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

MrsB - I could try to get that study myself , but honestly, reading the abstract, why would I? It's quite old, it's from a journal I have never heard of, it relates to mothers in China, and tells us nothing we don't know ie that no matter what the diet of the mother, her breastfed baby will grow and develop normally.

What was Nancy saying about it?

thanks for seeking it out, anyway.

Am going to reply to you, cornish, in a bit - I haven't gone away

stroppy, they really cannot see 'a lot' of extendedly-bf toddlers who are anaemic - the figures don't add up. They may remember the few they see because they are so unusual!

A breastfed toddler does need other foods apart from breastmilk - no one argues that. The anaemia does not 'come from' being breastfed - it 'comes from' a lack of iron and that deficit can easily be plugged with iron rich other foods. I can see that a veggie bf toddler might show up as 'low iron' - without actually being anaemic. I'd be wondering what the def. of 'low iron' was - if he was without symptoms, I'd be asking what standard they were comparing him to. Last time I looked there was some controversy about how reliable these standards are. I mean, if the standard is artificially high because they have measured meat eating formula drinking toddlers, then a veggie breastfeeder might well appear low in comparison, without any pathology there at all

iirc Nancy was using it to say that the bfed babies didn't get the internationlly recommended levels / kg of some nutrients therefore was bm nutritionally inferior to formula if the mother's diet was suboptimal.

which isn't really what that study showed at all

(I only tried because the online stack request thing should mean that any article appears on my desk within 2h with minimal effort on my part...)

Cornish - gonna copy and paste and put your stuff in "" as that makes life easier

You say: "Surely that is the point: the job of government and WHo is to make recommendations that fit everyone...but it can't and that has nothing to do with sample size."

Wrong. The job is to establish a public health policy that maximises infant health and well-being.This does not mean insisting that every individual baby has to be shoe-horned into the same care. Kramer and Kakuma make this clear, as you point out.

You say, quoting K&K, " the available evidence demonstrates no apparent risks in recommending, as public health policy, exclusive breastfeeding for the first
6 months of life in both developing and developed country settings."

and you go on to say:

"This is not the same as saying that exclusive breastfeeding confers universal immunological and nutritional benefits."

Of course it's not the same as saying this - why would it? It's not the purpose of that part of the review. It doesn't tell me what bus to get into town or what size wellies Prince Charles wears, either. There is plenty of data elsewhere that looks at why the public health policy they propose would be a good one, mainly because of these very same immunological and nutritional aspects.

"Just read the Hospitalisation study and have to agree that it is very convincing, but there is something that remains unclarified in this research, i.e the incidence of infection that may be attributable to contamination of bottles, teats, milk, and food in infants who are not exclusively breastfed."

YES - give the woman a coconut!! As the young people say these days, DURRRRR. This is indeed one of the reasons why there are risks in not breastfeeding - the fact that the milk is delivered under conditions which may not always be 100 per cent hygienic. And because non-breastfed don't have the same immunoligical protectipon as their ff counterparts, they are more at risk. Again, no one agues against this - it's the reason why ff parents are advised to keep everything clean.

"I thought that the point of MN was to share personal experiences, and not for posters to tell other posters what they can and can't do."

And to share information, too, yes? Who's telling who what to do, sorry? Have I missed something?

"And finally: a genuine question for you: at what age should BF cease?"

I know the answer to that one - when mother and child decide they want to finish breastfeeding.

Cornish, re: when b/fing should stop... I think it should continue as long as both the mother and baby want it to continue.

Both my grandmother and mother breast fed until the babies were 6 months and then stopped altogether.

My DD at about 13 months had enough. It was a slow process, but when she looked at my breast and laughed I think we both knew it was the end...

my two year old just looked at my breasts and laughed too before latching on, still laughing.
Salute to tiktok.

Tiktok et al

I have tried to be respectful and genuinely participate in this forum, but your tone which is facetious to say the least, and tedious in the extreme. And if you think it is up to the individual woman to decide when to stop BF-ing, then why didn't you just say so to poor Muddler.

If the definition of public health policy is not one size fits all recommendations, I don't know what is. And YES, the purpose of the Kramer review was EXACTLY to look at the data regarding the benefits experienced with different lengths of breastfeeding: hence the conclusions. It appears that you have a very poor grasp of what a systematic review is and how research in these contexts are used to inform public health policy.

As for telling me what I can and can't post, I suggest you read your earlier posting to me. That's my line drawn under this "debate"

I believe tiktok told you not to reproduce 3 people's opinions as fact. You're right that it is your right but then you should know that you are deliberately misleading people - if you're happy to do that fine but expect to be corrected.
Why do you think breastfeeding needs to stop at a specific age btw?
I've read through this thread, and actually I do know where people are coming from when they mention tiktok's slightly (and I do mean slightly!) patronising tone, or how it could be perceived that way. In general, not specifically about this thread - I get the impression that in the face of so much bullshit, and having to correct the same old ignorant twaddle again and again it can get a bit tiring having to always do it in a fresh and breezy way. SHe does it much better than I ever could. My posts tend to go along the lines of AAAAAAAAAAAARGH - you know where you are with them but they aren't much help!

Stealth, you've got me bang to rights When I am on a purely information thread (not one where a mother is asking for support, or is upset, or worried) or when a thread turns into a discussion, then I prob do get a tad scathing (this, I think, is what people mean by 'patronising', sort of talking down?)

I do not 'talk' like this direct to a worried mother.

I'm not gonna change - the people I am scathing with have prob deserved it

Cornishzulu - yep, I was facetious in part of my post. You deserved to be pulled up on sloppy thinking.

You don't know the literature, the bits you do know you have not understood, and I can assure you I know what I am talking about with regard to public health policies, systematic reviews etc.

You are a wee bit incoherent at times - I find it hard to know what your arguement is.

Yes, you say, you know the K&K stuff's purpose was "EXACTLY to look at the data regarding the benefits experienced with different lengths of breastfeeding: hence the conclusions" as if this somehow counters what I am arguing.

I don't get it! I know K&K were looking at that....please explain!

PS Cornish - you say I have told you what you can and can't post....referring to me saying this: "But what you can't do is then come on here, and report what 2 GPs and some ex-colleagues told you as fact - because this is not fair to mothers who need the best information they can get. "

Look.

When I say 'can't' in that context, I mean not that I am censuring you, or ordering you. I mean 'can't' in the sense of 'it is not a good idea to'. It is not a good idea to post non-facts as facts. OK?

(Rolls eyes) Whatever...

Okay have read thread and have a few things to say...

1. I didn't BF through choice when I had my DS not a problem on here I know but just wanted to say now I'd go back and try BFing and if I could manage I'd do it for as long as we both were happy doing it whether it be 6 weeks or 6 years totally personal choice.

TBH though I'd say I think that maybe the things the OP read were meaning that their isn't enough nutrition to properly maintain a child as obviously you need a varied diet from a certain age. Am I making sense?

Sorry if I got that wrong I know nothing about BF but that's just my rather invalid point but heyho

1. I'd like to say that whilst Tiktok can come across as very aggressive and totally ignorant to some posts, she is great if you need any advice and as someone else said probably feels like she is banging her head against a brick wall trying to let people know the facts about BF through all the crap that some medical proffessionals spout! She is a trained BF counsellor and I imagine that isn't easy when most people know nothing about it and are misinforming those who need to know most, the vulnberable mothers out there!

Anyway am probably spouting crap myself now so will keep my mouth shut from now on

mamadiva, I suppose I should thank you for your support but I am genuinely puzzled and a bit sad that you think I am ever 'aggressive' and 'totally ignorant'....with anyone. Scathing I admit to, but not agression and total ignorance

Okay you people should know me by now I am awful with words!

What i meant was I have locked horns with you several times normally about FF/BF and we have both been totally ignorant over our own opinions IYKWIM.

It's like we are so set in our ways and because it's not face to face and you can't see emotins properly it comes across aggressive well IMO too but I think it's like that all the time sometimes you here someones tone in your head and you may interpret it wrong.

Am I mad I hear voices... cart me off ladies.

I have to accept your basic goodwill, mamadiva but your explanation still has me as 'ignorant' and 'coming across as aggressive', and I don't think that's fair..sorry and all that. Best not to explain again, as it may not help

Right against my better judgement will try one last time

Have had a tad of wine tonight so excuse me...

We have clashed a few times on this very subject.

I was set in my ways (and was me being v.ignorant at the time) about how much I loved FF I know I know.

You were explaining to me the benefits of BF etc and I being ignorant towards your facts so obviously you got worked up I dont blame you though LOL like I said must be like banging your head against a wall.

By ignorant I meant not willing to put up with any shite facts about BF and so you dont listen to people when they start bleating on about how reliable their source was etc you try to put them right but because it keeps getting shoved in your face all the time you need to shout up in a way and that can seem aggressive not that you are that was bad wording but I meant well

OK - that sounds a bit better

Tiktok is never aggressive or ignorant in her posts on here. Even when sorely tried she, at her worst, gets pedantic about spelling/syntax or uses s burn.

that burn.

hahahah etc etc etc!

(never corrected spelling or syntax, though - you're mixing me up with someone else!)

Oh, and

Really? OK.

tiktok: "I do not 'talk' like this direct to a worried mother. "
Yes, I should ahve mentioned that. ON any thread where someone is asking for support you never get "the tone" and I presume it's genuinely because you don't feel that way (exasperated, frustrated) whatever, and if you ever did you would be professional enough to ensure it didn't come across

I honestly never feel exasperated or annoyed with someone asking for info/support/whatever with their own situation, that's true, SPB.

I will experiment with being nice on the purely discussion/debate threads, unless I suspect the motives of the posters Anyone who claims to know something because of their professional background and experiences and comes out with crap can expect both barrels, too

Example, "I am a trained nursery nurse and I know babies should not be fed more often than x hourly" sorta thing....

Cornish,

words fail me, I've not heard such drivvle in a long time.

Tiktok,

I doff my hat and bow in a flourish and feel humbled by your incredible patience in the face of such a buffoon as Cornish, I'd have told her to go away and read a book a long time ago!!