or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › trying to decide how long to breast feed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

trying to decide how long to breast feed - Page 2

post #21 of 111
When ds was born I thought 1 year was the perfect age to nurse until and then wean. Ha! Having a baby has definately taught me to be flexible.
Ds is 26 months. I am not too keen on breastfeeding while pregnant, but am hoping that we'll figure out the weaning thing soon.
I am not into having kids that close in age though, so am not faced with this problem.
post #22 of 111
I haven't had a chance to compare Weston Price and Blue Ribbon Baby against La Leche League in terms of research quality and ability to interpret data, but I can share my personal experience.

I started out saying I would breastfeed my daughter IF I could. I quickly went to saying we would nurse for at least a year. She's 15 months old and I'm now planning on letting her wean when she's ready.

I also became pregnant when she was 10.5 months old.

Studies aside, I can tell you that the baby inside me is quite strong and active -- at least as much as dd was -- and is growing at the same rate she was, which is a little ahead of average. There is absolutely no reason, based on comparing data between my two pregnancies, to think this baby isn't getting the full, optimal nutrition he needs.

You'll do what's right for you and your family. I just want you to know that if you do want to space your children closely, as we are, and continue nursing your eldest, they aren't mutually exclusive.
post #23 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlemama77
Thanks. I've just had a chance to skim some of the information, but I did look up the Weston Price Foundation, where the information comes from. It looks like this foundation supports agriculture/dairy industry...I don't know a lot about it, but it does look like the information is slanted in favor of these industries. This concerns me because isn't formula made from milk/dairy? I'll read more, but I'd be interested in what you have to say to this, or if you could tell us more about the Weston Price Foundation.
:
post #24 of 111
Thread Starter 
Weston Price was a dentist who noticed that there was a relationship between tooth decay and the general nutrition of a person...in the 30's and 40's he visited many isolated groups of people who still ate their native diet (ie no processed foods such as white flour, sugar, canned goods, etc). He found that these people were very healthy, had almost no cavities, and none of the modern diseases such as arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, etc. He also found that when they abandoned their native diet and ate processed foods, they developed these diseases. He analyzed their traditional diets and found that they were much higher in many nutrients than American diets (and diets back then were actually healthier than they are today!).

The WAP (Weston A Price) Foundation basically tries to spread the information that he found and promote healthy diets. They do promote meat/dairy because Dr. Price found that all the native groups that he studied relied heavily on animal products, and there are many nutrients that it is difficult or impossible to obtain solely from plant sources.

I realize this goes against pretty much all the conventional nutritional advice, especially for vegetarians, but if you really research nutrition (and you will have to go well beyond the standard "eat whole grains and limit saturated fat") it is fairly obvious that Dr. Price's recommendations are accurate.

The reason I posted those particular links is because they list many studies on nutrition in pregnancy/breast feeding. The info generally does contradict most of the standard nutritional advice, but that doesn't mean it is not accurate--and there are studies to back that up.
post #25 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by caedmyn
The reason I posted those particular links is because they list many studies on nutrition in pregnancy/breast feeding. The info generally does contradict most of the standard nutritional advice, but that doesn't mean it is not accurate--and there are studies to back that up.
I guess I just question why it directly contradicts all the research I have seen.

And "alternatives" to bmilk... there really aren't any that are equal.
post #26 of 111
hmmm...interesting...
I'll just be here listening in...
post #27 of 111
Thread Starter 
I agree there isn't anything that is equal to BM, although there is a homemade formula recipe I've found that I would use if for some reason I was unable to breast feed as the best possible substitute...but again if your diet is poor your BM isn't going to be all that great, either.

As far as why the research contradicts the other research that's out there...that's not any different than why most people/doctors/etc say formula is as good as BM...a combination of big industry (not necessarily on breast feeding specifically but nutrition in general), ignorance, and people not digging deep enough to get to the real facts.
post #28 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by caedmyn
but again if your diet is poor your BM isn't going to be all that great, either.
Show me any research that says this. Everything I've read says that the "worst" breastmilk is miles and miles beyond the "best" formula.

-angela
post #29 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by caedmyn
I agree there isn't anything that is equal to BM, although there is a homemade formula recipe I've found that I would use if for some reason I was unable to breast feed as the best possible substitute...but again if your diet is poor your BM isn't going to be all that great, either.
But, it will be MUCH better than formula or and non-species specific milk substitute. Additionally, from what I have read it is the *quantity* of milk that dimenishes in extreme famine situations, not the quality. Even malnourished women produce that is of excellent quality (I'm guessing some of the more obscure components, of which formula would have none, may be lessened, but the basic sugar/fat/protein vitamin/mineral ratios are the same).
post #30 of 111
I have no doubts that the fetus gets everything it needs before the mother. This explains whys ome people suffer from hyeperemisis (like myself), lose lots of weight during their pregnancies, and birth healthy babies (8lbs, 9 ozs) in my case.

I am nursing during pregnancy and suffering from hyperemisis, and the fetus is fine.
post #31 of 111
Well, now I know that I won't accept any "research" from Weston Price:

Quote:
Formula manufacturers are quick to use the lackluster performance of breastfed children as proof that formula is "just as good" as breast milk. Breastfeeding advocates retort that the studies were designed to give results that benefit the formula makers. Our interpretation is the following: the diet of modern American women is so appalling, and their preparation for successful breastfeeding so lacking, that their breast milk provides no better nourishment for their infants than factory-made formula.
post #32 of 111
I'm still not seeing this "research."

I saw some anecdotal stories. Some conclusions drawn. Can you point a bit more specficially to the research pertaining to bmilk quality while pregnant?
post #33 of 111
Quote:
Formula manufacturers are quick to use the lackluster performance of breastfed children as proof that formula is "just as good" as breast milk. Breastfeeding advocates retort that the studies were designed to give results that benefit the formula makers. Our interpretation is the following: the diet of modern American women is so appalling, and their preparation for successful breastfeeding so lacking, that their breast milk provides no better nourishment for their infants than factory-made formula.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the ridiculousness of this quotation.
post #34 of 111
All the "research" aside, my own last two babies, both of whom were in utero while nursing an older sibling, were 8' 15' and 9 lbs even respectively. I do not think that they were in any way shortchanged by my decision to nurse through pregnancy. In addition, this is my 2nd time tandem nursing, and if anything, my supply is greater with two little nurslings.

Perhaps this anecdotal "evidence" will reassure you slightly about the benefits (and risks) of nursing through pregnancy.
post #35 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyboys
All the "research" aside, my own last two babies, both of whom were in utero while nursing an older sibling, were 8' 15' and 9 lbs even respectively. I do not think that they were in any way shortchanged by my decision to nurse through pregnancy. In addition, this is my 2nd time tandem nursing, and if anything, my supply is greater with two little nurslings.

Perhaps this anecdotal "evidence" will reassure you slightly about the benefits (and risks) of nursing through pregnancy.
Excellent point.

DD was 7lb 14oz at birth.
I nursed her through my pg w/DS (at the beginning she was getting well over 75% of her calories from bmilk, at the end she was still nursing 3-8X in 24 hours).
DS was 8lb 2oz at birth.
post #36 of 111
Thread Starter 
I'm pretty sure I posted this already, but here it is again...note the studies.
www.westonaprice.org/children/breastfeed.html#1

This is anecdotal (sp?) evidence, but if you search the nutrition forum for a thread, I think it is called "what parts of NT do you disagree with", a couple of women posted on it about how their poor diets affected their breast-fed babies.

Also, some of you are confusing "big" with "healthy". Just because a newborn is big doesn't necessarily mean they are healthy (not saying your babies aren't healthy, just that your reasoning is incorrect). Babies born to mothers who have gestational diabetes are usually big but are also more prone to problems. I haven't done any research on it, but I bet if you study hyperemesis (or whatever it is called, not sure of the exact name) you will find that those pregnancies are more prone to various problems like pre-eclampsia, pre-term labor, etc...obviously it is not going to happen in every or maybe even in most cases, but I would bet that the risks are increased for both mother and baby.
post #37 of 111
Actually, they have studied hyperemeisis. Extensively. Look at motherrisk.org for example.

And they found that morning sickness and hyperemisis actually have a high correlation with very healthy pregnancies- less likely to miscarry, have preterm labour, have pre-e, etc etc.

It is your body and your decision when to wean, when to get pregnant, etc, but your studies and your evidence is flat out wrong.
post #38 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna
I would not wean a baby before 2 years. Everything I've read says that humans NEED milk for at least 2 years. Why would I take that away and replace it with a truly substandard replacement? It is not ethically acceptable in my book to short change the first child for the second.
post #39 of 111
I remember friend's moms and DP's mom saying to me when I was pregnant "Oh! I breastfed this chil for 4-5 months!" As if they'd done it forever and so I thought it was so long to breastfeed to 4-5 months and it was hard for me to picture a 4-5 month baby breastfeeding.I thought 'Well, I'll def go to 4-5 motnhs...wont I?'. And then DS was born and turned 4 months, 5 months and I was like 'He is SO small and SO young! How could he NOT be breastfeeding!?"
Before I had my DS I was like "6 mons definately, and if he makes it to one year, then that'll be great" Then he was born and I was like "Ok- definately to one year and if he makes it to two"
And then...I stopped thinking about and decided that even though I may think it'll be odd breasfeeding this big honkin 3 or 4 year old, it wont be when and if that time comes. I think now that as long as he's doing it, I'll feel it's natural and easy.
I've decided to follow his lead...but that's just me.
I guess my point is, it's hard to picture yourself breastfeeding past a certain age(or at all even!), maybe b/c you're like I was and hadn't seen many womyn breastfeeding an infant let alone a toddler or maybe b/c of how society makes breastfeeding taboo, but when it happens and you're doing it...you can't imagine it any other way.
Your perception of it changes when you're actually doing it, YKWIM?
post #40 of 111
About the Weston Price foundation linked to earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation
To summarize, he is a dentist on the fringe who claims there are profound nutritional benefits in butter and raw milk and meat.... and to stay away from 'fad diets' and soy.

The website strongly criticizes "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding" for their nutritional advice. I didn't read more than that.

I would be wary of getting all my info from one or two 'fringe' sites.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breastfeeding
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › trying to decide how long to breast feed