Breastfeeding till the age of 4 - what do you think?

[lisalisa]

Message withdrawn

Nannyjo - not a very good analogy.

I haven't fed my 4+ year old in public precisley because of disapproving looks from others and mainly because I don't actually want to. It's something I'd rather do in privacy. It's not because I think it is wrong. There are certain things we all do indoors behind curtains and other things we do in public - it is a different forum. We don't 'hide' away at home its just we feel happier in our own environment doing certain things. Also we have to conform to certain social norms - we can fart, pick our noses, wander around naked, breastfeed etc etc to our hearts content at home - but none of these things are WRONG!

Also isn't abuse forcing someone to do something they don't want to do - how do you know that these children don't WANT to breastfeed nannyjo? Hell of a large assumption made there I think....

olive - yes, for the umpteenth time too!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Haven't got the energy to read all the new posts (teething child + sleepless nights = bog eyed olive) but I bet they alllll repeat what has already been said.

For goodness sake, a 4 year old is not a baby, it has other forms of nutrition, and therefore if it doesn't want breastmilk it will not drink it!

I really can't see why anyone cares anyway!

Has anyone who has posted against extended breastfeeding ever heard a child complaining about being breastfed? I doubt it. Just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't mean everyone else has to drink coffee too, IYSWIM.

And as for saying a child needs cows milk as opposed to breastmilk, I've never heard such tripe in my life.

Perhaps we should be raising calves on weasel milk? I'm sure we could teach kittens to appreciate whale milk too. The analogy isn't silly, it is exactly what we do when we give our children cow's milk, we are giving them the milk of a different species. Adequate in over 0ne's, but certainly not preferable.

So lets say I have Baby1, and get pregnant again when Baby1 is 7 months old, do I breastfeed Baby1 up until Baby2 is born and then breastfeed BOTH until Baby1 is 4 years old? What happens if I am pregant with Baby3 before Baby 1 is 4 years old? Do I breastfeed ALL 3? If I don't then am I depriving Baby1 of what nature intended him to have, or did nature actually intend us to pop babies out much more frequently than we do? How then can nature intend us to bfeed up to 4 years old?

No-one says you have to tandem feed, no-one says you have to do extended breastfeeding.

But yes, you can breastfeed all three if you want to. There's no law against it, and if mother and babies all want to continue then more power to them.

We don't know exactly what "nature intended", as it doesn't appear to be written down anywhere, but it is perfectly possible to feed 3 children at a time- it really doesn't matter what their ages are. Of course a 4 year old would mostly be getting calories and fluid from other sources, so the feed isn't strictly necessary, BUT it is still beneficial and certainly not abusive.

I am not suggesting its abusive, just looking at this from another perspective.

I think most people find it a strain enough to bfeed one baby, especially in the early months. can't imagine doing that nighttime feed for 3 babies/children! Infact i think in my case the 3 children would end up being deprived of any other stimulation and attention and I would go insane and be totally exhausted all the time and probably wouldn't have any nipples left! I don't see any of the children getting any benefit from that although it may help to prevent sibling jealousy of the older child.

My opinion on this is that every mother/child should do what is right for them.

No, SC you weren't suggesting it was abusive, but Nannyjo was! You're right that everyone one should do what suits them, of course. I doubt if a 4 year old would be waking at night for feeds, though- even my nocturnal baby slept through by the age of 2! Of course breastfeeding a newborn baby is exhausting, but older babies and children space their feeds out and are more efficient feeders- you wouldn't be at it all the time!

SittingComfortably asks: "lets say I have Baby1, and get pregnant again when Baby1 is 7 months old, do I breastfeed Baby1 up until Baby2 is born and then breastfeed BOTH until Baby1 is 4 years old?"

Yes. It's the law. Didn't you know?

" What happens if I am pregant with Baby3 before Baby 1 is 4 years old? Do I breastfeed ALL 3? "

Absolutely. Again this is the law.

Jee-zus.

"If I don't then am I depriving Baby1 of what nature intended him to have, or did nature actually intend us to pop babies out much more frequently than we do? How then can nature intend us to bfeed up to 4 years old?"

Nature is probably most closely read in pre-industrial societies, because we see more clearly how evolution has developed the body and its functioning.

Nature does not intend us to have lots of children particularly - breastfeeding suppresses fertilty, and if you bf frequently and for a long (in western terms) time, you will probably not have three children in under four years (though in a lifetime you will have more than the one, two or three Western average). In pre-industrial societies, long-term bf is convenient, an important source of nutrition, and a useful means of spacing babies. The same can apply here, but we also have alternatives which we can choose to use instead.

Plenty of us do not live our lives according to pre-industrial social and biological norms, though, and that's ok, too

SittingComfortably - most toddlers over the age of 18 months don't want to breastfeed more than 1-2 times a day, its hardly the same as feeding a newborn so not exactly the same demands.

Actually breastfeeding does tie in with what nature intended to an extent. Exclusive breastfeeding causes what is known as Lactational ammenorhea - the more you feed the less likely you are to get pregnant again (and have another child competing for your resources). At one time when women had less nutrition (and this still stands in some societies) babies were naturally well spaced apart so its likely that baby no1 may well be 1 or 2 years old before mum even got pregnant again.

Of course it varies a lot in modern society but I didn't have periods for 13 months and 18 months between my children and this was all totally 'natural' - no contraceptive pills, injections etc.

Oooh you beat me to it tiktok

I also heard a prog recently on Women's hour about breast cancer. Views are changing on this. Up till now it has been thought that a women's age when she has her first child has been significant in the rate of breast cancer, however views are changing and it is actually the length of time of breastfeeding that is also significant. Therefore it is good for your body to breastfeed for a long time. Obviously in the past women breastfed for years because they had many children. However one way to get round this nowadays where we only have a few is to breastfeed these children for longer.

So it is not only good for your child to give them breastmilk in terms of years it is good for the mother too....

Do you think you get the same benefits if you simply continue to express milk rather than feed a child?

Not exactly sure why you'd want to but it's something I've always wondered about

Tiktok, I ran my eyes through parts of this very long thread and I am sure somewhere I read that someone said something about nature intending bfeeding upto and beyond 4 years. My question is how can that be?

And i am questioning the suggestions of some people than not feeding up to and beyond 4 years is depriving a child nutritionally and emotionally.

True that you will 'probably' not have 3 children under 4 years, but its possible and does happen.

Its interesting what the WHO says, but these are guidelines that change every few years. For example the changes in recommending how old a child should be when introducing solids has changed since many mnetters had their first babies.

The WHO guidelines haven't changed much in the past ten years (if at all) about giving solid food.

And does anyone really think the guidlines will change to say that breastmilk is bad for babies and children and they shouldn't have it for six months, let alone at least two years?!

Having tandem nursed for over a year, I would say that the older child knows its place in the pecking order - baby gets first dibs and that is something they accept without having to be told.

When you tandem nurse, you are giving the vast majority of your milk and feeding time to the baby, but if a mother is able to feed twins and triplets, then she is able to provide a small part of the older child's diet as well.

I would say, anecdotally, that most toddlers will give up breastfeeding sometime during the next pregnancy. I know that has happened to me three times, all around the same time in the pregnancy. Whether it's due to changes in the milk, or the toddler sensing that there are extra demands on mum's body, I don't know.

SC, you ask: " I am sure somewhere I read that someone said something about nature intending bfeeding upto and beyond 4 years. My question is how can that be? "

I explained it, didn't I? It's difficult to know what Nature 'intends' but if Nature intended us not to bf indefinitely, then we would prob find we 'dried up' after a certain time. We are made in such a way that we can bf for as long as the milk is 'asked for'.

With prolonged and ad lib bf, it would be highly unlikely for a mother to have 3 children in under four years.

You also say, "Its interesting what the WHO says, but these are guidelines that change every few years."

Not true. The WHO had bf exclusively to 4-6 months for years and years. Then about three years ago it changed to 6 mths. The stuff about up to two years and beyond has been the same for a long time.

" For example the changes in recommending how old a child should be when introducing solids has changed since many mnetters had their first babies." Only from 4-6 mths to 6 mths. Are you saying that is a massive big deal???!

SC - Sorry don't understand - can you explain precisely HOW a child is being deprived 'nutritionally and emotionally'. How can something that is only given 1-2 times a day have any major impact on the child? All my children have eaten a normal diet and the amount of breastmilk they have received at this older age is tiny. Also I've comforted them with it instead of offering a sweetie - which do you think is better for them?

It is natural, normal and possible to breastfeed twins or triplets without anyone being deprived in any way so yes it is possible to feed 3 children even babies who can't take any other forms of food.

Why are people so unwilling to believe that these things can be done - why women so unaccepting of what their own bodies can do ????

First of all, the hunter-gatherer weaning age is about 7, not 4. Hunter-gatherers tend to co-sleep, so night feeds are kept up for ages, making for quite large birth spacing, which is very important, as without prams, how will you travel with more than one child that can't walk long distances?

Of course, now, only anthropologists and hunter-gatherers feed to 7.

Wow, this still going??

I forgot to say - respect, WWB, you're so eloquent about such horrendous events. Best wishes.

Eulalia, she's talking about other people's claims that not breastfeeding to 4 is depriving children. She's not saying that extending bf is depriving children, she's arguing against the idea that curtailed bf is a deprivation.

I can't recall when I was breastfeeding an almost 4-year old, but I am happy to report that I have had no negative feedback from breastfeeding my 3+ year old in public. I've fed her in a toddler group - amongst masses of bottlefed infants - no one batted an eyelid. I've fed her when she has been hospitalised with asthma and been praised for it from both doctors and nurses - often with comments about it being a shame that more toddlers aren't breastfed.

Far, far from being accused of abusing my child, and that's from experts who are trained to detect abuse and act on it.

Which is to say, she's arguing against the statement: "All women should do extended bf", not arguing for the statement: "All women should not to extended bf".

What's interesting is, none of the pro-extended-bf people have said that all women should do extended bf, we've just said that we think it's ok, and has its benefits. (And many of us, including me, have said we haven't done it ourselves.)

Eulalia - I am not suggesting it is depriving a child, but others have. I am struggling to see the benefits for a child of 4 to be breastfed.

NQC - interesting point. But people DO have babies close together. I got my periods 4 months after my baby and therefore think I could have got pregnant again.

Does anyone here have twins or triplets or personally know someone and has exclusively bfed or extended bfed? Its curiosity, you may be right.... wriggling baby on my lap, can't finis