel they need write like a researcher on a discussion board like mumsnet?

No one on mumsnet knows what I do professionally, and I am not about to 'out' myself now - but whether I am a researcher or not [air of mystery emoticon], I think my posts are coherent, informed and pretty courteous - eve when confronted with daftness and people who don't know what the blimmin heck they are talking about.

muddler, (assuming you haven't left) I am too lazy busy to trawl through books looking up facts about nutritional benefits of bfing but going on my own personal experience:
ds1 and ds2 bfed till 1 year, my choice
bf ds3 for 2.8 years, his choice!
Ds1 and ds2 needed grommets for glue ear, ds3 didn't. Also, they all went to nursery, but between 12 and 24 months ds1 and ds2 came down with all sorts of infections, ds3 never got sick.
I intend to bf ds4 as long as he wants!

agree with green monkies that the question is not "does bf after 1 year have any nutritional value?" since it obviously does, but whether it has benefits over and above a full, varied diet + cows milk/formula. Think this is what the op meant, too - and seems like a very reasonable question to me. I am much more aware of evidence at a younger age myself, tbh. Thanks mytether for the info. (ds2 now 18 months so nice to hear...)
Is worrying that 2 GPs can say no nutritional or immune benefits to bfing from 6 weeks - would like to see the evidence for that one. Wouldn't make any difference here though as would still bf to avoid the faff of ffing - much less work imo!