Could I have your opinions please

[bobbybob]

Someone has posted this to me on another thread, it was actually talking about immunisations...

"I have heard evidence that there is no point breastfeeding after 9 months as there is no benefit, and actually it can have the opposite effect as it's far too high in fat for them. They did some tests on older men who had been breastfed for a long time, and they had more health issues than those who were fed less than 9 months.
The trouble is they change their minds all the time!
Breast is definately best in the beginning, but I think you have really done your bit now. Well done!! "

My understanding is that the makeup of bmilk changes all the time - so the fat will not be a problem. The unhealthy men bit sounds like an urban myth. As for "done your bit" well I think that is my decision to make.

bollocks to the other person's quote

well its my opinion and that's what you asked for

well in terms of health benefits of BF I would say that the WHO wouldn't be recommending it up to 2 years and above if that was reliable research

also as well what about the health benefits to you of bfing.

Lol Mud - spose that was what I really meant, but more succinctly

I hate quasi-research 'facts' quoted willy-nilly, bet they have no idea of the source, the parameters nor the method of testing, nor where to find the actual research report or whether it exists at all

well done for regurgitating rubbish though

I was told that a breastfed baby could never put on too much weight as a baby's body will self regulate its-self once you have stopped! I don't know how true this is but in some countries I would imagine they BF for a lot longer than 9 months.

Was this one from formula manufacturers?? what aload of rubbish - take no notice of this. Check out the unicef website for proper info www.unicef.org/programme/breastfeeding/

Go for it mud - put it better than me

lOADS OF PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, SORRY, DON'T KNOW why i put that!!!!!!!!

No, it's two years and beyond not up to.

Never take any notice of any "evidence" unless the source is given (and even then be careful).

Even if I post it. In fact, especially if I post it.

I saw that post too...and thought it a little 'wrong'. (Altho Muds "bollocks" could also be the right word to use!!)

Unless it can be backed up by solid research, than saying things like that can actually make some mums panic at the thought that they are breast feeding their child into obesity!!!!

Wrong wrong wrong!!!!

oops hercules that's what I meant to put up

I think that research was pretty much discredited because they didn't use samples who were completely breastfed. Some babies had just one breast feed, or were mixed fed, or bfed for six weeks etc etc. It's a big jump from that to then saying it causes ill health!

Message withdrawn

True, Pruni! Tbh, I'm no good at analysing stats etc but I understand that particular piece of research was torn apart publicly at the time by a number of other professionals. I think it's been discussed on MN before too - a search would probably find it.

Older men where? older than who? how much older? And why not women?

Possibly she was saying that because I have a ds...?

Elsewhere in the post she says all her children self weaned on or before 9 months. Presumably onto semi skimmed!

bobbybob, I think that it's strange the poster says she's found info to back her statements up, but wouldn't just post it... I also agree with Mud

Who?? Where?? When???
(Straining at the leash here....
Complete shite..

One piece of evidence is nowhere near enough - WHO etc will base their advice on many, many studies, some for/some against the eventual conclusion. Anyone who subsequently quotes a single (solitary) piece of evidence against the WHO conclusion as proof that WHO wrong (for example) misunderstands the purpose of medical research.

As for growth etc - hv's etc for a while been telling me that growth charts are useless for bf babes as they were developed when most babes were formula fed. My problem was bf baby who 'underperformed'against the charts, quite significantly, between 9mths and 18mths (just back on track). Anyway, growth charts are complete load of bo*+ocs, as far as I'm concerned. And as it would appear that formula companies probably paid for existing ones to be produced - and it's not in their interests for 'bf accurate' ones to be produced - take them with a MASSIVE pinch of salt. (Speaking as someone who fretted and fretted for months!)

moondog - immunisation thread.

bobbybob, this is, I think, a total misunderstanding and misinterpretation of a body of research done by someone called Walter Barker. This was done on the health records of babies born in (I think) Hertfordshire or Hampshire (sorry to be vague - it will be on the web somewhere!) at some time in the early 1920s, or even earlier. It just happened that the clinic at that time had a bunch of records inc. feeding records of the babies born there. The researchers then traced the same people when they were in their 70s, and they found that the babies who were recorded as being bf at a year were more likely to have health issues than the ones who were bf for less time.....BUT at that time, the babies who were bf for a year were from very poor families, and went on to grow up in deprived circumstances, and were probably more likely to smoke, have a poor diet, dangerous and unhealthy jobs, etc.. What was more predictive of ill health was the health of the mothers who had given birth to them, and their own weight at birth. This led to the 'Barker hypothesis' that the health of your mother predicts your own health as an adult.

No one seriously allows the Barker research to discredit breastmilk or breastfeeding, because the data is so weak and so contaminated by social factors.

It is rubbish to say it is 'far too high in fat' at nine months. How preposterous.

It could also be a misunderstanding of the Lucas research that linked bf for more than four months to a condition of the arteries in adult men said to be associated with later heart disease - but as well as being the only study that has shown this, it was also flawed because of its definition of bf (which was vague) and because it did not take into account later diet. It could be, as the researchers themselves said at the time, that bf prepares us best for a healthy diet, and not for a diet of junk food. The study was roundly criticised at the time.

There are many health benefits to bf after 9 months.

I do get very annoyed when people half hear something, and then start propagating nonsense....

jamiesam they are now in the process of producing growth charts based on bf babies instead of formula-fed.

Have just googled, and if anyone wants to read about Barker (who was David, not Walter - where did I get Walter from?!) making the connection between the growth of the fetus and later disease, and the discovery of health records, they can look here though I note there is nothing in this about the feeding....probably because the major findings were the connection between poor fetal growth and later illness.