Scientific Justification for Nursing Toddlers

[MegBoz]

On my fitness discussion board, nursing my 19 month old has come up.

I mentioned how the WHO recommends 2 years & got the predictable, "The World Health Org makes that recommendation (two years) because in developing countries there is very little safe and healthy food for babies and toddlers to eat."

Right, that makes so much sense. Because if the food sources are contaminated with parasites & bacteria, a 2-year old will suddenly be able to handle that, but not a 18 month old. Whatever.

Anyway, do you all have some great links for me to prove them wrong?

Not that I really care - my Mama instincts tell me I'm right & I have no intentions of stopping any time soon. I'd just like to prove the point. TIA!

[pbjmama]

I was typing out a bunch of stuff but then found this on Kellymom, it provides alot of information with links to other resources. It includes benefits to the child and mother, society, etc.

http://www.kellymom.com/bf/bfextended/ebf-benefits.html

Especially check out what the AAP and AAFP have to say. Unless these women think American associations are also thinking of world health

I think it would be worthwhile to include the benefits to mom too, such as reduced risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis. As well as protection against osteoporosis.

Good luck. You can lead a horse to water...

[mambera]

Actually there is very little in the way of citable support for the practice of nursing beyond a year in developed nations.

The WHO policy statement cites two relevant references, both of which are from underdeveloped countries.

The AAP recommends a year but doesn't say anything beyond that. The AAFP recommends two years but their policy statement does not cite any clinical studies to back that up.

The majority of the clinical studies cited on the Kellymom page about extended breastfeeding are studies done to a maximum nursling age of 1 year. They also cite a couple of lab studies on breast milk's immunological composition that find it doesn't change substantially after the early months.

There is exactly one citation that I have been able to find that purports to examine the health of nursing vs non-nursing toddlers (Gulick 1986) but it is so old that I haven't been able to access the original paper.

I agree that it just kinda makes sense that people milk is better for people than animal milk is, but in terms of research, from what I've seen there just isn't a lot.

[MountainMamaGC]

It brings her happiness level up by 20 points.

lol.

[PatioGardener]

Originally Posted by Lydiah

It brings her happiness level up by 20 points.

lol.

!!!

I like to reply that babies in rich countries deserve no less than babies in poor countries, and I won't deprive my baby of breastmilk just because she happened to be born in a rich country.

[LeilaM]

I recently read a book called Why Dirt is Good by Mary Ruebush, PhD. It's about why our bodies need exposure to germs to develop and maintain strong immune systems. In the book, she talks a little bit about breastfeeding.

Here are some quotes:

"The chief breastfeeding advantage comes from another maternal antibody called IgA."

(IgA is immunoglobulin A, "the principal antibody of the mucosal surfaces of the body that prevents germs from adhering in those locations".)

"Children don't usually start making normal adult values of IgA until they're past age two."

The book doesn't explicitly state that children should be breastfed until at least age two, but that's what I inferred from that information. If a child doesn't produce sufficient levels of IgA until past age two, and they can get the IgA from breast milk, that seems to indicate that children should be breastfeeding until that time.

I don't know if that helps, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[claddaghmom]

I wonder if you could move away from an authoritarian argument that must "prove" 2 years is "right" and more towards a general view of health.

For example, infants experience explosive brain growth that doesn't slow until typically 5 years of age. They require high amounts of fatty foods, DHA/lipids for myelin sheathing. Human milk is naturally built with the right components to support this explosive growth.

You could also go into immunological issues. For example, we know that the composition of human milk has bursts of additional antibodies at certain times...one of them happens to be around 2 years of age. It would seem the maternal body expects to nurse the offspring not only to 2 years of age, but some time after that period.

[MammaFaith]

Originally Posted by mambera

I agree that it just kinda makes sense that people milk is better for people than animal milk is, but in terms of research, from what I've seen there just isn't a lot.

Yep, I want my DD to have the brains and body of a human, not a cow! This feels so right to the depths of my being that I have a hard time understanding how moms can think cow's milk is better for their child than BM. I would put the pressure back on them to prove that any other milk is better for their toddler than BM.

My approach to all things mothering is "what would I do in the wild, uninfluenced by societal expectations?" I can't remember where exactly (I think LLL's "The Art of Breastfeeding") I read that anthropological studies as well as studies of other mammals indicate that humans should nurse from 3-6 years. I don't know if I'll go that long w/ DD (I work full-time out of the home so she may wean earlier) but I won't feel awkward if we do! I'll keep pumping during the day and nursing when she wants as long as she wants my BM not only for the physical benefits, but for the emotional ones, too!

[MegBoz]

Thanks, Leila, interesting stuff! I made the same inference.

Originally Posted by MammaFaith

Yep, I want my DD to have the brains and body of a human, not a cow! This feels so right to the depths of my being that I have a hard time understanding how moms can think cow's milk is better for their child than BM. I would put the pressure back on them to prove that any other milk is better for their toddler than BM.

Ha! I like that.

Yeah, it feels right to me too. I mean, he got teeth, spoke, baby-signed, and walked all very gradually. There hasn't come a time where I thought, "Oh, OK, BFing a newborn was all well and good, but NOW he's a toddler and NOW it's weird!

But, of course, they aren't trying to 'prove' that cow's milk is better than BM. The 'argument' they make is, "It's weird. You need to wean him. He doesn't need BM. It's strange, you're weird. You should stop." The only 'argument' even worth responding too is that the WHO recommendation is only for kids in nations with inadequate sources of food & water.

Thanks, all!!!

[rightkindofme]

This isn't specifically about nursing past 'x' age, but this site is one of my favorites for looking at why breastfeeding is better. Many of the benefits are cumulative for child and mother.