So all bottle fed babies are unintelligent, and sickly then! Studies can be flawed, they are not fullproof. I am not saying that formula is better because it is not! Breastmilk will always be superior, but i cannot stand these studies that make these generalisations based on a limited sample of people that are not always representative. Also it depends on genetics and the childs home environment. By rights my baby should be unintelligent, more sickly and and have allergies which she does not, how wrong are they! I know adults who were bottle fed, who are very intelligent people, they have degrees and are very fit and healthy.

What about the numerous studies that research the idea that more intelligent children are the product of intelligent parents??? Surely genetics plays a part in whether or not you have an intelligent child?

Also, upbringing and interaction plays an enormous part in the development of a child. I am not arguing about bf v ff. Both my children were bf and then ff fed?! So if my children turn out to be very intelligent is this because I bf for a time or is it because of genetics/upbringing? Can you give me a definitive answer as to whether it was down to bf or genetics? Or perhaps both??

Its like these studies that say women are less intelligent than men, and that those from Afro-carribean races are not as intelligent than white Europeans.

I give up, you two are clearly sitting there with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la, I'm not listening"

You have to be kidding. I am way too intelligent to indulge in that kind of behaviour. I am listening - it's just that I do not agree with you. I think this is called 'healthy debate' I think.

So are you CM! You are very narrow in your thinking! of course these studies you have cited are clearly flawless, with no faults. So by rights, me being a bottle fed baby should be unintelligent and suffer from illnesses which i don't. I have eczema due to GENETICS, my grandma had it and so did her family. I have degrees up to Postgrad level so i don't think that i am short in the cognitive department.

I agree that there probabley is some connection between allergies, sickness and bf but there are going to be some exceptions to this. As I stated genetics, and family environment can influence this. For example if the baby is bf and lived in a very dirty and dusty environment then they are bound to get sick or develop allergies, it would make no difference if the were bf or ff. If the child has intelligent parents then the child will most likely to be intelligent too despite being bf or not, does not take a rocket scientist to understand this!

{Quote from Contiumm Momma}

Every study that includes the duration of breast-feeding as a variable shows that, on average, the longer a baby is nursed, the better its health and cognitive development. For example, breast-fed children have fewer allergies, fewer ear infections, and less diarrhea, and their risk for sudden infant death syndrome (a rare but devastating occurrence) is lower. Breast-fed children also have higher cognitive test scores and lower incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

When it comes to the higher cognitive test scores in children, did the study assess educational level of the parents?

What controls were used in this study in which to compare with? Did they use ff children? Did they assertain other aspects of the children's environment that could have an influence on health? Might it be that the education of the parents of the children who were bf were higher, they were more informed and they came from a higher socioeconomic group, than those who were ff.

There is no doubt that breastmilk is good for health and has many health benefits, but on its own is not enough.

quote:

Originally posted by pigletmania:
Its like these studies that say women are less intelligent than men, and that those from Afro-carribean races are not as intelligent than white Europeans.

No it isn't. It's like studies saying that women are, on average, shorter than men. Or women tend to have better verbal skills and worse spatial awareness than men. Just because Jane the engineer may be taller than John the poet, does NOT make this GENERALISATION untrue.

And of course genetics and environment play a huge part in determining health and intelligence too. That doesn't mean that bf doesn't help. I think both sides agree here - there are many factors influencing development. BF is one of them.

And yes, the latest studies into intelligence and bf HAVE taken the genetic and environmental aspects into account. BF still shows statistical advantages. BTW, I just love the fact that people complain that as more intelligent mothers tend to bf it isn't a fair test. Hello? MORE INTELLIGENT mothers TEND to bf (I'd better stress I'm saying TEND again here - this doesn't mean I'm calling ff mums stupid - it's a tendency, not a constant!) Doesn't that imply bfing is the intelligent thing to do?

quote:

Originally posted by Continuum Momma:

quote:

Originally posted by barbie86:
Re. non-Western cultures: breastfeeding beyond 2 1/2 years is not generally done out of choice, but of necessity: they often have extremely limited access to clean water and food and so breastfeeding as long as possible is essential in order that the child gain any sustenance

These children are also eating solid foods you knoq, they do not get significant percentages of calories from breastmilk (unless`they are unwell and not eating), mainly immunological support and comfort. Ask a mother in one of these cultures why she hasn't weaned her 2-3 year old and she'd ask you why she should, it's not done because the have no choice, but because it's a good thing to do, and this is true no matter where you live, and the cleanliness of the water supply has nothing to do with it!

TBH I think that is quite naive. These cultures are extremely poor; most of the 'non-Western world' they are referring to is made up of developing countries with people living well below the poverty line. It is FACT that these people often have to walk miles and miles for clean water, and have very little in the way of 'solid food'. Children are breastfed not as a means of comfort but because otherwise they are likely to starve to death in infanthood. Breastfeeding may not provide a great deal at this stage in terms of sustenance and nutrition but it often provides a great deal more than what they would otherwise get: a few spooonfuls of rice if they're lucky or contaminated water they are likely to die from

Yes of course breastmilk does contain properties that help cognitive development, help to prevent illness and allergies etc, it is tailor made for the child, that is why breastmilk is superior over formula for babies, and why women breastfeed, however it is neive to think that breastmilk alone can do this, and to ignore other factors that also help play a part. A holistic approach has to be taken as well.

Additionally, is it not the case that after 6 months solid food should be introduced as the child needs more than milk alone to sustain them! They are getting to be very active so require more substanance! Gosh how can a 2-3 year old thrive on only milk, all be it just breastmilk! Surely they need solids to give them the energy that they need to grow and develop!

I don't think anyone is arguing with those points, Pigletmania. The thing is, breast milk doesn't stop being generally 'good' for a child when they reach 2 years old, or 5 years old, or any age. Yes, the advantages get less and less with time - getting the colostrum is the most important bit of bf, and that's over in days! However, if the child still wants breast milk, and the mother still wants to bf, why stop? The child WILL outgrow the need (and the ability to latch on) at some point before puberty hits - at the biologically appropriate age for that particular child. Some children self-wean very early (before a year), others very late (after 7 years).

If my son doesn't self wean before he's 18 months or so, I'm gonna be having this arguement with my husband! He is of the opinion that it is "icky" to continue bfing when the baby becomes a child - but he can't give me a reason for it. Can you? I understand your dummy/nappy analogy, but there are good reasons to stop using nappies and dummies beyond the idea that they are just for babies.

To be honest, I also have a bit of the irrational 'ick' factor when I see older children bf - but there are lots of people who think ANY bf is 'icky' - and that attitude is not a good reason not to bf at all.

Hi Nickcy

Thanks for the reply, you have raised some very good points. As i have mentioned please don't get me wrong, i am all for breastfeeding babies, it is natural and very good for them, it is why women have breasts in the first place. I just do not agree with older children feeding, it does have the icky factor to it, and if i were able to bf i would have stopped when the child was 1-1.5 years. However it is up to you, do what you feel is right, just my opinion that's all. I just would not like to see an older child fed in a public place, just not right, however it is up to you what you do in private.

Personally I don't really see a massive problem with breastfeeding certainly up to 5, and possibly slightly beyond with some children. I think though that due to our culture this is rare; and most children will have weaned themselves well before then. Personally I think that if my child hadn't weaned by 2 1/2 years I would start weaning then very gradually

My only reservation with extended breastfeeding would be if there were any selfish reasons for it on behalf of the mother, ie not quite wanting the child to gain some independence and so clinging to it for as long as possible. Children obv need lots of affection but I think by the time they've reached 7 cuddles should replace the breast

It could also put a strain on the relationship between the mother and her partner. Now by this I don't mean don't breastfeed full stop just because your partner doesn't like it: but if it's getting to the stage where your child is no longer getting any added benefit and its having an effect on your relationship, perhaps it might be time to wean.

I'm just being devil's advocate here. As long as the child is maturing normally and not being babied in other aspects of their lives, as long as no strain is being put on the relationship, and as long as the mother can and is happy to continue breastfeeding, then really it's not my business if someone is still breastfeeding their 7-year old

For all my previous rants and unwanted shouting about breastfeeding, I find extended feeding a really odd thing.
My two stopped very early on - 18 months and 12 months, in those days you weren't really expected to carry on past age 2 or so. I recall thinking one of my friends was weird as her daughter was still feeding at almost 4.
I have recently read evidence linked on here that it is a normal and good thing to do but I actually have the 'ick' factor of it going on much past 2.5, I still think that's too old despite the facts. I'd not condemn anyone for it, it's their choice, I just find it hard to see - in a developed country - why it would really be necessary.
Mind you, watching things like Supernanny and these mothers have 5 and 6 year olds with dummies and bottles still and I suspect most people look on that as "they're too old for that nonsense" ... would love to see one of her shows trying to cut out extended breastfeeding in the same manner. I'm not an advocate of many of her ideas to be honest.

quote:

Originally posted by oranjeboom:
I just find it hard to see - in a developed country - why it would really be necessary.

This is what I was saying to CM: yes, it is the norm in developing countries, but that is only because it is necessary: children would otherwise have to drink contaminated water which is very likely to kill them, and food is sparse.

You can't really compare the way of life in developing countries with that of the developed world, and say that because x is done in developing countries it follows that x is a good thing. You can bet that if people in developing countries had access to food and clean water they would not be breastfeeding as late because it would no longer be necessary

Hmm, I wonder if you have a point there Barbie86 - in the developed world, there are so many other tasty options besides breastmilk for children to enjoy, maybe THAT'S why they are more likely to self-wean earlier than babies in the developing world, with a much more limited choice of foods on offer.

I don't think it's possible to continue to bf if the child wants to wean - (I physically can't bf my 9 month old when daddy is in the room anymore - he won't latch on cos daddy is so much more exciting than milk) so if there are selfish/clingy motives for the mum to continue, it's still going to have to be a mutual wish to carry on.

And it isn't necessary to extended bf. But then again, it isn't NECESSARY to stop. I don't quite get this point - we do lots of things that aren't necessary every day - some good for us, some not. Why is a lack of necessity (on its own) a reason not to do something?

The argument was that it is the norm for people in developing countries to breastfeed until the age of 7, so why shouldn't it be in this country. My point was that you can't really compare the two as circumstances in the developing world are completely different. If mothers had an actual choice as we do in the developed world you might find that babies were weaned earlier. As it is, it is almost essential for them to continue to breastfeed in order that their children have a chance of survival

Basically, I don't think that looking at how things are done in completely different countries with completely different needs is an effective argument for how things should be done in this country. You can't say 'extended breastfeeding is essential and so the norm in a country were every day thousands of children die of starvation and illnesses related to contaminated water; thus extended breastfeeding should also be the norm in England where we face none of these problems and our children have a balanced diet and access to clean water from an early age'

Gotcha. But, as you say, you can't really compare the two, so conversely you can't say that as early weaning is the norm in this country, it should/would be the norm in developing countries if they had our advantages.

Personally, I think early weaning is a social thing - due to cultural expectations rather than lack of necessity.

Oh, and it still doesn't answer the question - why NOT bf til 7/8? "It's not necessary in this country" isn't a satisfactory answer - it's not necessary to bf at all in this country - but it IS better for the child. And studies do indicate that the longer you bf, the better. So again, why not? Apart from 'the ick factor'.

Nickycky: if you read my posts I haven't said that I feel women shouldn't breastfeed until 7/8. I've said that I personally probably wouldn't, but that if the child needs it and the mother and her partner is fine with it, I don't see a problem. Each to their own. I fully understand that whilst not necessary, some children may need the security of breastfeeding at an older age than others

Sorry, I wasn't directing the question at you specifically, barbie86 - I have just reread the whole thread, and I am in agreement with you pretty much all the way! I'm just wondering if anyone can think of a reason behind the ick factor. (I'd quite LIKE a reason to stop if my son wants to keep going longer than I'm comfortable with! Without one, I'd be a hypocrite to stop before he decides to.)

There could be a few reasons why people find it 'icky': because breasts are sexualised (which could apply to breastfeeding at any age but perhaps more so with older children as they don't have the same complete innocence of babies); some people don't like the idea of doing it after a child has teeth; because it's very unusual in the Western world (and people are often worried by or scared of the unknown); because it isn't necessary and some may find it odd that you let a child suck your breast for security rather than giving them security in other ways eg through hugs. And as I said partners' feelings could play a large part: they may want to rekindle a proper sexual relationship and feel uncomfortable with the idea that their older child is still feeding from the breast

I'm not saying I believe any of these reasons or think they're right, but they could be why some people find the idea 'icky'