Breastfeeding Debate

the black fox said:
what a load of waffle ,the thread is supposed to be about whether the photos are acceptable ,all i can say is that in the u.k you could find that it leads to problems if you ever have your computer serviced etc due to our draconian laws
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone in the uk would have any problems regarding images of nursing infants on their hard drive, but hey anythings possible with the coalition :lol:

Oh by the way, in case you hadn't noticed, there are no images in this thread :thumbs:

Steve
 
the black fox said:
what a load of waffle ,the thread is supposed to be about whether the photos are acceptable ,all i can say is that in the u.k you could find that it leads to problems if you ever have your computer serviced etc due to our draconian laws
Click to expand...

Which draconian laws are you referring to?
 
akr said:
Your entire post stole the words right out of my mouth ;) Thanks that was interesting.

There are some crazy people out there! As I said to Nat in my first post in this thread - do what you want, or can. Should you (hopefully) have a child in the future, you will be inundated with an unending list of things you cannot eat \ do \ drink and then post birth another lengthy set of 'must be's for your child.

For me, as long as a child is fed healthily and more importantly has love and attention and is happy, that is the most important thing. We are expecting our second child in January, and I would have no concerns about using formula - I expect we will mix and match this time around, but in hindsight I wish we had used formula with our first as my wife had some issues with the breastfeeding, which led to him becoming habituated to wanting a feed every 1.5 hours - not fun for 6 months!

I take a lot of surveys with a pinch of salt - in the instance of breast milk v formula there are so many external factors that I don't worry about it, and I don't think you should either.

Good luck :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thank you - I totally agree and appreciate the luck!
 
I breastfed all four of my children most self weaned at around 1 year old however my fourth child would not drink ANYTHING apart from breat milk until she was gone 2 and tbh would still be bf if i hadn't gone away for a long weekend when she was 26months old even now at 7 she asks for boobie even though she hasnt had it since 2 !!!! she was just not ready to give I however was more than ready .
I do not agree with feeding school age children and would be uncomfortable watching a four year old be fed .. but that is my opinion
 
big soft moose said:
Being breastfed as a baby - definitely

Continuing being breast fed as a toddler - not really (only when an other healthy and nutrious food source isnt readily available - as with the WHO advice aimed at developing countries)
Click to expand...

this is the mistake many mothers make ie they take the advice to "breastfeed exclusively to 6 months and then start adding solids to the childs diet" to mean "exclusively breastfeed to 6 months then change to solid diet" :|:(:(
 
s162216 said:
I am entirely neutral on this debate, but in case anyone is interested, the actual 'antibody' part of breastfeeding (and indeed the maternal antibodies as well) is not quite as clear cut as might be thought.

Only the IgG type immunoglobulins (antibodies) can be transferred across the placenta to the developing baby (because only they can be bound to the transporter molecules), and after birth the baby will have a serum level similar to that of an adult.

IgG does the majority of antibody activity in the body (and is therefore the most common), and the maternal IgG level in the babies serum declines as it becomes more diluted (in the growing baby) as well as being catabolised. As you can see in the graph below, the level is practically zero within 4 - 6 months, but from birth the baby will almost immediately begin to produce its own IgG to compensate although at about 4 - 6 months the total serum level of IgG is very low which leaves the baby at its greatest risk of illness and infection.

Scan1_small.jpg

(Figure 11.12, page 441, Janeway's Immunobiology (5th Edition, 2001), Churchill Livingstone)

It has been said above that the antibodies in breast milk compensate for this. Unfortunately that not quite true as breast milk mainly contains IgA (~90%) and only small amounts of IgG (See Lönnerdal (2003) http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/77/6/1537S.long#sec-15). The IgA is mainly that of the secretory type (sIgA - not shown on the above graph) which does not enter the serum so although the gastrointestinal tract and mouth area of the baby have a good degree of protection, the rest of the body unfortunately does not so there is still a large risk of illness and infection as the IgG is still low, whether breast fed or not. IgM (which provides non-specific protection during the primary immune response) does rise quite rapidly from birth, but its role is quite small as it lacks the ability to do too much against infection.

I'm not pretending to be an expert on this (I did quite a lot of immunology as part of my pharmacology degree) but if anyone does not quite understand anything I said above then I'll try and explain it a bit simpler.
Click to expand...

Hmm but IgA doesn't simply just protect the mouth and gut from bugs that simply. Breast milk will also help line the gut protecting it and stopping the baby developing a "leaky gut" thereby reducing the risk of allergy and other sensitivities in later life as well as reducing the likelihood of bugs going through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream etc.

Plus all that doesn't even cover the broncho - enteromammary pathway where a mother breastfeeding her child is exposed to a bug the baby has been exposed to, she then produces antibodies in her gut which are then transferred to the breastmilk and hence to the baby during feeding. :thumbs:
 
Donnie said:
Hmm but IgA doesn't simply just protect the mouth and gut from bugs that simply. Breast milk will also help line the gut protecting it and stopping the baby developing a "leaky gut" thereby reducing the risk of allergy and other sensitivities in later life as well as reducing the likelihood of bugs going through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream etc.

Plus all that doesn't even cover the broncho - enteromammary pathway where a mother breastfeeding her child is exposed to a bug the baby has been exposed to, she then produces antibodies in her gut which are then transferred to the breastmilk and hence to the baby during feeding. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I did massively simplify my reply to make it accessible for those who are not familiar with immunology, the main point that I was making was that the immune system benefits of breastfeeding are not as clear cut as it may appear in lay language, where it simply 'tops up' the immunoglobulins of the immune system. This is because its IgG that declines in the baby, and breastmilk mainly gives sIgA so the baby is still technically immunodeficient in IgG during the time period of ~4 - 12 months.

Whilst the 'broncho-enteromammary pathway' may help give add additional 'protection', once again it is only sIgA that is transferred so the baby is still vulnerable to infections in parts of the body which are associated with IgG rather than IgA and thats most of the body!
 
True but the point Im trying to make is that without breastmilk giving this added protection in this vulnerable period the baby is at a hell of a lot more risk due to an even weaker immune system.
 
s162216 said:
I did massively simplify my reply to make it accessible for those who are not familiar with immunology, the main point that I was making was that the immune system benefits of breastfeeding are not as clear cut as it may appear in lay language, where it simply 'tops up' the immunoglobulins of the immune system. This is because its IgG that declines in the baby, and breastmilk mainly gives sIgA so the baby is still technically immunodeficient in IgG during the time period of ~4 - 12 months. Whilst the 'broncho-enteromammary pathway' may help give add additional 'protection', once again it is only sIgA that is transferred so the baby is still vulnerable to infections in parts of the body which are associated with IgG rather than IgA and thats most of the body!
Click to expand...


I ****ing love science arguments lol
 
Its discreet not discrete btw. Just sayin' like.

discrete
1.
individually separate and distinct.

discreet
1.
careful and prudent in one's speech or actions

I'll get me coat.
 
Donnie said:
this is the mistake many mothers make ie they take the advice to "breastfeed exclusively to 6 months and then start adding solids to the childs diet" to mean "exclusively breastfeed to 6 months then change to solid diet" :|:(:(
Click to expand...

But it does mean to change, the idea is to add solids and make a gradual transition
 
No it doesn't, WHO's advice as well as unicefs is that you shouldn't give any child any solids until 6 months old.

After 6 months you can add foodstuffs to their current diet of breastfeeding, it does not mean you change from breastfeeding to a solid diet it means you add.
 
Donnie said:
No it doesn't, WHO's advice as well as unicefs is that you shouldn't give any child any solids until 6 months old. After 6 months you can add foodstuffs to their current diet of breastfeeding, it does not mean you change from breastfeeding to a solid diet it means you add.
Click to expand...

It's kind of semantics, I'm sure you're both singing from the same page. But if I hadn't given my daughter solids before she was 6 months she would of been very hungry. Same with all of my friends
 
Donnie said:
No it doesn't, WHO's advice as well as unicefs is that you shouldn't give any child any solids until 6 months old.

After 6 months you can add foodstuffs to their current diet of breastfeeding, it does not mean you change from breastfeeding to a solid diet it means you add.
Click to expand...

But both Who and Unicef are targetting their advice at developing countries where a nutrious and balanced alternative to breast milk isnt necessarily readily available.

In a first world country like the UK this isnt the case , and you can sensibly change from breast milk to solid food after 6 months, although that change should be gradual not overnight (hence the term weaning)
 
boyfalldown said:
It's kind of semantics, I'm sure you're both singing from the same page. But if I hadn't given my daughter solids before she was 6 months she would of been very hungry. Same with all of my friends
Click to expand...

Why would she have been hungry if she was getting enough breastmilk?
 
big soft moose said:
But both Who and Unicef are targetting their advice at developing countries where a nutrious and balanced alternative to breast milk isnt necessarily readily available. In a first world country like the UK this isnt the case , and you can sensibly change from breast milk to solid food after 6 months, although that change should be gradual not overnight (hence the term weaning)
Click to expand...
No they are not. People seem to have this notion that WHO and UNICEF are charities that only look at starving kids in Africa or something and then people equate issues like breast feeding with poverty :(

Plus again we're not talking about replacing breast milk with solids at six months were talking about adding solids alongside the breast feeding.
 
Last edited:
Donnie said:
Why would she have been hungry if she was getting enough breastmilk?
Click to expand...
Cause she was ready to wean. Simples.

Actually your comment suggests you have no experience of this? And you don't quite get the concept of a guideline.
 
Last edited:
I have no opinion on the appropriate time to stop breast feeding, I would be miffed if another parent tried to force feed me their opinion about it so I say the individual parents will know when the time is right.

I will say this though...babies and boobies....what's not to like? lol
 
Donnie said:
No they are not.
Click to expand...

yes they are - but we may as well agree to differ on that point

( I accept that unicefs "baby friendly" project works in the uk - but that is about standards of care and among other things encouraging breast feeding initially, I've just read through it and I don't see anything that suggests continuing to breast feed after infant hood)

If you look at unicefs where do we work page , it clearly says that the main focus of their work is in third world countries and that the majority of unicef uk s work is fundraising focussed to support the overseas project. the principal areas of work being Syria, west Africa, east Africa, Haiti, south sudan, and pakistan

Donnie said:
Plus again we're not talking about replacing breast milk with solids at six months were talking about adding solids alongside the breast feeding.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and then over the next 6 months or so you increase the amount of solids and decrease the breast milk until the baby is weaned. (the WHO guidance suggests that this weaning process should complete at between 12 and 24 months depending on what other foods are available)

There is no real justification for not starting weaning after 6 months unless a healthy and nutritious food source is not otherwise available
 
Last edited:
You really can't put a blanket cover on things.
My daughter was on solids at 6 weeks as she was always hungry almost continuously feeding, on the doctor and midwife's advice we started on baby cereal/rice and she was far more content, sleeping through the night shortly after, but still demanding regular feeds.
She is now a healthy adult with no adverse effects from her lack of breast milk.
 
Gremlin said:
You really can't put a blanket cover on things.
My daughter was on solids at 6 weeks as she was always hungry almost continuously feeding, on the doctor and midwife's advice we started on baby cereal/rice and she was far more content, sleeping through the night shortly after, but still demanding regular feeds.
She is now a healthy adult with no adverse effects from her lack of breast milk.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

This is exactly the point, people take what WHO and the such say as gospel and heaven forbid if anyone doesn't do what they say to the letter or feed their babies by breast. As I said earlier my wife hated breastfeeding and just didn't get on with it. with my eldest 2 she was made to feel guilty that she didn't want to breastfeed and almost forced into it. while we had a superb midwife and health visitor with our youngest who was very much, "If you don't like it, don't do it."
None of my children have suffered because they weren't breastfeed.
 
[QUOTE="Gremlin;5898120" ] she She is now a healthy adult with no adverse effects from her lack of breast milk.[/QUOTE]

that you know of lol
 
boyfalldown said:
Cause she was ready to wean. Simples.

Actually your comment suggests you have no experience of this? And you don't quite get the concept of a guideline.
Click to expand...

No need to make this personal :shrug:

The point I was making is that a child getting enough breastmilk doesn't suddenly start being hungry and needing solids.

Again I think people are missing the point ie the advantages of carrying on breastfeeding even when moving a child onto solids, again, adding to the diet not replacing it :shrug:

Experience wise? Plenty.

Guidelines, certainly do, have written many in my day as a union steward and torn others apart that were so poorly written by management they were illegal, some policies too.
 
big soft moose said:
There is no real justification for not starting weaning after 6 months unless a healthy and nutritious food source is not otherwise available
Click to expand...

I never said there was but again you make the assumption the only reason to carry on after 6 months is poverty :(
 
Donnie said:
No need to make this personal :shrug:

The point I was making is that a child getting enough breastmilk doesn't suddenly start being hungry and needing solids.
Click to expand...

that wasn't personal. Your point was wrong, simples.When a child is ready to wean they will become hungry, regardless of how much milk you feed them.

Donnie said:
Again I think people are missing the point ie the advantages of carrying on breastfeeding even when moving a child onto solids, again, adding to the diet not replacing it :shrug:
Click to expand...

Nope - Didn't miss that.



Donnie said:
Experience wise? Plenty.

Guidelines, certainly do, have written many in my day as a union steward and torn others apart that were so poorly written by management they were illegal, some policies too.
Click to expand...

Then I'm confused as to how you seem to miss they are for guidance. Not a rigid set of instructions to follow.I've yet to see a management guideline for looking after children either
 
Last edited:
Donnie said:
I never said there was but again you make the assumption the only reason to carry on after 6 months is poverty :(
Click to expand...

no - I didn't say that , I said the only legitimate reason not to start weaning at around 6 months was poverty (or anything else that causes their to be a shortage of healthy and nutritious solid food) - feeding would continue (with decreasing frequency) through the weaning process to 12-24 months, (which actually tracks with what the WHO advise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top