Originally Posted by silvercloud3
Lots of different opinions going around ....nice to read everyons thoughts....from my research, lactating produces natural stem cells that protects a woman's breast and uterus from cancer.....stopping or never lactating makes those natural stems cells attack the bodies breast tissue and as a result the woman's own stem cells attack her breasts and cause or produce tumors....if a woman always lacatates ( even the smallest amount of milk ) her own natural stem cells will always protect her from cancer...I have researched this for years and as we all know Dr's have always harvested stem cells from ones family members ( via bone marrow ) to treat and usually cure cancer ....California Medical Reseach Centers have been using breast milk stem cells to cure prostate cancer in men ( also they currently testing the affects on Alzheimer's, Parkinson and many other diseases we currently have no cure for .......old folks with cancer are given the opportunity to breast feed from paid wet nurses to help with their cancer when they can no longer feed by eating solid foods...all due respect to everyone's own opinion but ground breaking steps are made every year showing the benefits of the alpha lactibunim , stem cells, and lactibillium ( SP ) in breast milk as the natural cure to many health ailments....as long as a woman fully lactates her breasts will remain full and rounded and look great ....and she can harvest her milk for other family members ... DOC T
Silvercloud, you come on every now and then singing the praises of stem cells, and I love your enthusiasm, but I would really, really love a link to the research you're reading, because my understanding of the science does not match yours. Stem cells are fantastic, but stem cell transplants from family members usually involve stem cells harvested from infants, and are frequently unsuccessful. I cannot imagine a medical facility of any kind setting up an opportunity for adult patients to breast feed - breast milk is extremely carefully screened when it's banked for feeding to preemies, and the milk banked supply usually does not meet the needs of all the premature infants who could benefit from it. There is no way that an ethical doctor would divert that resource from premature infants to geriatric cancer patients.
My breasts did not remain full and rounded and great looking throughout the years I breast fed. Sometimes they were so badly engorged I could barely move my arms, sometimes they were flat and soft and floppy. Sometimes I went from A to B over the course of a few hours. If full and rounded and great-looking is important to you, there are plenty of bras on the market that will assure you look that way no matter what.
My understanding of the research on lactation and breast cancer is that it takes a comparatively large amount of breast feeding to achieve a fairly small reduction in risk. I don't want to trivialize the agonies of breast cancer, but my decisions about breastfeeding were not made by thinking through all the probabilities about things that might come to pass over the course of my life, they were made by evaluating the circumstances actually in existence, and considering how best to get through each day. I suspect a lot of people work like that. It's hard to say what, if any, protective effect lactating had for me. I started making milk two days after my son was born, and stopped five years and change later, when I had a single mastectomy due to an aggressive breast cancer.
I feel very differently about breast retention then I ever thought I would. I agree with those who have pointed out the problem with describing a woman's breasts as "ruined" simply because they aren't immune to the effects of time and gravity. Forty year-old bodies do not look like twenty year-old bodies, no matter whether or not we have children, no matter how we feed those children, and also no matter how carefully we diet, how much we spend on surgery, or how diligently we work out. Time is always going to leave a mark.