Would someone like to have an objective debate on attachment parenting vs. Ford?!

[ljhooray]

Hi everyone,
I know there are lots of passionate supporters of attachment parenting just as there are passionate supporters of very routine based parenting (i.e. Gina Ford). As Mumsnet knows well, its easy to find debate on Ford, but what I've been totally unable to find is a proper debate on Attachment Parenting. Having read Dr. Sears and others, I would find it difficult to follow what in a way is also a very strict approach. Although its the exact opposite of Ford, I feel it also puts lots of pressure on the family.

Please please please, can we find a middle ground somewhere? I think that's what I'm trying with my lovely daughter Sophie. We occassionally dip into Rachel Waddilove's Baby Book and Penelope Leach You and Your Child and although things feel right for us< i would love to get some thoughts from others.

I'm very pro extended breastfeeding and its the norm in many parts of the world. I breastfeed my son until 2 years and 8 months. I reached a point when I instinctively felt it was time to wean and it was very easy.

Its difficult to get accuate stats on the world wide age of weaning. I did read once that it was about four years old, then I am a bit sceptical. It think a lot depends on availablity of food and whether the child has younger siblings.

www.healthychild.com/time-to-wean.htm

Also a lot of choosing when to wean is opinon. Do you remember seeing this lady on TV

www.themothermagazine.co.uk/extraordinarybreastfeeding.html

Personally I wouldn't choose to breastfeed until 9, but its a difference of opinon.

Most children lose the sucking reflex as they get older. Once the sucking reflex is gone it is very hard to get the milk let down.

The sketches of Bitty in little Britain are funny. A grown man would be unable to breastfeed effectively. He would be just too big.

Nursing a toddler is one of the most amazing experiences I have ever had. I don't regret that fact I did nurse my son.

I believe that the longer you nurse a child the greater the benefits. Kellymum has thousands of links.

www.kellymom.com/bf/bfextended/ebf-refs.html

He is now exceptionally healthy at the age of five. Admitally he has severe glue ear, but I think that is caused by other genetic factors. He never gets any ear infections, sore throats or chest infections.

Can't seem to access my athens account at the mo, so can't find loads of stuff, but a research done in 1998 on colic in babies found that giving them lactase helped with colic. They found that...

"The effect of the lactase was to reduce crying time by 1.14 h per day (CI 0.23-2.05). The reduction in crying time was significant ( t=2.75, d.f.=11, P=0.019). Conclusion: Transient lactose intolerance may have a role in the aetiology of infant colic."

This study was done by...
"

"A trial of lactase in the management of infant colic
Authors: Kearney; Malone; Hayes; Cole; Hyland

Source: Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics, Volume 11, Number 4, 1 August 1998 , pp. 281-285(5)

A second study in 2001 concluded that...

"These findings suggest that infant colic may have a multiple aetiology, and that in a significant number of cases the immediate cause is transient lactose intolerance, in which cases pretreatment of feeds with lactase can result in considerable symptomatic benefits."

This study was done by...

Improvement of symptoms in infant colic following reduction of lactose load with lactase
Authors: Kanabar D.; Randhawa M.; Clayton P.

Source: Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics, Volume 14, Number 5, October 2001 , pp. 359-363(5)

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

Does this help at all? Sorry that I can't find out more about transient lactose intolerance, but without my athens account, I can't get more data.

HTH

here is an article on natural age of weaning without giving a difinitive answer.

this is how i understand the lactase thing: everyone is born with lactase. some of us lose lactase in our digestive tracts, sometime around the natural age of weaning. some of us keep it all our lives.

caucasians predominantly, keep it all their lives hence why cow's milk is a staple food in northern european diets.

mongoloids (american indians, chinese, japanese, s e asians) lose lactase so become lactose intolerant.

if you look at the diet of far east people's, it doesn't contain diary products. neither does that of the native peoples in the americas.

Oooh why did you have to bump up this thread when I've got to go to bed. Will read it tomorrow.

kiskidee, (sorry, hijack) thats so fascinating about different races being more tolerant to some foods. I should imagine caucasians are also more tolerant to wheat/glutenous food too being as bread has always been a staple in Northen Europe?
Alcohol is another one that s e asians tend to be intolerant to.

That's fantastic to get all that information from you all. I'm so confused by alternative theories with research that is designed to back their theory up rather than research for a real answer, so I get very suspicious. But this research is giving me a better picture.

I think I'm not fully aware of the lactase thing - lactose fine, we become intollerant of from around 2 - but the lactase can prevent that, and we get it from breast milk. From what I've read though, lactase is not present in dairy products and the nakedscience article said that this was the reason that all humans become intollerant to lactose at around two unless they continue with some kind of lactase in their diet. Is that a fair analysis?

There's times I wish I was a scientist, but I know my limits here.

As far as the bitty / yuk factor argument goes, I put it firmly down to the fact that we are fed on a daily diet of breast sexualisation and that's the only way people ever see breasts in pulic.

lactase is an enzyme which is produced by the stomach. it breaks down milk sugar. some people who are milk intolerant may be intolerant to other things in milk, not necesarily lactase. hence probably why i can eat cheese and yoghurt but can't drink milk. the lactase (sugar) in cheese and yoghurt have been 'used up' by the bacteria which create these foods.

we don't really 'get' lactase from anything in our diet. many caucasions have a genetic quirk whereby they continue to produce lactase after the age of weaning. most people in most other races don't continue to make it.

Sakura, the alcohol thing in asians (mongols) is also tied to genes. many of them lack a different enzyme in the liver which helps to break down alcohol. hence some of them get drunk quickly and remain drunk for 'ages'. I know, I am American Indian and have seen how some men (mostly) get steaming drunk and stay drunk for days.

Mrs Marvel, this might answer some more questions

that link says we begin to lose the ability to make lactase after about the age of two.

so it seems that biologically, the body expects to receive less milk after the age of two, tying in with the statements in Katherine Dettwyler's link below that natural weaning age is from 2.5 to as late as was it 6 or 7?

I think it is only northern europeans who traditionally drink milk past the age of weaning. I know that no American Indians did for 20,000 yrs because the American continents did not have a domesticated animal similar to cows, oxen, yak, etc.

I've only read this thread at speed as have joined it so late!

I started with Rachel Waddilove's book but my baby didn't seem to do whatever she was meant to so gave up and felt much more comfortable following my instincts.
Then was recommended the Science of Parenting which as far as I can see is more valuable than most parenting books as is based on hundreds of scientific studies rather than one expert's opinion? and it definitely leans towards attachment parenting.
Will be really pleased if someone else has read it

kiskidee, the alcohol metabolising enzyme is alcohol dehydrogenase. The genetic inability to produce this enzyme is common in many indigenous peoples, such as those you mention, and also the Aboriginal peoples of Australia.

Becayse they can't break the alcohol down, it stays in the system longer, and produces the effects you describe so well.

Thanks kiskidee, Dettwyler's article is mostly based on anthropological evidence and body size. The research on IQ and immune system was interesting but only went up to 2 years old. This bit I found particularly interesting though
"It has been common for pediatricians to claim that length of gestation is approximately equal to length of nursing in many species, suggesting a weaning age of 9 months for humans." How arbitrary is that???

The article about lactose intollerance implies that most adults in the world are intollerant except some northern europeans, and it's because they lose ability to produce lactase after 2. Bingo! This is starting to add up.

So the only reason to breastfeed after 2 is for closeness, attachment and convenience (less washing up)?

Personally, my babies didn't suck well so I didn't manage to breastfeed. I felt very pressured to breastfeed but my babies weren't putting on weight. I am still an attachment parent, but believe that responsiveness is important but responsibility is equally important. We need to teach children that they have power over their own destiny. Parenting that's too responsive makes children believe that what they do doesn't have any real impact -it doesn't really matter because Mum's always there to fix it.

no, i specifically pointed out earlier that we only begin to lose lactase after about the age of two. That is a lot of qualification.

just because we all begin to get farsighted after about the age of 50 doesn't make us all start to use glasses at 50 either, i suppose.

i am surprised to see that you mention the bit about the paediatricians and 9 months but did not also highlight the part where she responds to it shortly afterwards with a detailed "However..." which i think is an excellent insight.

i think that there is a lot we can learn about ourselves from cross-cultural and cross species anthropology. It isn't an exact science, i agree, but much good anthropological research supports exact sciences and vice versa.

one example is that the human immune system doesn't seem to mature fully till the age of 5 or 6. Hence the immunological benefits of breastfeeding remains as useful till then. The nutritional benefits, while on the surface less important, is a matter for interpretation. No one would suggest giving up apples merely because you eat an otherwise varied diet an apple a day only has a small nutritional benefit compared with the rest of stuff we eat.

Besides the immunological benefits, especially when the majority of babies around the world don't have access to safe drinking water, why should the emotional reasons to bf be less valuable than the nutritional ones? A two yr old has incredible emotional stresses because they are fast becoming aware that they are also a social animal and strongly desire to conform yet also have to deal with their self-centredness and misinterpetation by us and them of what is expected. To find the emotional support at the breast is a great way to reassure an upset, even physically hurt toddler.

as far as whether or not your children could suck properly, i think that it is more likely you did not get appropriate support by knowledgeable people when it was vital. there are a few reasons why some babies can't suck efficiently, tongue tie which may not be easily visible to the untrained eye and cleft palate which is. Besides those and with children born with special needs i can't think of any other reason myself, as a non professional, why your babies didn't bf successfully. The main thing to understand is that most women in our society don't bf successfully not because of inability or the desire to do so but because of lack of support in the medical and cultural community.

sorry this is so long but i hope it was useful if you got to the end.

PS Mrs Marvel, being/feeling pressured to bf is something completely different from offering effective support.

I really think it is a mix of your plus baby's personality. I am very organised and routine bound, I work full time, also need to have regular time off to myself in order to be a good Mum the rest of the time or I get grumpy and knackered, or be able to occasionally go out for dinner and know DS won't wake up (obv he has a babysitter!!. DS is 8 months and is a very chilled out and calm baby who is basically happy as long as he's been fed, cuddled and isn't too knackered. Therefore for us, it works great to have a strict routine with lots of consistency. It really is an individual matter, our routine would be anathema to lots of people and I could never have stood co sleeping, feeding 'on demand' etc, (DS would have been fine either way! so each to her own, I say..

Kiskidee - Sorry I missed out the word "begin" in ref. to beginning to lose lactase at age 2.

When talking about the 9 months weaning period, I agree that the howevers are important, and that paediatricians could do with amending their advice. Just because I'm analysing this argument doesn't meant that I'm against breastfeeding.

I only wish I could have managed it.
I was peed off because my baby did have special needs and nobody knew and she was not gaining weight - it was me fighting the doctors to continue breastfeeding despite her problems, largely because of pressure from the pro-breastfeeding camp.

And yes, effective support was not given, from anyone, which is why I'm so intent on finding real answers to questions instead of hearing hashed together ones drawn up by groups with their own agenda.

Another note about the immune system, my paediatrician says the child's own system starts to kick in much earlier (around 2 I think), but that the colostrum contains most of the antibodies and that's only there in the first few days of breastfeeding. Another discussion to
be had on another thread no doubt...

But back on this thread again, I still believe that children need to learn to overcome obstacles in order to learn independence and high self-esteem. I believe that controlled crying is traumatic for a child and if parents help children overcome things such as separation anxiety in small steps they will not have to resort to such extreme tactics later on.

I think it also depends on what kind of person you are.

I have a very close friend and we are very similar in our educatinal background and the wya we look at the world but we have totally different views on childrearing.

Whereas I am great believer in routines and discipline for children (dd slipped into GF's routines and I have never looked back) my friend is the total opposite. Her dd stays up for as long as she does, follows no routine and is never told 'no'. My friend will take her dd to parties at night, to gallery openings to pubs and pop concerts and the wee mite just comes along and is happy as larry.

My dd follows a very strict routine and if I am late for her bedtime (e.g. when we have an unexpected visitor) she can't cope. She and I need our routine.

However, if you compared our two dd (both very similar in age) they both very happy, kind and contented toddlers. Both of our dd have just accepted the world as we parents have presented it to them and fitted in.

So, I guess, what I am trying to say is that, Idon't think, there is a right or wrong way of raising children. Just do what works for you like I need my routine and my friend needs total freedom, totally different approaches but same happy much loved kiddies.