What if all public places had a 'nursing room?'

[DiscoDiva]

I didn't want to post this in the breastfeeding in public thread, since it seems that thread is slowly dying and I don't want to be the one to revive it. So, here's my question to nursing moms:

What if all public places had a nursing room? It would be comfortable with nice couches, rocking chairs, etc. It would be carpeted with nice decor and maybe music playing. There would be some areas for your other kids to play, and dads would be welcome. There would be some tables and chairs so you would be welcome to eat in there if you wished. So, if you had to nurse, say at the mall, you could go to this very nice, well-furnished room (that is kept very clean). Would you use it? Or, would you still prefer to nurse in the 'public' area?

Now remember, this is my imaginary nursing room, so let's not get into the debate that it will never happen, etc. ;)

[MLA]

Hell, I'm not even a mom, but the way you describe the room, I'd like to hang out there. ;)

[Marisa]

Yes, that would be very nice. There are at least two malls in the area that have some version of a "family room" like what you describe -- chairs, a changing area, a tv, two areas with curtains for real privacy....

As long as it's not "compulsory", of course. ;)

My only hesitation would be -- what if you're at the opposite end of the mall, and baby starts squalling? My own personal impulse would be to plop down on the nearest bench, not truck it at top speed a half mile to get to the designated area, KWIM?

Nursing room = crying baby for potentially several minutes or more.... nursing wherever = crying baby for 30 seconds or less. :)

[BTB]

If it truly is all you say - CLEAN and comfortably furnished are my two biggies, that nursing rooms rarely are - I'd love it. :) I've never seen such a thing though, not even remotely close, but a gal can dream.

[tlew12778]

Nordstrom's has them. Well at least the one near my parents' house. It's called the Mothers Lounge I think and it's really nice.

[December27JJB]

It depends. If I am at a baseball game, no. Because I paid all the $$$$$ to be there. If I am at a mall, maybe. There is actually 1 nice nursing room at my local mall BUT men aren't allowed in there. If DH was at the mall with me, I wouldnt want to make him wait outside the room. If I were at the mall alone with DD and I was tired and needed to sit down, sure.

[kanga1622]

ITA with Marisa. They have one at a local mall here but only near the food court. If I was on the other side of the mall with my hypothetical breastfeeding child, I'd just find anywhere that I felt comfortable feeding.

[diedra1027]

I'd use it, but I'd still have to nurse in the 'public' areas too.

My baby gets easily overstimulated out in public and wants to nurse for comfort. I could spend two hours nursing her in that lovely room, but after 15-20 minutes she'd be squalling again no matter what. I would never leave the house or get anything done if I couldn't nurse wherever I happen to be at the time.

[sparkle&shine]

I would probably use it if it were convenient only because my DS likes to look at everything and can get easily distracted while eating. I wouldn't go out of my way to find it though. Plus I would hate for something to happen where they tried to make that room the ONLY place one could BF their child.

I have used the 'mothers lounge' in Nordstrom and it was very nice and clean. However the one at Babies R Us was just nasty and I will never go in one again - I would rather plop down on one of the gliders that they have out!

[bamboo]

Probably not. There's the convenience factor of being able to breastfeed wherever I am. In addition though, I believe it's important for NIP to become less of a big deal, so nursing moms won't feel ashamed, and if my NIP can help contribute to that I'm happy to do that.

One of the common themes among women who choose not to breastfeed or who wean earlier than the recommended year is that they feel uncomfortable doing it in public, so they wind up feeling isolated and house-bound. I work in the field of breastfeeding promotion, so I see how the social stigma about NIP affects pregnant women and new moms, and I think it's important to change that. One way to do that is for experienced nursing moms to NIP casually, as the regular activity that it is. Not making a spectacle, but not going off to some nursing room, even a lovely clean one. If it's there, that's fine, but for *me*, using it would be equivalent to acknowledging that NIP isn't socially acceptable and I'm not willing to do that.

[wendalah]

If given the choice between sitting down in the food court on a wire chair with a bunch of teenagers screaming on their cell phones about how cute Dashiell is at the table next to me, and a guy stuffing pizza into his mouth on the other side of me--or doing it outside where I have to sniff car fumes and cigarette smoke--or sitting in a quiet room with a comfortable couch...well, I don't have a baby yet, so I don't know, but I'm willing to bet the quiet room will win.

[IrishMeg]

Bamboo said it much better than I could. I totally agree with her. I don't believe it is something to be sent away to a private room to do.

[SiValleySteph]

No, I would probably not use it in most cases. :)

I have used the lounge in Nordstroms on multiple occasions, however, mostly when my baby was very young and nursing sessions would take longer. Then a comfy chair was more appreciated. Now I would absolutely resent having to leave what I am doing to feed my baby.


Probably not. There's the convenience factor of being able to breastfeed wherever I am. In addition though, I believe it's important for NIP to become less of a big deal, so nursing moms won't feel ashamed, and if my NIP can help contribute to that I'm happy to do that.

100% in agreement with this!

[IrisHope]

I would use it but not exclusively. ONly if I wanted a quiet place.

[IrisHope]

Wend, if the situation was how you described I'd be in the room too!

[BTB]

Nordstrom's has them. Well at least the one near my parents' house. It's called the Mothers Lounge I think and it's really nice.

Well that just isn't right - only if you have the dough to shop at Nordstrom's do you get the cushy room?

I get what y'all are saying about reducing the stigma, etc., but I personally don't like NIP. DD is not a good eater in any position but the football hold, with a couple pillows thrown in. If I could "football" her in the theoretical comfy room vs. try to cradle or cross-cradle and only half-succeed out in the mall, I'd pick the room and she'd have a much better chance of actually getting her full feeding.

It would be a restriction of nursing mom's rights to make them use such a room, especially in my fabulous state, and I'd hate to see that happen. If it's optional, though, I think it's great.

[Marisa]

only if you have the dough to shop at Nordstrom's do you get the cushy room?

Window shopping counts too. :D

Just make sure you shop at a mall nice enough to have a Nordstrom's, I guess, and hightail it over there from the JC Penney end of the mall. :D

[BTB]

Just make sure you shop at a mall nice enough to have a Nordstrom's,

Not kidding - I don't even know where the nearest Nordstrom's IS! :D Oops, my pocketbook's showing. ;)

I have a new goal now for when I a) go back to work and b) get all my loans paid off - go in search of this mysterious "Nordstrom's" of which you all speak. :)

[Marisa]

Come visit us in Jersey! Twelve malls, within 30 minutes of my house! I think at least five of them must have a Nordstroms. :)

[lawyerlee]

I think more of the private rooms like Nordstrom has would be wonderful. Even if I wasn't BF, I'd take my baby there for a bottle, when possible, because it would obviously be preferable to the alternatives.

[Delta]

On one hand I like the idea for practical purposes. I myself am getting uncomfortable nursing my wriggly 25-pound 18-month old in public so it would be nice to have a place like that to go to for my own comfort.

However, on the other hand I don't like the idea of them if it is a place to which the owner of the establishment can banish nursing moms. I know that back when my son was a newborn he nursed every 1-2 hours for at least 20-30 minutes at a time. NIPping was something I just could never get around and if I was banished to a back room every time I had to do it then I might as well have stayed home. :(

[DiscoDiva]

Notice in my original post that I said, "So, if you had to nurse, say at the mall, you could go to this very nice, well-furnished room (that is kept very clean). Would you use it? Or, would you still prefer to nurse in the 'public' area?"

So, nobody would be "sent away" to the nursing room, nor would anyone be "banished," nor would it be "compulsory." It would be entirely up to you whether or not to use it. I wonder why it is that *some* of you have used those words, or expressed similar feelings (about being forced to use the room) even when such a tone was clearly not part of the original post?

Honestly, I'm going to ask a question here, and I'm not trying to attack anyone or put any words in your mouths. I just want to know how you all really feel, so I can understand your position better. Do many nursing moms feel defensive about NIP and feel as if they have to justify their position on nursing?

[Delta]

So, nobody would be "sent away" to the nursing room, nor would anyone be "banished," nor would it be "compulsory."
Well, in your hypothetical that would be the case, but in real life it is inevitable that some places would ask mothers to move. It goes on all the time now, under the guise that it is for the mother's comfort, when really it is usually because others are uncomfortable. And again, it is understandable that some may be uncomfortable, but they does not mean they have the right to ask the mom to move. (Some truly are concerned about the mother's comfort...others not so much.)


Do many nursing moms feel defensive about NIP and feel as if they have to justify their position on nursing?
All the freaking time when we read/see/hear things like the original post in the thread that spawned this one. I've actually gotten better about letting ignorance like that roll off my back though. I've learned it is their own problem. And when I was a new nursing mother I was very paranoid about someone confronting me, but now that it has happened a few times, it's no big deal and I just smile and tell them I am fine where I am.

[BTB]

So, nobody would be "sent away" to the nursing room, nor would anyone be "banished," nor would it be "compulsory." It would be entirely up to you whether or not to use it. I wonder why it is that *some* of you have used those words, or expressed similar feelings (about being forced to use the room) even when such a tone was clearly not part of the original post?

Because IRL, even if nursing rooms started as something to "offer" nursing moms, without requiring - once it's there, moms who don't use it face criticism.


Do many nursing moms feel defensive about NIP and feel as if they have to justify their position on nursing?

Absolutely. I have to justify nursing my daughter on a regular basis, criticism for NIP is just one more layer on top of that.

[DiscoDiva]

So basically, if you're a nursing mom, nothing you do will make everyone happy, and unless you're in your own home, anywhere you nurse will make people complain? Odd, it reminds me of being childfree by choice. There is nothing I can do or say to make everyone happy, as so many people seem to want to convince me that I'm wrong.

For the moms here who do NIP, have all of you personally heard at least one comment to your face while NIP? Or, have you just heard about it through friends or others. I mean, does every single mom who NIP hear a comment at one point? (not including looks, I'm asking about actual comments to your face)

[DiscoDiva]

I have to justify nursing my daughter on a regular basis, criticism for NIP is just one more layer on top of that.
To whom do you have to justify your nursing? And, who specifically criticizes you for NIP? Is it family and friends, strangers, or just something you are prepared to deal with in the future?

[Jaycee]

Sure I'd use it. Just as when I'm at the airport and have the option of sitting in the USAir club lounge rather than in the regular terminal. Heck I'm all about the comfort and cleanliness factor. Breastfeeding is such a personal choice, and I'm not about to be the mom who has to NIP just to prove a point to others. I'm going to go with cleanliness, convienience, and comfort above all else. Life is hard enough.

[Toonces]

For the moms here who do NIP, have all of you personally heard at least one comment to your face while NIP? Or, have you just heard about it through friends or others. I mean, does every single mom who NIP hear a comment at one point? (not including looks, I'm asking about actual comments to your face)

No one has ever made a comment to me. Most of the time I NIP I'm either with a friend or DH. I wonder if someone else being right there stops ppl from making comments, or if they don't even notice that I'm NIP, or if they don't care or they do support it. I live in IL and our Gov, spurred I'm sure by his very pro BF'ing wife, is a huge supporter of BF'ing. He passed a law making it legal to NIP and exempting nursing moms from jury duty. People might have heard about it being legal on the news and don't even bother.

When DD was younger, I'd nurse anywhere and wouldn't bother trying to find a nursing lounge. Now that she's older, I think I'd rather find a nursing lounge. So if all public places had them, then yes I'd seek them out and nurse in private. She's very squiggly these days and likes to pull off and look around, which exposes my entire breast and I'm not comfortable with that in public. :)

I'm going to BF my DD for as long as possible. We're going to TTC #2 early next year and if DD will continue nursing, then I'll attempt tandem BF'ing after #2 is born. So I'm anticipating more comments about length of time/age of child than NIP.

[Delta]

For the moms here who do NIP, have all of you personally heard at least one comment to your face while NIP? Or, have you just heard about it through friends or others. I mean, does every single mom who NIP hear a comment at one point? (not including looks, I'm asking about actual comments to your face)
I've been asked by a receptionist to move into a restroom in a hotel lobby (I politely declined and kept nursing where I was, as 'discreetly' as I could be and that does not mean I used a blanket) and I've had a flight attendent offer me a blanket twice to cover up with and was clearly peeved when I declined both times. My husband has also overheard people discussing my doing 'that' in public, but they never actually approached me personally.

One time my own sister told me to go to the bathroom when were at a restaurant! Oh, boy. Let me tell you I let her have it. :eek: She actually *was* concerned about my comfort but once I explained to her that I was totally fine where I was and I didn't think sitting on a toilet in a public restroom while feeding my child was a better alternative, she got it. She had just never thought about it before. ;)

I do have to say that I *definitely* hear more positive comments than negative ones though! But all it takes is one negative comment or look for a hesitant NIPper to stop, and then possibly stop nursing altogether. Research has shown that the fear of negative perceptions and reactions when nursing in public is a major deterrent to women continuing to nurse for the recommended 1 year+.

A person who says they support breastfeeding, just not in public, does not truly support it.

[wendalah]

My husband has also overheard people discussing my doing 'that' in public, but they never actually approached me personally.


Just a comment: I have been known to discuss people's various actions behind their backs, as well as their outfits. We're going a bit far if expecting that everyone should keep their opinions inside their heads.

[IrishMeg]

Delta, I think you summed it up quite nicely.


A person who says they support breastfeeding, just not in public, does not truly support it.

[Delta]

I am not saying that they should keep their opinions inside their heads, Wendy. Where did I say that? I am simply relating my own experiences about people's reactions to my nursing.

I've already said in this thread that people can have their own opinions about NIP, what bothers me is when they expect the mothers to cater to their own hang-ups.

(FTR, however, I also talk about people I see and/or the things they do in public, but I make sure to do my best to keep it out of earshot of the people they are with. )


******


ETA - Thanks Meg. Of course, people are going to come back to that and say, "BUT I DON'T CARE IF THEY DO IT IN PUBLIC, JUST BE DISCREET." And then I proceed to do this -- http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif

;)

[wendalah]

There were arguments about eye-adversion in the other thread; I just am looking for the one-step-deeper note to debate here. ;)

ETA make that aversion.

[wendalah]

BTW all these threads have made me decide I don't even want to have a kid. I'm befuddled by the things that set people off in re: mothering and have come to the conclusion I'm probably better just having dogs. ;)

[diedra1027]

For the moms here who do NIP, have all of you personally heard at least one comment to your face while NIP? Or, have you just heard about it through friends or others. I mean, does every single mom who NIP hear a comment at one point?

I have never been confronted. I live in a pretty 'crunchy' city and I actually don't expect to ever hear comments (several people have asked me point blank if I'm BF-ing though!).

[Spellbound]

Although I'm not a mom yet but have many friends who are about to be or are nursing, I'm not too into the nursing room idea. The first thing that came to mind was eww, public bathrooms have a hard enough time being kept sanitary as is! The next thing I thought of was I don't think a business should be responsible for the financing a whole new space that won't be fully utilized. Sorry DiscoDiva, I'm bad! That's the whole other can of worms you didn't want answered but I couldn't help saying that first since those were my first initial thoughts.

Back to your original question however, I'd only use your imaginary nursing room if a friend asked me to tag along with them and was truly uncomfortable with NIP. For myself, I don't think I'd use it unless I felt I *had* to due to wanting to be isolated in a quiet area and kicking my feet up.

[BTB]

For the moms here who do NIP, have all of you personally heard at least one comment to your face while NIP?

I have only NIPd a couple times, due to my own shyness, and yes, although I live in a state where the NIP laws are awesome, I've already heard comments. I've also been asked (in BRU, of all places) to use their mother's room. So why don't I just use it? I've shared this story before... the fast version:

BRU's mother's room also has it's baby changing tables. It is not kept even remotely clean - there often is visible poo smeared on the Diaper Champs, the floor, etc. One mom snapped at her sister when sister put the baby - standing up, only his shoe-clad feet touching it - onto the changing table: "get him off that, it's filthy!" She then proceeded to change his diaper on the couch meant for nursing moms (I was in one of the chairs) and got poop all over it. She made a half-hearted attempt to clean it up. This was the first time I ever NIPd, except it wasn't really in public, because it was in the 'mother's room'.


To whom do you have to justify your nursing?

Anyone nosy enough to think I care what they think - which, sadly, includes my mother (who as an RN should know better), DH's family, a few friends, but mostly random acquaintances. When personal questions like "are you nursing" became polite conversation, I don't know. But no one ever asks just for information's sake, there's always a "right answer" to them.

[SiValleySteph]

Breastfeeding is such a personal choice, and I'm not about to be the mom who has to NIP just to prove a point to others. I'm going to go with cleanliness, convienience, and comfort above all else. Life is hard enough.

I'm all about convienience and comfort also, which is why I never go to nursing rooms. :)

Also, I'm not sure the chairs in nursing rooms are really any cleaner than the chairs every else and my son doesn't have his mouth on anything but the breast, so that's not a big factor in my decision making.

I'm glad that some places provide nursing rooms for those who prefer them, but they haven't been that useful to me.

***

I've been breastfeeding and NIP for over 10 months and I haven't gotten any comments. I, too, live in a "crunchy" area, so I would be surprised to hear any negativity. Maybe if my son was "asking" for it. ;) And, honestly, I'm pretty discreet, even if I don't use a blanket.

[Jaycee]

I'm all about convienience and comfort also, which is why I never go to nursing rooms. :)
I was reffering to the nursing room that DD descibed in the original post :) What I'm saying is, I'm opting for the cleanest, and most appealing place and I don't care if it's a nursing room or the middle of a courtroom, I'm going there, but if it happened to be the "nursing room" than thats fine with me, I don't have to NIP just because I can and need to stand up fo a cause. Make sense?

[thedoorchick]

Jaycee , I do see what you are saying.

It's a fine line. Certainly there is a point at which a mother is not doing what she feels is best for her child, as much as she is trying to prove a point.

I really can't decide how I feel about nursing rooms. On the one hand, if they're convenient, clean, and comfortable, that's great. But it's inevitable that their very existence adds fuel to the opinion that nursing women have something to hide. And I'm not OK with that sentiment. And I'd hesitate long and hard before I'd use a nursing room simply because I wouldn't want to contribute to the notion that nursing is something to keep behind closed doors. If more women would NIP, then it would be more commonplace to see and would be less of a big deal.

[DiscoDiva]

BTW all these threads have made me decide I don't even want to have a kid. I'm befuddled by the things that set people off in re: mothering and have come to the conclusion I'm probably better just having dogs.
Nope, can't do that. Then you will have to answer to people who question you on why you aren't having kids.

[screetch]

A place like that would be *awesome*. I would have definitely preferred that to the "NIPing" I did, which was mostly in the car, an occasional bathroom (ewwwwww!), dressing room, or, very rarely, out in the open. I have zero problem with others NIP, but I *hated* it b/c my DS needs me to be lying down or use a boppy pillow in order to nurse comfortably (and at 21 months, this is still the case). So in this perfect world, can we add chaise lounges or boppy pillows? I would have walked across the mall for that!

The only Nordstroms mothers lounge I've been in, in Indy, was a bit of a letdown after hearing so many good things about their lounges. Better than nothing, yes, but not what I had imagined.

[wendalah]

Nope, can't do that. Then you will have to answer to people who question you on why you aren't having kids.

I've already figured that one out. I will burst into loud sobs and leave the area immediately while they kick themselves for being so rude. ;)

[jrdhbunny]

thedoorchick- I agree with everything you said. I've NIP a few times and it's not the easiest thing in the world because DS is difficult to feed without a Boppy. He's also very distractable and pulls off constantly when we're in a place with lots of stimuli. When I use a blanket, it's really tough to get him reattached without exposing me to the whole world. So in theory a nursing room would be great. But at the same time, I want to be free to nurse wherever I want and not have to worry about being discreet or going into a back room. When my son is nursing, my breast is not an object of sexual desire, it's a food source and it should be looked at as such*.

As to whether anyone has ever made a comment to me, I'm lucky in that I have very supportive family and friends and I live in a place that sees far more provocative and stranger things than a BF mom. If no one bats an eye at the Naked Cowboy, I can't imagine they'd be too shocked at little old me! ;)

*I of course realize that this is not realistic in today's society. I'm just saying...

[Jaycee]

I've already figured that one out. I will burst into loud sobs and leave the area immediately while they kick themselves for being so rude. ;)
Thats exactly what I do now, when anyone questions anything that I do in life :D It really works!! ;)

[BTB]

If no one bats an eye at the Naked Cowboy

Okay, seriously, I've gotta ask.... :D

[jrdhbunny]

Okay, seriously, I've gotta ask....
Hee! Here in NYC, there's this guy who goes around in a pair of tighty-whities, a guitar, and a cowboy hat and calls himself the "Naked Cowboy". He's a huge hit with tourists, but those of us who live here can pass by him without a second glance.

(I would put a link up here so you could see him, but I'm afraid of what the results would be if I did a search at work...)

[IrisHope]

http://www.newyorkish.com/newyorkish/images/nakedcowboy_japan_crowd.jpg

[saathei]

For the moms here who do NIP, have all of you personally heard at least one comment to your face while NIP? Or, have you just heard about it through friends or others. I mean, does every single mom who NIP hear a comment at one point? (not including looks, I'm asking about actual comments to your face)

Yes. When my daughters were 2 months old, a friend of mine told me that nursing with other people around was immodest and pornographic. Needless to say, we are not friends anymore.

I might use your hypothetical nursing room, but only if I were not out with anyone, if I had a good book (if I'm just on a bench at the mall I can people-watch), and if being there didn't detract from my experience (e.g., my food would get cold at a restaurant).

[BTB]

Yes. When my daughters were 2 months old, a friend of mine told me that nursing with other people around was immodest and pornographic. Needless to say, we are not friends anymore.

Saathei, I hope I'm not overstepping bounds here, but was this the same occasion as when you were confronted nursing not in public, but IN YOUR VERY OWN HOME?

Because I am still incensed on your behalf at that 'friend.' :mad:

[kimthebride]

I would use this lovely nursing room and enjoy it while I could (malls give me road rage).
I always keep a good book in the diaper bag to entertain myself while feeding DS.

[wendalah]

A thought: Can a book be used as a "cover-up"? Seems like that would be an ideal way to shield the old boobs from prying eyes and less "LOOK AT ME I'm NURSING!" than a hooter hider?

[pride&prejudice]

One of the common themes among women who choose not to breastfeed or who wean earlier than the recommended year ....


I know that I am tkaing this out of a complete paragraph that you wrote, but I am curious and wouldn't mind some insight because of a family member. I'm not trying to corner you, etc. KWIM?, just curious.

1 - Who reccomends 1 year, is this widely accepted among doctors? My mom said that she stopped me as soon as I got my teeth at 3 months and bit her. So I was just wondering what the normal age was.

2 - If you baby is below the age that you would like to stop BF, and it won't take BF, and pulls more for the bottle, would you force it to BF?

TIA!

[kimthebride]

Nice try, but my left boob fully engorged is about the size of a hardcover unabridged dictionary. Not something I tote around with me to the mall. ;)

[amorey]

If you baby is below the age that you would like to stop BF, and it won't take BF, and pulls more for the bottle, would you force it to BF?

How would a baby know that it wants a bottle if it's never had one?

[Delta]

Nice try, but my left boob fully engorged is about the size of a hardcover unabridged dictionary. Not something I tote around with me to the mall. You mean you can leave your boob at home?! :p


1 - Who reccomends 1 year, is this widely accepted among doctors? My mom said that she stopped me as soon as I got my teeth at 3 months and bit her. So I was just wondering what the normal age was.
The American Academy of Pediadrics (among many others) recommends that babies be breastfed for at least the first 12 months of life. Here is their complete breastfeading policy (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;115/2/496) Unfortunately though, many pedatricians and most other doctors of other specialties are woefully uneducated about breastfeeding and sometimes even hinder mother's ability and desire to breastfeed. However, with the release of the AAP's new policy guidlines this year, that is already changing.


2 - If you baby is below the age that you would like to stop BF, and it won't take BF, and pulls more for the bottle, would you force it to BF?
There are so many different variables in this situation that it all depends. Each nursing pair are different and have different problems and issues - some come by it much easier than others. It would be impossible to even answer this question definitively except to relate your own past experiences. Some babies often do prefer bottles to human nipples if they are exposed to them early on, but it is usually in the baby's best interest to keep nursing them even if they initially refuse. They will (usually) eventually take to nursing.

[Jaycee]

2 - If you baby is below the age that you would like to stop BF, and it won't take BF, and pulls more for the bottle, would you force it to BF?

TIA!

Hmmm, it could be a challange forcing a teenager to BF :D j/k

[Carrie K]

I can see why moms who NIP get defensive, there's a lot of people against it. I'm one of them, actually. Not in theory, but in practice.

Partially because I think that there is always going to be someone uncomfortable about NIP because breasts are, for better or worse, also sexual and partially because of my experiences w/my 2nd husband who would be going on and on about how natural BF'ing is to some poor girl and with her baby, and then he would come home and tell his brothers about the "knockers" he saw at (wherever we were) and how "he'd like a drink from that".

But then again, it used to be absolutely shocking to see a woman's ankle, so maybe there's hope for us yet.

edited to add: What? I picked this up in the middle of the thread maybe? Okay, butting out. Not a mom, not a BF'ing mom, never going to be one.

[RileyMom]

2 - If you baby is below the age that you would like to stop BF, and it won't take BF, and pulls more for the bottle, would you force it to BF?

As Delta pointed out, there are way too many variables in this scenario to have a definite answer to this. In my situation, DD was given bottles in the hospital (long story, I was unable to bf in the hospital due to medical complications). When we got home almost two weeks later, she had developed a huge bottle preference. I had to pump my heart out to get my supply back up while at the same time trying to "force" her (for lack of a better word) on the breast. She resisted for weeks. Finally at about 10 weeks, she started to prefer the breast, but it was a battle for sure and one that I was determined to fight. So, my answer to your question is, yes, I would and I did in that situation. But if my DD had a successful bf'ing relationship from the start and say at 9-10 months, she was showing signs of weaning, I might have gone with it.

[wendalah]

This is honest ignorance: Can you just pump and feed the baby out of a bottle if it prefers (for whatever reason) to nurse from a bottle? I can't imagine battling with a baby to get him/her back on the breast. I'd end up in tears myself.

[SiValleySteph]

This is honest ignorance: Can you just pump and feed the baby out of a bottle if it prefers (for whatever reason) to nurse from a bottle? I can't imagine battling with a baby to get him/her back on the breast. I'd end up in tears myself.

You can do this, but it is very difficult. I had a friend who pumped exclusively until her daughter was 10 months old. That meant that for 10 months every 4 hours she had to pump. I give her so much credit for sticking with it. I pump just while I'm at work and that is hard enough at times.

If I was in this situation, I would do everything possible to get baby back on breast. But it is not always possible. And yes, you are battling the baby, but it can be worth it.

[wendalah]

Isn't it traumatic to the child though? The battling part I mean.

[BTB]

This is honest ignorance: Can you just pump and feed the baby out of a bottle if it prefers (for whatever reason) to nurse from a bottle? I can't imagine battling with a baby to get him/her back on the breast. I'd end up in tears myself.

Uh oh, if that makes the thread explode I'm going to duck for cover! Babies don't 'nurse' bottles, no matter what Playtex wants us all to think. They nurse from mom, and drink or eat from bottles.

Anyhoo, yes, you can just give a baby pumped milk from a bottle... BUT. It then takes twice as long to feed the kid - a feeding time's worth to pump, and a feeding time's worth to feed. And pumps - even fancy schmancy double piston electric pumps - don't empty a breast as well as a baby can, and since breastmilk is a supply and demand proposition, that can interfere with mom making enough milk to not need to buy formula. It's a downward spiral: more bottles equals less milk equals more need for bottles equals less milk... and lastly, some of the benefits of breastfeeding derive from it's delivery system. Improved oromuscular development and dentition, for example, are obtained from drinking from the tap.

[wendalah]

Babies don't 'nurse' bottles, no matter what Playtex wants us all to think. They nurse from mom, and drink or eat from bottles.


Sigh. I'll remember to write AP about this so they make sure to put it in their next edition of the stylebook.

[carolc]

I think it would be nice if such a room were available at malls and other large public places, but as others point out, I would worry that even if such a room were "optional" it would begin to seem more like "a place you have to go to be *discreet and considerate*." It's a tricky balance.

I think it's important to remember that newborns and many older babies nurse A LOT. One of the reasons I think the ability to nurse in public without outcry is a feminist/human rights issue is that if this thing you need to do every hour or two is something you feel you need to leave the room/conversation/dinner/party to do, your freedom becomes severely curtailed. You miss out on life. Most new moms (and many less-new moms) need all the adult contact and social time they can get.

Imagine how it would feel if, every two hours, you needed to go spend 20 minutes alone in the bathroom, just sitting on the closed toilet. No matter where you were or whom you were with. Pretty inconvenient, eh? Pretty isolating.


Can you just pump and feed the baby out of a bottle if it prefers (for whatever reason) to nurse from a bottle?

This is possible, but extremely difficult. I can say this, because I ended up having to do it. My baby had a rare palate problem that caused nursing to be very painful for me, always, the whole time I was nursing. I finally switched to exclusive pumping (which was easier on my nipples) at 6 months, and continued to pump till DD was 15 months old. I had to supplement a little with formula, because even pumping 2 or 3 hours a day, I didn't get quite enough milk. (Many women don't get the same amount from a pump as they would from a bottle.)

As for "battling": I would absolutely have struggled to reestablish nursing at the breast if I'd had a baby who got "nipple confused" and there was no other reason not to nurse at the breast. To my mind, some stress and anxiety at feeding time is a small price to pay for the enormous (the science backing the benefits of breastmilk is inarguable and monumental) benefits of a baby continuing to nurse.

You have to physically struggle with a baby, and, god knows, a toddler many, many times as a parent. My daughter hates, and has always hated, having her face washed, having her diaper changed, having clothes put on, having her nose wiped...the list goes on. It's not fun to physically grapple with your kid, but it's just inevitable. When the payoff is as large "getting a baby to continue to nurse," it's certainly worth the trouble, IMO. (That said, I know that some people try and try and never get their babies back on the breast after a traumatic interrruption of breastfeeding or a preemie/medically troubled birth.)

[wendalah]

I was asking about stress/trauma because from what I understand, there is research behind preventing babies from having stressful or traumatic experiences (i.e. not letting your child "cry it out" etc.). I was not saying it was wrong, just saying I think I might find it hard and counterintuitive to battle my child's early preferences, and then wondered if it is not beneficial to put your baby throught that stress. That's all.

ETA: IF this were to happen, would it be possible to supplement the pumping with formula, or does that erase all the good of breastmilk? Does supplementing with formula, if you have a primary diet of BM, counteract anything?

ETA: Sorry, Carol, saw your comment about supplementing your own baby with a bit of formula. I'm not all or nothing on this, and probably never will be, so it's good to know there are options...which is why I'm asking these questions.

[BTB]

Sigh. I'll remember to write AP about this so they make sure to put it in their next edition of the stylebook.

Not trying to be hard on you wendalah. It's surely nothing but semantics to some, but there are moms on both sides of the feeding divide who get all upset about the use of that word.


I was asking about stress/trauma because from what I understand, there is research behind preventing babies from having stressful or traumatic experiences (i.e. not letting your child "cry it out" etc.).

Carolc and I were just discussing that elsewhere a couple days ago. :) Crying when your mother is with you causes much less physiologic stress response than crying all by your lonesome. And ditto that kids have lots of preferences - my DD would prefer to never, ever have a bath or go in her carseat. But it's for her greater good that these things occur sometimes.

I'm not a BFing guru, but the literature from my IBCLC noted that the introduction of formula begins to alter the gut flora toward an adult pattern, but of course when it is needed that bad is outweighed by the good of the baby getting sufficient food. Any amount of breastmilk is very beneficial to the baby.

[bamboo]

pride and prejudice - Delta gave you the link to the AAP guidelines which is what I was referring to with the one year recommendation. I think there are two different issues in your second question. If I intended to nurse for a year, but at say 9 months, my baby was showing signs that they were ready to wean, I'd have to evaluate it then. My daughter only takes about 3-4 bottles a week, and is always extremely happy to see the boob reappear when I get home, so it's hard for me to imagine ;) I'm committed to breastfeeding until my daughter is ready to wean, and I expect that to be between 2-3 years since that's a pretty typical age for child-led weaning.

The other issue is what everyone is talking about- nipple confusion early in the breastfeeding relationship. Some babies if given a bottle early on, will prefer the bottle nipple because it's easier and allows them to use a lazy suck and get plenty of milk. They have to work to get breastmilk out efficiently. If I had a baby who had nipple confusion I would absolutely work through it to get her back on the breast.

Wendy - research is showing that while a little formula doesn't negate breastmilk, exclusivity is really important. The new AAP recommendations stress the importance of exclusive breastfeeding until 6 months of age. It doesn't mean that there aren't sometimes necessary reasons to supplement with formula, or that if you can't exclusively breastfeed you should just scrap it all together. Breastmilk in any amount is still really beneficial to the baby. But it's clearly preferable, from a health standpoint, to avoid a situation where supplementation is necessary, or if one arises, to work through it and return to exclusive breastfeeding if possible.

[pride&prejudice]

Thanks for the links. :) I haven't been at a computer for most of the cay (so don't take my lack of answering as anything other than that).

I had just asked since my mother, me, and a friend (who is currently pregnant and BF all 4 of her other children) were in sort of a dicussion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it with my cousin who currently has a 9 month old. I kind of wanted to get some insight a little, since my cousin decided to say some very hurtful things basically because we didn't agree with her.

My cousin's baby boy's problem was not with nipple confusion. It is just that after 2-3 months of bottle and BF, he wants nothing to do with BF. My friend mentioned to my cousin that if it were her child she would try for no more than a month and then let the child take its own course. My mom and I agreed with that, although my mom said she wouldn't try much longer, just let the kid take its course now, becuase she felt that my cousin was causing more confusion.

I am planning on getting pregnant soon, but this would be my first child. So of course I've never had personal experience with it, but I was just kind of curious. Thank you so much, I've kind of got a different take. :)

FWIW, my cousin had thrown up in my face and my friends face (even though she's on her 5th kid!) that because she was 44 (and it was her 1st child) she deserved to have a child more, and that we would never know anything compared to her, yady yady yady. Plus my mom offered her some advice, and my cousin proceeded to tell her she was just jealous and didn't know a thing becuase she didn't have a grandchild yet. :rolleyes: Sorry if this got a little long, I was just hurt and was just curious to know.

ETA: I'm not trying to start a debate, its just that this is helping me to understand a little more something that is happening around me.

[Marisa]

p&p -- there are plenty of ways to get a baby back to the breast if he suddenly decides that he prefers the bottle, and it doesn't really have to be a battle. In fact one of the main things that experts suggest is that mom be as stress-free about it as possible, because forcing the baby to nurse is just as likely to prolong the 'nursing strike' (as they call it) by creating negative associations for the baby.

Nursing strikes can happen at any time, for a variety of reasons - illness (stuffy nose or earache making it painful/difficult to nurse), other physical discomfort (teething, physical misalignment or trauma following delivery) or bottle preference being a few. In the case of an infant who has begun to favor the bottle, I would minimize the amount that the child was receiving the bottle as much as possible, and make bottlefeeding as much like breastfeeding as possible as well -- slowest flow nipple, holding baby in the same position, etc. Often babies will get back to the breast when they are sleepy, even if they fight it when they're awake -- that's a good place to start (it always worked with my son when he was sick and not interested in nursing).


Anyway, everyone else has made such good points about the important new recommendations towards keeping a "virgin gut" for the first six months, so I guess I'll let this thread get back on track now, whatever that is. :)

[DiscoDiva]

An honest question here: It sounds like when you are nursing, it's hard to go anywhere or do anything because if the child wants to nurse, you pretty much have to do it then. Then, once out, you may have NIP difficulties, So, why not bottle some breast milk and carry it with you? Wouldn't that be easier, plus give the child the benefits of the mother's milk?

[Delta]

Sure you can do that if NIPping really bothers you that much!

But it's not as simple and easy as it sounds, either.

1) Pumps can be expensive -- the good, quality ones that allow you to actually pump enough for a whole feeding run upwards of 200-300 bucks.

2) Some babies don't take bottles. (Such as mine)

3) Some women can't pump very much milk at all. (As in my case.)

4) It takes time and your movement is limited when pumping -- for many moms (especially new ones) free time is gold and pumping for a trip out is often not the way one want to spent it when there are other things to be done like cleaning or sleeping or cooking or whatever.

I am sure there are even more points to consider but this is off the top of my head from my own experiences.

I know it is hard for people who have never been in this position to understand the nuances, difficulties, and complexities involved, so I hope this discussion is shedding some light on that.

[wendalah]

Not trying to be hard on you wendalah. It's surely nothing but semantics to some, but there are moms on both sides of the feeding divide who get all upset about the use of that word.

I hear you. But please, for my sanity and sake of faith in humanity, admit it's a bit hairsplitting?

[wendalah]

I'll be honest. It's shedding some light on it for me. It's making it seem like a huge pain in the ass to breastfeed. Like you need to put on your sword and cloak before you go to the frigging mall. I'm not bashing anyone here, just saying what I think. I guess I am going to be a bad mother if a mother at all.

ETA sorry if I sound harsh. But I'm 34 years old, if I get PG I'm not quitting my job, and I don't have time to d-ck around. That's just how it is.

[Marisa]

It's a shame that there has to be so much hairsplitting and explaining, because really, breastfeeding is quite possibly one of the EASIEST things I could do for my baby.

Sure, there was a learning period in the beginning where I was awkward at it, I didn't feel like nursing in front of everyone b/c I was still learning.

However, it is *incredibly liberating* to go out to the mall with only your pocketbook, with one extra diaper and a pack of wipes, and see all the other moms with their massive diaper bags, massive strollers (to carry one small baby and one massive diaper bag).... When Joey was smaller and lighter I didn't even take a stroller or a bag most of the time, I'd put him in the sling and stick the diaper/wipes in the pocket on the tail of the sling. I'd stick my wallet in my pocket. We were ready to go.

Although there's a lot of thinking and overthinking that has to do with this thread and the other one, honestly I can't think of how it could possibly be easier for a mom to have a baby and then carry on with her day-to-day life as she did before. Barring returning to work, of course -- most workplaces don't have provisions for nursing moms to bring baby with them (though some do). In your average nursing relationship, there's nothing to pack, there's nothing to mix, there's no crisis if you forget to pack the nipples (something that happened to my DH when he took Joey to the park one afternoon last year). There's no timing errands so that you can be at a place that has bottled water to mix the formula, or so you can be home to nurse, because well, your boobs are *right there*!

In the last 18 months I haven't slowed down at all. Joey and I have been all over the state, down the shore to visit my mom, on planes to Arizona and Texas, driving up to Canada.... I would have had a much harder time trying to do all these fun things with him if I were trying to pump and give him bottles for all the time we were away from home.


I'm rambling, so I'm cut off. ;) Hope some of that made sense. :)

[ejs]

May I ask a general breastfeeding question here? Are there any organizations that don't say breastfeeding is definitely healthier for the child?

My DH is an identical twin. Neither he nor his twin were breastfed. DH's twin has many allergies and sensitivities. My DH has never had a health issue.

[Delta]

breastfeeding is quite possibly one of the EASIEST things I could do for my baby.
True dat! I can't imagine having to deal with making and cleaning and lugging around bottles and all that stuff. ESPECIALLY while traveling. We've taken 2 trips overseas plus done lots of domestic traveling and it's been a snap with such portable food. And like Marisa, I rarely leave the house with anything but a purse with a diaper and some wipes, and that's always been the case. In reference to the other thread that spawned this one -- a breastfed baby being carried in a sling or bjorn really takes up no space whatsoever. If the stadium policy is such that all people regardless of age need a ticket then of course they should pay for the baby. But in reality, my baby at least when he was younger would never have used the seat at all, nor would we have had any 'gear' to put in it.

EJS - There are always anecdotal stories and specific examples to the contrary, but every reputable medical and scientific source will say that breastmilk is better for a child's health than formula. Not every formula fed infant will be worse off than every breastfed one, obviously, but in general breastmilk is considered the superior food by everyone.

[prudies]

Marisa is so right. Once you get past those early days, it's a breeze. It doesn't take that long and you get pretty good at doing it wherever, without causing much of a ruckus. When Elliott was still pretty young, we would go out for hours at a time with just him in the sling and some cash and my keys. I'd stop at a coffee place and get myself a snack and something to drink, and feed him. He'd pass out again and we'd keep going. I felt personally like nursing helped remind you to take time to just stare at your baby. It's awesome.

And it's totally easy. Why would I want to pump, take a bottle, take out said bottle, feed baby and then go home and pump again, if I didn't have to?

I think it's important to recognize there's a difference between pumping as a SAH and pumping as a working mom. If you're pumping while you're at work, someone else is taking care of the baby. If you're pumping to fill a bottle that you intend to feed the baby, you're doing the work twice. What's the point?

Really, I don't get all the fuss about NIP. You get the hang of it fairly quickly and it just makes life easier. No cloak required, I swear! My approach was to wear a camisole under my shirt. Lift shirt, slide down camisole, attach baby. Rinse, repeat. No big thing.

ejs That would be no. Sure, there are plenty of kids who do just fine, and even thrive on formula. But breastmilk is best. And that's just the truth.

[Marisa]

Are there any organizations that don't say breastfeeding is definitely healthier for the child?


Nope. :)

If you pay attention to formula ads, you'll see that many of them claim to be "most like breastmilk", but even they can't claim to be "as good as" or "better than".

You will not find a scientific article to say that breastfeeding is not healthier.

As Delta pointed out, there will always be anecdotal evidence of BFed babies that are sickly, or FFed babies that are healthy. Breastmilk is not a magic potion, it is simply the biological norm. By feeding a baby anything but human milk, you are increasing his exposure to allergies, ear infections, yada yada yada. Some babies can beat those odds, others can't.

[BTB]

I hear you. But please, for my sanity and sake of faith in humanity, admit it's a bit hairsplitting?

I guess it depends on where you're coming at it from. If 'nurse' is a synonym for 'suck', then sure. It's hairsplitting. But some people feel words and their implications hold subconscious power. There's a whole advertising world banking on it - and not just in regard to baby feeding. ;)


Are there any organizations that don't say breastfeeding is definitely healthier for the child?

If such organizations exist, I've never heard of them. FWIW. :)\


I'll be honest. It's shedding some light on it for me. It's making it seem like a huge pain in the ass to breastfeed.

I admire your honesty, and will meet it with some of my own: feeding a young baby can be a monstrously difficult task. There were days with thrush when I fantasized (no, not kidding here) about formula. Oh, to be one of those carefree moms that just shakes up some powder and water and plunks the bottle into the baby's mouth. No latch issues. No supply issues. No soreness. I was 100% dedicated to my baby not having formula unless there was a true medical indication for supplement. Had I started with anything less I would never have made it even this far - to 4 months. Sometimes I'm still surprised that I did. And I'm still a newbie at it as far as I'm concerned.

But you know what? Formula and bottles only make part of that easier. And they make other things harder. Babies can develop lifelong allergies when exposed to formulas. In general formula makes babies spitup more, have worse reflux issues, and become constipated. Babies with tummy problems don't sleep well, and cry more. Colic is more common when formula is used. Some babies don't tolerate the most common formulas well and mom has to hop around trying to find one that baby will be okay on, or spend mega dinero on a specialty formula. Formula doesn't give babies antibodies - 97% of formula fed babies are sick by 6 months of age. 25% of breastfed babies are - irrespective of daycare or homecare (I learned that on the parenting board). It's no picnic taking care of a sick baby. Boiling nipples and sterilizing bottles for formula is no fun. Throwing away partially eaten bottles is no fun either - and formula goes bad much faster than breastmilk, and is expensive to begin with.

My DD's daily bottle of expressed milk is my hardest feeding of the day. I make sure she has one bottle per day because there will be days she's cared for by someone else and I'm hoping that acclimation will keep her from refusing the bottle when it's her only possible food source. It's difficulty is a huge part of the reason I'd rather not just tote along a bottle of breastmilk to give to DD in a public place - that, and the anger I feel at being shamed into acting as if I'm doing something wrong. The benefits of breastmilk go beyond the food to the delivery system as well - baby's jaws and palates are meant to develop musculature from suckling at the breast. Breast milk in a bottle is not as beneficial as breast milk from a breast.

I sincerely don't mean this as a manifesto against bottlefeeding. It's just that there are as many pitfalls to it as there are to breastfeeding - no, I've never bottlefed, but I've read the parenting boards enough to know that much. Being a mom is hands-down the best thing that's ever happened to me (sorry, DH, you're a very very close second). :D But it's hard. Feeding a baby isn't always easy no matter what method you choose. There just happen to be a bunch of public threads recently discussing the very thorniest parts of breastfeeding. But this is the "lowlight" reel. There's plenty of highlights. :)

[RileyMom]

Can you just pump and feed the baby out of a bottle if it prefers (for whatever reason) to nurse from a bottle? I can't imagine battling with a baby to get him/her back on the breast. I'd end up in tears myself.

Since I last posted, the other ladies have done a fabulous job of answering this. The short story: pumping is inefficient compared to a baby nursing. Many women who exclusively pump have supply issues and quit altogether. Nothing is better at regulating a Mother's milk supply than a nursing baby. Secondly, the 10-12 weeks that I had to pump and bottle feed were a complete living HELL and I am not exaggerating one bit when I say that. It was 2-3 times the work between pumping 4-6 times a day at 20 min. each, cleaning all the parts that go with the pump after each pumping session, cleaning bottles, etc. Not to mention the fact that you are tied to a machine EVERY THREE HOURS. You think NIP is a pain? You can't go ANYWHERE when you are tied to that machine.

So yes, it was hard in the beginning, but 10 weeks of hell was worth not having to exclusively pump. I have nothing but utmost respect for women who have done it. It is HARD work, for sure. :)

[RileyMom]

But this is the "lowlight" reel. There's plenty of highlights.

Very well said. :) The payoffs, for me (and my daughter I believe), were tremendous. I guess you can say that for many things in life right? The things we appreciate the most are the things we had to work the hardest at. :)

[thedoorchick]

I don't feel that I can give a definite answer until I've actually experienced this, but it sure seems to me like bottlefeeding is MUCH more of a pain in the ass than breastfeeding. You have to buy formula, mix bottles, wash them, carry them around. That, versus having the baby's food ready to eat at all times.

[SiValleySteph]

It's making it seem like a huge pain in the ass to breastfeed.

Not everyone has issues breastfeeding, also. I had no pain at all breastfeeding and DS took to it like a champ. So you could always be that person. ;)

Plus, it is SOOOO easy to be out and about and also to travel. DS made his first overseas trip at 3-1/2 months and I didn't have to worry at all about what to feed him or that the water was safe or where to wash bottles or any of that.

Nursing in public was never a big deal to me - started when he was under a week old and never looked back.

I went back to work at 4 months old and have been able to pump to meet his needs and my son has never needed formula.

So, yes, it can be a pain to breastfeed, but it also might not be. I know I was very fortunate to have such a great breastfeeding relationship with very little work (well, except for the pumping at work, that is defintely work).

You never know until you try!

[carolc]

It was 2-3 times the work between pumping 4-6 times a day at 20 min. each, cleaning all the parts that go with the pump after each pumping session, cleaning bottles, etc. Not to mention the fact that you are tied to a machine EVERY THREE HOURS.

Agh! Agh! You're giving me flashbacks! ;) I had to tote that pump with me on every trip, too.

Having done both (really, all three--exclusive pumping, nursing, and some formula feeding) I can say that EPing was by far the hardest, but formula feeding was a PITA, too! What everyone is saying is so true--when you're reliant on bottles, there's all this worry about mixing and washing and keeping it cool and having all your "gear" and so on. Exclusive nursing is SO much easier logistically, except for sometimes the worry about NIP. (Honestly, people giving me crap about NIP was the least of my worries. I was much more concerned with the problem of adjusting myself and my baby so the pain was a little less. Nobody ever said anything to me on the times I NIP, and if they had, dude, they would have had their heads bitten off, most likely. Er, politely.)

Here's something to ponder: I had one of most crappy nursing experiences you can imagine. It's very unusual to have long-term constant pain like I did, and as described above, pumping is a MAJOR pain. However, when Nora started refusing the breast (probably due to supply/nipples preference issues) at 13 months or so (we were still nursing at the breast once or twice a day) it broke my heart. I'm still sad that we aren't nursing anymore. I think about it almost every day.

Nursing is a powerful experience.

[wendalah]

My point is, basically, sure--if it's easy I'll do it. I am too old at this point to be flexible, and I don't have the patience or the literal time to struggle with anything. (By "struggle," of course I'm going to struggle with a kid at some point in its life. But you know what I mean.) Whatever happens easiest will happen.

I am a big proponent of genetics. My physical health is excellent, my IQ is above average. My husband is the same. Our parents are the same. Chances are my children will be healthy and smart regardless of what I do. (I plan to lock them in the closet when they are bad...just kidding. I am the youngest child in the family so I have a black sense of humor regarding childhood torment.)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Can I just say "ditto," wendalah? ;)

[BTB]

I am too old at this point to be flexible

34 is too young to be too old for anything. ;)

[IrisHope]

Hey, I'm 34 are you calling me old??!!! :)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

34 is too young to be too old for anything.
Tell that to the producers of Real World.
sigh! ;)

[msnicolea]

Tell that to the producers of Real World.
sigh! ;)

And of American Idol, too.

I coulda been a contender!

[wendalah]

I dunno; I've given up miniskirts (although my legs are good) because I feel stupid in them.

[RileyMom]

I'm still sad that we aren't nursing anymore. I think about it almost every day.

Nursing is a powerful experience.

Ditto. My DD held onto one nursing session a day (at night) right up until she was 2 and I still was not completely ready to let go. :o

For anyone who might think that is odd, believe me, I understand. I also thought all "extended nursers" were wackjobs before I had DD. It is an experience that changed my life AND my limited view of breastfeeding. :) (not saying anyone has a limited view, but well, you know... ;) )

[IrisHope]

I nurse my DD at night after her bottle for a little bit. I can't believe I'm still doing it but I don't know how to give it up.

[wendalah]

Well, I have a personally limited view since I've never done it. But due to my advanced age ;) I have many, many close friends and relatives who have done it and given me feedback.

[carolc]

Chances are my children will be healthy and smart regardless of what I do.

Sorry to be a stickler, but the types of illnesses your future kids would be at the most risk for if you don't breastfeed often don't have that much to do with genetics. There some big baddies, like diabetes, Crohn's disease and leukemia, that breast-feeding helps prevent, but I think the stuff that's really obviously more common among formula-fed babies is stuff like colds, ear infections and stomach bugs. Which may not sound like a big deal--but a respiratory illness can be quite serious in a small infant.

I personally did not breastfeed because of the "it makes them smarter" thing. It's only a few IQ points--enh. Significantly better health, though? That I can get behind.

My daughter has had WAY more colds and bugs since we stopped breastfeeding. I think she was sick maybe twice her whole first year of life. Now I feel like we get a new bug every few weeks.

Believe me, I understand being wary of something that sounds like it can be a hassle. I think many women don't like all the preaching about nursing because they see themselves as very independent and very in control of themselves, and they want to feel like they have all the options open.

It's just that choosing to formula-feed for convenience or personal preference doesn't make much sense to me. Obviously, you have a right to that choice, but that choice is at the potential expense of your child.

For me, seeing formula-feeding as a "personal choice," no biggie, is sort of like saying that smoking a few cigs a day during pregnancy is just a personal choice, no biggie. I'd also liken it to feeding your toddler hamburger, french fries and soda every day. I mean, yes, it's your choice, and there are worse things, but that choice does have direct effects on the health of your child.

I want to make it very clear that I am very sympathetic to women who struggle with nursing and end up in a position where formula is hard or impossible to avoid. I WAS one of those women. I KNOW how hard it can be.

[trefoil]

For me, seeing formula-feeding as a "personal choice," no biggie, is sort of like saying that smoking a few cigs a day during pregnancy is just a personal choice, no biggie. I'd also liken it to feeding your toddler hamburger, french fries and soda every day. I mean, yes, it's your choice, and there are worse things, but that choice does have direct effects on the health of your child.


These comments make me feel badly for the women who do formula feed. We all know that are many reasons why women formula feed. They may be on medication, they may have had their supply run down while they couldn't breastfeed for some reason, their new baby might have been adopted, they may have simply made a choice, etc. Really, people know that breast-feeding is best. It's not exactly a closely guarded secret. So, while comments equating formula feeding to feeding a toddler a hamburger, fries, and a soda each days are only meant to chastise the women who are formula feeding out of preference, it does certainly make a dig at the mothers who are formula feeding for other reasons. I understand that you say you are sympathetic towards women who are unable to avoid formula, but telling someone that her choice is equivalent to smoking while pregnant is not a sympathetic thing to say. "Gee, what a shame you are unable to breastfeed due to the medication you are taking. It's really risking the health of your baby." Ouch. I don't think compassion should be restricted to those who choose to NIP.

[wendalah]

In my family, two of us were bottle-fed and one breastfed. We are all very healthy. My niece was BF'd for a few weeks then as noted in another thread, she switched to soy due to intolerance--she is healthy too. I understand that my family is "anecdotal" as opposed to general studies, but this is my genetic family and I am sorry, I trust that if we are in general good health regardless of BFing or not, then chances are my children will be OK either way too.

My inclination is that I will at least try breastfeeding if I have a child, but I'm not going to knock myself dead over the damage being done if it doesn't work out for whatever reason. That will not work for me, point blank no.

[wendalah]

BTW, are there legitmate studies that directly prove choosing not to breastfeed your child is equivalent to the effect of smoking while pregnant? Or feeding your kid junk food daily?

I don't mean to be inflammatory but it's this kind of talk that I find a little overboard. It sounds like fundamentalist born-again Christian rhetoric to me. "Believe or you'll go to hell"--no wiggle room allowed.

It's *really* disturbing to me. That's why I keep coming back to these threads for more. I'm trying to understand it. I suppose I should give up.

ETA: BTW, all of you who know me know I'm fully supportive of the right to practice one's religion and have been very tolerant of Christians on other threads, even the most fundamentalist :D. But just making a parallel in terms of rigidity. And on that note, I've often said I'd LIKE to have the fundamentalist's certainty that heaven awaits if I just do x, y, and z. I would find it most comforting. But I don't have much certainty in anything, really.

[BTB]

BTW, are there legitmate studies that directly prove choosing not to breastfeed your child is equivalent to the effect of smoking while pregnant? Or feeding your kid junk food daily?

She never said it was the equivalent - those examples were given to make a point that there are lots of things moms do that aren't good for baby and we don't regard all of them as acceptable "choices". Sometimes, when moms make choices that have health consequences for baby, it is "okay" to criticize.

There are hundreds of studies proving unequivocally that breastmilk is the best food for babies. Formula canisters all have that printed right on them. We've gotten usedd to hearing "breast is best". That, I think, has a lot to do with why this topic gets so heated, while CDing or babywearing doesn't seem to be quite so explosive. It's just not possible when talking about BFing to take the stance that whatever you choose is fine, it's all equally good. Unfortunately for moms who must bottlefeed, the corollary to breastmilk being the best is that formula is inferior to it. That's not a comfortable thing to be told. Everything has an inverse: "breastfed babies don't get sick as often" = "formula fed babies are sick more." We don't like to hear things from the negative frame, and I admit if I were one of those moms who had to formula feed it would hurt. There are also a plethora of reasons moms choose not to breastfeed and in general, the "I couldn't" reasons are much more highly regarded, and don't carry the same stigma, as the "I didn't want to" reasons. Not saying it necessarily should be that way - just an observation.

[Delta]

BTW, are there legitmate studies that directly prove choosing not to breastfeed your child is equivalent to the effect of smoking while pregnant? Or feeding your kid junk food daily?
I think the point is that formula is the inferior choice, and that you are taking a risk with your child's health by feeding it inferior food (ie not breastmilk), just as you are if you smoke while pregnant.


, but telling someone that her choice is equivalent to smoking while pregnant is not a sympathetic thing to say. "Gee, what a shame you are unable to breastfeed due to the medication you are taking. It's really risking the health of your baby." Ouch. I don't think compassion should be restricted to those who choose to NIP. Are we trying to be sympathetic here? I thought we were just stating the truth. The possibility that a woman's feelings may be hurt because she did not/could not breastfeed is not a legit reason to refrain from talking about possible negative effects of formula feeding.

(And in addition, rarely are the use of medications a reason to stop breastfeeding. I know that was just an example you were using, but I thought I'd mention it.)

[wendalah]

Man, and I thought vegetarians were militant!

Well, anyway--this horse is dead on my end as I don't even have a kid yet, and at 34 I need to stop worrying about BFing and saving my energy towards stressing over whether my fertility is going to sharply drop come May 20, 2006.

Being a woman! Fun, ain't it?

[Delta]

Man, and I thought vegetarians were militant!
Funny cuz I am starting to go down that road myself. ;)

[Delta]

http://www.militantbreastfeedingcult.com/index_a.html

[DiscoDiva]

I started this thread to ask about a nursing room, and isn't it funny how off track it gets when it comes to nursing?

I going to try and sum up the whole breastfeeding/NIP debate:
1. Women who want to NIP will, regardless.
2. Women who don't want to NIP won't, regardless.
3. Breastfeeding is good, and is a choice.
4. Bottle feeding is good, and is a choice.
5. Other people will always make ignorant comments about our choices in life, whether it's NIP, choosing to not have kids, smoking, whatever.
6. Some women who NIP have never heard a rude remark from strangers.
7. Some women who NIP have heard a rude remark from a stranger.
8. Some women who are offered a great nursing room, as a choice, will use it.
9. Some women who are offered a great nursing room, as a choice, will not use it.

And my biggest observation is that *some* women who breastfeed *seem* to be *occasionally* *somewhat* defensive, as they feel (whether from personal experience or not) that their choice will be attacked. Sometimes, their overly-defensive stance is not warranted.

Another thought is that this whole debate really reminds me of chosing to be childfree by choice. *Some* of us CF people *seem* to be *occasionally* *somewhat* defensive, as we feel (whether by personal experience or not) that our choice will be attacked. Sometimes, our overly-defensive stance is not warranted.

My next thought is that this same thing could be said about smokers, thin people, very tall people, overweight people, drinkers, fast drivers, and anyone else!

[BTB]

And my biggest observation is that *some* women who breastfeed *seem* to be *occasionally* *somewhat* defensive, as they feel (whether from personal experience or not) that their choice will be attacked.

I hope it's neither offensive nor patently inappropriate to say (because I mean it in all lightheartedness) that could be my favorite wc/cc sentence of all time. Disco, are you sure you're not a politician? ;) :D

[DiscoDiva]

I hope it's neither offensive nor patently inappropriate to say (because I mean it in all lightheartedness) that could be my favorite wc/cc sentence of all time. Disco, are you sure you're not a politician? ;) :D
LOL!!! :D I've learned over the years how to word things on message boards so you don't get attacked. But watch. Someone will still say, "How could you say that!" ;) It's just the nature of the beast when dealing with certain hot topics.

[trefoil]

Are we trying to be sympathetic here? I thought we were just stating the truth. The possibility that a woman's feelings may be hurt because she did not/could not breastfeed is not a legit reason to refrain from talking about possible negative effects of formula feeding.

(And in addition, rarely are the use of medications a reason to stop breastfeeding. I know that was just an example you were using, but I thought I'd mention it.)

I agree that it is not reason to refrain from talking about the possible negative effects of formula feeding, which was also done in the post, which I'll quote below.



Sorry to be a stickler, but the types of illnesses your future kids would be at the most risk for if you don't breastfeed often don't have that much to do with genetics. There some big baddies, like diabetes, Crohn's disease and leukemia, that breast-feeding helps prevent, but I think the stuff that's really obviously more common among formula-fed babies is stuff like colds, ear infections and stomach bugs. Which may not sound like a big deal--but a respiratory illness can be quite serious in a small infant.

Comparing formula feeding to smoking while pregnant or feeding a toddler a hamburger, fries, and a soda is not talking about the possible negative side effects of formula feeding. It is just insulting another person's choice. Granted, it is only meant to insult a subset of the people who make that choice, but it is an unnecessary dig.

I'm not a mother and so maybe I just don't "get" the need to insult the parenting choices of others, be it BF, FF, co-sleeping, AP, CIO, whatever. I do "get" that one of my closest friends doesn't enjoy breastfeeding. She doesn't find it to be a "bonding experience." She also feels so very alone. Given that there is a vocal group that demands good mothers not only breastfeed, but enjoy it, she is terrified to open up and see if other mothers understand what she is feeling. Lest she be viewed as making an "inferior choice," I'll clarify that she is still breastfeeding after 10 months and no formula has been used. She feels like she can't talk to a lot of other mothers, because, frankly, they can be a mean bunch. So, no, the fact that some people can't or won't breastfeed isn't a reason to avoid discussing the benefits of breastfeeding. I'm just talking about a little bit of compassion and a little less insulting other choices. Just as strangers have upset, frustrated, and hurt mothers here, mothers here have the power to do that to others by being thoughtless and needlessly unkind.

[wendalah]

I think this has become what I like to call a John 14:6 thread.
Meaning, basically, you think this way, I think that way, and never the twain shall agree the other is right.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

She never said it was the equivalent - those examples were given to make a point that there are lots of things moms do that aren't good for baby and we don't regard all of them as acceptable "choices". Sometimes, when moms make choices that have health consequences for baby, it is "okay" to criticize.
She also didn't say it wasn't equivalent. You got on Wendalah about "shades of meaning" earlier. Well?

[carolc]

No, I didn't say it was equivalent, though I would wager that statistically the risks are on par with each other. I wouldn't even be surprised if FFing was statistically more risky than smoking, actually.



Comparing formula feeding to smoking while pregnant or feeding a toddler a hamburger, fries, and a soda is not talking about the possible negative side effects of formula feeding. It is just insulting another person's choice.

I just don't really agree with the "choice" rhetoric in this discussion. Is it okay to say that smoking while pregnant is a bad choice? I bet if I started a thread right now about how I saw this pregnant woman smoking and I thought it was horrible, 20 people would chime in and agree with me. If I bitched about how my SIL only ever takes her kids to Mickey D's, I'd probably get a similar chorus of agreement. But somehow it's not okay to say anything at all about choosing to formula feed. I am NOT talking about someone who is on a medication that precludes BFing (although there aren't many of them) or who has other challenges that result in needing to use formula. Furthermore, if you read carefully, you would see that I MYSELF had to use some formula because of nursing issues. I never had any issues seeing people talk about the negative effects of FFing. Why? I knew they had their facts right. I don't see why we have to softpedal the facts. What are we so afraid of? Can women not handle the truth? Hey, we all take risks every day. I'm not saying you're a horrible person if you accept this risk to your child. We all make our choices.

FFing increases the health risks to your child, just as smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer and eating a crap diet increases your risk of various cancers and heart attacks. We don't flagellate ourselves and everyone else for stating these other truths. We don't feel the need to defend people who smoke: "You don't know why she's smoking! Maybe she's very stressed out and needs to smoke."

All this said, heaven knows I would never come up to someone giving a bottle and say "Breast is best." I don't know what her situation is, and that's just rude.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

All of the breastfeeding studies I've seen so far? Show a correlation but not a causation. Does anybody have a link to a study that shows cause?

[Marisa]

The AAP's recently revised statement on breastfeeding (Feb 2005) has an extensive list of sources. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;115/2/496

I wish I had the time to go through all the abstracts; some of them look quite interesting. Here's a couple:


Title: DIFFERENCES IN MORBIDITY BETWEEN BREAST-FED AND FORMULA-FED INFANTS
Author(s): DEWEY KG, HEINIG J, NOMMSENRIVERS LA
Source: JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS 126 (5): 696-702 Part 1, MAY 1995
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 49
Abstract: To determine whether breast-feeding is protective against infection in relatively affluent populations, morbidity data were collected by weekly monitoring during the first 2 years of life from matched cohorts of infants who were either breast fed (BF) (N = 46) or formula fed (FF) (N = 41) until at least 12 months of age, Cohorts were matched for characteristics such as birth weight and parental socioeconomic status, and we controlled for use of day care in data analysis, Mean maternal educational level was high (16 years) in both groups, In the first year of life the incidence of diarrheal illness among BF infants was half that of FF: infants; the percentage with any otitis media was 19% lower and with prolonged episodes (>10 days) was 80% lower in BF compared with FF infants, There were no significant differences in rates of respiratory illness; nearly all cases were mild upper respiratory infections, Morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups in the second year of life, but the mean duration of episodes of otitis media was longer in FF than BF infants (8.8 +/- 5.3 vs 5.9 +/- 3.5 days, respectively; p = 0.01), These results indicate that the reduction in morbidity associated with breast-feeding is of sufficient magnitude to be of public health significance.



J Pediatr. 1995 Feb;126(2):191-7.
Relation between infant feeding and infections during the first six months of life.

Beaudry M, Dufour R, Marcoux S.

Departement de nutrition humaine et de consommation, Faculte des sciences de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation, Universite Laval, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

We assessed the effect of the method of feeding on respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses during the first 6 months of life among 776 infants born in New Brunswick, Canada. During a 1-year period, these infants were drawn from the offspring of a population of primiparous women in the province who, after at least 36 weeks of pregnancy, gave birth to one normal infant weighing 2500 gm or more. Data were collected by means of a self-administered standardized questionnaire mailed to every mother a week before her infant reached 6 months of age. The crude incidence density ratio (IDR) revealed a protective effect of breast-feeding on respiratory illnesses (IDR = 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52 to 0.83), on gastrointestinal illnesses (IDR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.04) and on all illnesses (IDR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82). The protective effect of breast-feeding on respiratory illnesses persisted even after adjustment for age of the infant, socioeconomic class, maternal age, and cigarette consumption (adjusted IDR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.00). Moreover, if we distinguished ear infection from other respiratory illnesses, we observed a separate protective effect for these two types of events. The results of this retrospective cohort study suggest a protective effect of breast-feeding in our population during the first 6 months of life.



Exclusive breast-feeding for at least 4 months protects against otitis media

B Duncan, J Ey, CJ Holberg, AL Wright, FD Martinez and LM Taussig

Department of Pediatrics, Steele Memorial Children's Research Center, Tucson, AZ 85724.

OBJECTIVE. This study was designed to assess the relation of exclusive breast-feeding, independent of recognized risk factors, to acute and recurrent otitis media in the first 12 months of life. METHODS. Records of 1220 infants who used a health maintenance organization and who were followed during their first year of life as part of the Tucson Children's Respiratory Study were reviewed. Detailed prospective information about the duration and exclusiveness of breast-feeding was obtained, as was information relative to potential risk factors (socioeconomic status, gender, number of siblings, use of day care, maternal smoking, and family history of allergy). Acute otitis media and recurrent otitis media, defined as three or more episodes of acute otitis media in a 6-month period or four episodes in 12 months, were the outcome variables. RESULTS. Of the 1013 infants followed for their entire first year, 476 (47%) had at least one episode of otitis and 169 (17%) had recurrent otitis media. Infants exclusively breast-fed for 4 or more months had half the mean number of acute otitis media episodes as did those not breastfed at all and 40% less than those infants whose diets were supplemented with other foods prior to 4 months. The recurrent otitis media rate in infants exclusively breast-fed for 6 months or more was 10% and was 20.5% in those infants who breast-fed for less than 4 months. This protection was independent of the risk factors considered. CONCLUSION. These findings suggest that exclusive breast-feeding of 4 or more months protected infants from single and recurrent episodes of otitis media.



I don't know if you'll ever find a satisfactory level of causation, studies seem to factor in all the other possible influences on baby's health (socioeconomic status, birth weight/length of gestation, parents' behaviors (i.e. smoking)... but I honestly don't know if there's a study out there that can say definitively.

I'm also recalling all those recent studies that they did on the properties of breastmilk that allowed it to fight other infection such as warts, or even cancer. I wish I had time to find those cites.

Unfortunately, I'm off now. Must go play with my unbelievably healthy breastfed baby. ;)

[chefker]

Hmm. Interesting how strongly people feel about the subject. :) Me, I'm planning on attempting to BF when my baby arrives next January. However, if I can't do it, for whatever reason--physical or emotional, after giving it a decent try, I'm not going to beat myself up for it.

I was bottle fed on soy formula. My mother either couldn't or wouldn't BF (I never got into the why's and wherefore's with her really). I was healthy as horse, and according to my mom only had colic once. It's funny how the tide has turned though--both my mom and MIL tell me that bottle-feeding was the 'thing' to do when they had babies; and now, some 30 years later, it's gone full circle. I daresay in another 30 years, the pendulum may swing back the other way!

In response to the OP's question; I might use such a BF'in room if it was offered. If it's as nice as the ladies' lounge at Nordstrom or Lord & Taylor, heck yeah! :) It would beat sitting on the toilet feeding my child in a public restroom!

For myself, I will ONLY NIP if absolutely necessary. Personally, I'm a bit modest (no, I dont feel NIP is anything to be ashamed of--this is just 'me'). And I see NIP going on all the time, half the time I hardly even realize it's going on. Who knows, my feelings my change when I'm actually BF'ing, and have a squalling child in the middle of the mall, or wherever I may be.

[BTB]

All of the breastfeeding studies I've seen so far? Show a correlation but not a causation. Does anybody have a link to a study that shows cause?

It's a rare study that works that way - in fact, I've never seen such a study in my life. Statistics in general just doesn't work that way.

In physics, trials and their outcomes are directly observable. When the same result is obtained again and again, we derive a 'law'. Like the law of gravity, once established laws are accepted as the closest to fact we can come (since we're relying on observable fact, given our current methods of perceiving and analyzing) until and unless the law is proven false. It takes only one experiment failing to demonstrate a law to be true, to strike down the entire law. i.e. one apple falling UP off a tree would negate the law of gravity.

In science, trials and their outcomes are intended to obtain a sample, then give an indication of how representative that sample is to the population it's meant to represent. If you have a statistically significant result, you can be 95% certain you're not observing those results based on dumb luck. (since - is it your alpha error or your beta error, I never remember - is set at the outset at 5%). One study, standing alone, never shows cause. That's an incredibly high standard, and one science simply isn't able to meet. Therefore, you establish reproducibility and validity by repeated trials, often IRL at different institutions and frequently in different countries. It's not as easy as saying "oh, maybe something else accounted for those results" because epidemiologists spend their lives controlling for such variables as parental socioeconomic status, parental marital status, homecare vs daycare and other living conditions, etc. It's not that difficult to do statistically, and doing so - to reduce your hypothesis as close as humanly possible to one and only one variable - is done by accepted methods by scientists all over the world.

Just like in physics, you don't take just one trial's word for it. You try again and again and again. In science, that which is demonstrated repeatedly, and which has never been disproven, becomes "theory". Colloquially, 'theory' means something like 'conjecture'. But scientifically, a theory is that of which we are most certain. It will always remain one step from Fact - that which is absolutely true, but which we may not have means to access - but is comparable to a Law in physics.

All this means that if you wait for one study to definitively prove causation, that's like waiting for Santa Claus to come down the chimney. Ain't gonna happen! By those standards smoking has never been shown to 'cause' lung cancer - it's only correlated. High cholesterol has never been shown to 'cause' cardiac morbidity - it's only correlated. BUT. When you have hundreds or thousands of studies from across the globe, the results of which can be duplicated and the confounding variables of which have been controlled for either mathematically or in study design, and time and again you get a statistically significant p value, that's when hypothesis becomes theory, and you can say "breast is best", "smoking causes lung cancer", etc. You layer on demonstrable mechanisms, via known pathways, and you're as close to causation as you can currently get.

[wendalah]

Statistics in general just doesn't work that way.

Can't resist a chance to post my old fave :)

http://www.bbn-school.org/us/math/ap_stats/extra_reading/extra_reading_fidler_files/image004.jpg

(In all seriousness, this is a hell of a read....VERY entertaining and interesting. Author is Huff.)

[wendalah]

My fave quote ever is from that book:

"Even if you can't find a source of demonstrable bias, allow yourself some degree of skepticism about the results as long as there is a possibility of bias somewhere. There always is."

[IrisHope]

It's a rare study that works that way - in fact, I've never seen such a study in my life. Statistics in general just doesn't work that way.

In physics, trials and their outcomes are directly observable. When the same result is obtained again and again, we derive a 'law'. Like the law of gravity, once established laws are accepted as the closest to fact we can come (since we're relying on observable fact, given our current methods of perceiving and analyzing) until and unless the law is proven false. It takes only one experiment failing to demonstrate a law to be true, to strike down the entire law. i.e. one apple falling UP off a tree would negate the law of gravity.

In science, trials and their outcomes are intended to obtain a sample, then give an indication of how representative that sample is to the population it's meant to represent. If you have a statistically significant result, you can be 95% certain you're not observing those results based on dumb luck. (since - is it your alpha error or your beta error, I never remember - is set at the outset at 5%). One study, standing alone, never shows cause. That's an incredibly high standard, and one science simply isn't able to meet. Therefore, you establish reproducibility and validity by repeated trials, often IRL at different institutions and frequently in different countries. It's not as easy as saying "oh, maybe something else accounted for those results" because epidemiologists spend their lives controlling for such variables as parental socioeconomic status, parental marital status, homecare vs daycare and other living conditions, etc. It's not that difficult to do statistically, and doing so - to reduce your hypothesis as close as humanly possible to one and only one variable - is done by accepted methods by scientists all over the world.

Just like in physics, you don't take just one trial's word for it. You try again and again and again. In science, that which is demonstrated repeatedly, and which has never been disproven, becomes "theory". Colloquially, 'theory' means something like 'conjecture'. But scientifically, a theory is that of which we are most certain. It will always remain one step from Fact - that which is absolutely true, but which we may not have means to access - but is comparable to a Law in physics.

All this means that if you wait for one study to definitively prove causation, that's like waiting for Santa Claus to come down the chimney. Ain't gonna happen! By those standards smoking has never been shown to 'cause' lung cancer - it's only correlated. High cholesterol has never been shown to 'cause' cardiac morbidity - it's only correlated. BUT. When you have hundreds or thousands of studies from across the globe, the results of which can be duplicated and the confounding variables of which have been controlled for either mathematically or in study design, and time and again you get a statistically significant p value, that's when hypothesis becomes theory, and you can say "breast is best", "smoking causes lung cancer", etc. You layer on demonstrable mechanisms, via known pathways, and you're as close to causation as you can currently get.

Wow. That's all I have to say.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I'm not saying that I'm looking for one study to prove causation. I'm saying that the information I've seen from studies so far could just as reasonably be read as "babies who are less robustly healthy tend to have more difficulty with breastfeeding," as "babies who don't breastfeed are less healthy."

The difference between a study on breastfeeding and a study on smoking is that you're unlikely to have mothers who will volunteer their babies as a test subject. How many mothers here would, say if you had twins, offer to treat them exactly the same but feed one formula, and breastfeed the other? Whereas it's not too hard to pay a couple of adult siblings to do the same with smoking.

[BTB]

I see what you're saying, Littlefred. But the results are the same whether you look at "failed" breastfeeders vs "never" breastfeeders - mom decided, at delivery or before, not to attempt at all.

There are several different types of studies, rather than turn the thread into a statistics lecture I'll just say that the kind you describe - a prospective case-control study - isn't a common one. FWIW.


Wow. That's all I have to say.

Iris, I have no idea how you meant that, but I've chosen to take it as a compliment in the absence of any studies that I shouldn't. ;)


"Even if you can't find a source of demonstrable bias, allow yourself some degree of skepticism about the results as long as there is a possibility of bias somewhere. There always is."

Of course, and as I stated, you know that the odds of confounding results is always at least 5% in any one study - alpha (or beta, whatever) error. But what are the odds of each of hundreds of studies all confounding in exactly the same direction? My favorite stats professor was fond of saying: "Statistics never lie. Sometimes people use statistics to lie, but that's bad statistics."

[RileyMom]

But what are the odds of each of hundreds of studies all confounding in exactly the same direction?

What are the odds? I'd say the technical statistical term is zilcho. :p

(very impressive, BTB)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

There are several different types of studies, rather than turn the thread into a statistics lecture I'll just say that the kind you describe - a prospective case-control study - isn't a common one.
I think this is why I'm leery of the comparison of formula feeding with something like smoking. A highly-controlled study is much more possible with smoking. And my guess is, the effects of breast feeding versus formula feeding are a great deal more subtle as opposed to smoking versus not smoking, such that a reliable comparison would require a more tightly controlled study.

[BTB]

But a prospective case-control is not considered the most tightly controlled type of study. A randomized double-blind placebo study is, but that's the most time-consuming and expensive type of study to run. It's also considered unethical to run one in the face of known harms and benefits, so such a study has, to my knowledge, never been done either in regard to smoking or to formula feeding.

Prospective case-control was the type of study suggested (here, you feed twin A this, I'll feed twin B that). That's not a very good study. Either prospective or retrospective population studies are much better for a hypothesis like this, and have been done, all pointing to smoking causing lung cancer and breastfeeding having advantages over formula.

[IrisHope]

BTB I meant it as a compliment :) I was very impressed.

[carolc]

LittleFred, honestly, they're really not very subtle. I don't mean to keep hitting everyone over the head with this, but the proof that breastfeeding is superior to formula-feeding is ENORMOUS.



Of course, and as I stated, you know that the odds of confounding results is always at least 5% in any one study - alpha (or beta, whatever) error. But what are the odds of each of hundreds of studies all confounding in exactly the same direction?

What she said.

Wendalah, I am always skeptical of big claims from one or two studies. The thing is, this is a massive body of proof. Again with the smoking thing--it's as if someone came into a thread about how smoking is bad for you and said "But look! Here's a book about how you can lie with statistics." Yes, results can be skewed, but when something has been shown *time and time and time again* in *hundreds* of studies, the "But it could just be a skewed study!" thing looks less credible. Here is just one website showing some of the research that's been done on the effects of breastfeeding vs. formula-feeding:

http://www.lalecheleague.org/cbi/biospec.htm

Look, if there was any way to prove that formula was better, or equivalent, or even to puncture some of the strongest claims of pro-BFers, don't you think the formula lobby would have figured that out by now? It's a multimillion dollar industry. Who benefits, really, from studies that turn out to show that breastfeeding is superior? What would be the motivation for "lying with statistics"?

Once again, I don't think you are a horrible person if you formula feed. We all make risk-benefit decisions every day. Here's an example: we recently took a plane trip with our toddler. We did not buy her a seat (what am I, made of money?) as she is under 2 and allowed to be a "lap child." Statistically, I bet that it would have been safer for her to ride in her own seat strapped into a carseat. However, the cost of this was not worth it to me personally. If someone went on to politely tell me how this was risky and perhaps even to show me studies, I would probably say "Hmm" and read them over. I would not consider this a terrible insult.

I just think the language around this issue is dishonest at times, and that that does contribute to the poorer health of children nationwide. It's strange that it's considered so obnoxious to be concerned about child health.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I see what you're saying, Littlefred. But the results are the same whether you look at "failed" breastfeeders vs "never" breastfeeders - mom decided, at delivery or before, not to attempt at all.
I think this is what I haven't seen. The numbers I've looked at so far don't show controls as to "failed" vs. "never" (and of course, the specifics behind the "never": medication, illness, etc.).

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I just think the language around this issue is dishonest at times, and that that does contribute to the poorer health of children nationwide. It's strange that it's considered so obnoxious to be concerned about child health.
I don't consider it obnoxious to be concerned about child health. I do personally think that the benefits of breastfeeding are overstated by some though. It's not a panacea. And I personally just don't believe that formula is the big threat some make it out to be. A lot of us here were formula fed. And yet, we're healthy. I have a couple health issues, but they're inherited. Sure, I had a one or two ear infections when I was three or four, but other than that I was a rudely healthy kid. Same with my sister. IMO, comparing the damage done by being fed formula to that of feeding a child fast food constantly, or that of smoking, really undermines the cause.

[wendalah]

I was being facetious with the mention of the book. But, if you want the truth, the reason why I eye this entire debate with a bit of cynicism is because I am wary of any study that is primarily directed toward the sensibilities of women. Be it breastfeeding, infertility past a certain age, toxic shock syndrome, breast cancer, whatever--it is my belief that women are an easier mark in general for hype of any sort, especially health-related, and therefore I take a hard eye on *anything* that is being preached as absolute truth to women specifically.

Just to clarify: Things like smoking, heart disease, dietary issues, skin cancer/sun exposure--are applicable to both sexes equally. Things like breastfeeding, infertility, etc. are not, although men may take an interest in them.

[chefker]

I don't consider it obnoxious to be concerned about child health. I do personally think that the benefits of breastfeeding are overstated by some though. It's not a panacea. And I personally just don't believe that formula is the big threat some make it out to be. A lot of us here were formula fed. And yet, we're healthy. I have a couple health issues, but they're inherited. Sure, I had a one or two ear infections when I was three or four, but other than that I was a rudely healthy kid. Same with my sister. IMO, comparing the damage done by being fed formula to that of feeding a child fast food constantly, or that of smoking, really undermines the cause.

ITA, Littlefred. I think there are far greater dangers to a child than formula. Lead paint, too much fast food or sugar in the diet, etc. FTR, I grew up in a sugar-free household, and I think we ate at McD's maybe 3 times a year, after I would BEG my parents to take me there! I thought my mother was horribly mean for making me eat an apple for an after school snack, rather than cupcakes like my friend across the street was allowed to eat. But I think it was because of her choices for me, that I grew up a pretty healthy child. My mother DID tell me that I had a stomach issue with regular formula (dairy-based), which is why she eventually switched me to a soy-base formula. I don't fault my mother at all for NOT BF'ing me. And I don't think anyone should make blanket judgements on what is a very personal, INDIVIDUAL decision.

No matter what I feed my child--breastmilk or formula, homemade baby food vs. store-bought, there will be some who think I'm not doing right by my child. But it's not going to make me lose sleep at night, I'm simply going to do the best I can for my baby, based on my life experiences and what I've learned through my own research.

[wendalah]

As I stated in another thread: My parents did everything wrong. Formula, all the sugary crap I wanted, fast food more than I should have had it. I almost NEVER go to the doctor. Neither do my sisters. We go if we do something like break an ankle...that's about it. Genetics.

[carolc]

A lot of us here were formula fed. And yet, we're healthy. I have a couple health issues, but they're inherited. Sure, I had a one or two ear infections when I was three or four, but other than that I was a rudely healthy kid. Same with my sister. IMO, comparing the damage done by being fed formula to that of feeding a child fast food constantly, or that of smoking, really undermines the cause.

LF, I just don't care for the "But I turned out okay" argument. It has no statistical merit. To continue the metaphor, it's like the 95-year-old smoker who says, "Well, look at me! I'm still alive and kicking!" I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there whose kids eat nothing but fast food and processed snacks would also say, "Junior here subsists on Ho-Hos, and he's as healthy as a horse!" It's just not a very persuasive method of argument for me.

Hey, if you want to play Anecdotal Evidence, I could tell you how my daughter (18 months old) has never had a single ear infection and has been to the doctor a grand total of twice outside of well-child visits. I could tell you about the many people I know who formula-feed whose infants were sick way, way more often than mine. I don't consider that very relevant, though. I mean, if you're concerned about study veracity and bias, then why would you consider the obviously biased and tiny sample of yourself and your sister?

To be clear, I'm not comparing the risks of *smoking* (as in, I smoke) with the risks of formula-feeding (as in, I was formula-fed). I was comparing the risks of *smoking while pregnant* (to the child) with the risks of formula-feeding (to the child).

I think it's very easy for us as a nation to be in denial about the inferiority of formula. Why? Because it's so very common--so very accepted. It seems like it must not be so bad, right? Everyone does it. Everyone used to smoke, too, though, too.


But, if you want the truth, the reason why I eye this entire debate with a bit of cynicism is because I am wary of any study that is primarily directed toward the sensibilities of women.

An interesting perspective, wendalah. I see what you're saying...although I'd say that many husbands play a significant role in the decision of breast vs. formula.


think there are far greater dangers to a child than formula. Lead paint, too much fast food or sugar in the diet, etc.

Lead paint is not good for kids, no. But who "chooses" to feed their child lead paint and then defends it?

I will bet you a hundred dollars that there is far, FAR more evidence that formula is worse for kids than "too much sugar." A commonly cited statistic is that in the US, formula feeding doubles the risk of death for babies. The risk is still small, mind you, but read it again: doubles the risk of death.

[wendalah]

I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there whose kids eat nothing but fast food and processed snacks would also say, "Junior here subsists on Ho-Hos, and he's as healthy as a horse!" It's just not a very persuasive method of argument for me.


Right, like I said, that's me and my sisters. It's a small sample but one of my original points was that I trust in genetics. My mother is 65 years old and a lifelong sunbather. Her skin looks great. What explains this? It has to be genetics. (My dad is another story, so I don't sunbathe, myself.) I'm not telling people to go sunbathe because of my mother's experience. However, I do think that she's immune to it somehow because of her parents.

So, therefore, all I said was that my family is quite healthy, as is my husband's, so I'm not terribly concerned if for some reason I must formula feed. My children are a good genetic gamble, if you want to put it that way. If I came from a unhealthy family history, or my husband did, then I might be a little more concerned about how to tip the see-saw in favor. And I'm not opposed to at least trying BF; why not, if it's going to be good for my already probably healthy child? But I'm not going to freak out if it doesn't work out for us.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

A commonly cited statistic is that in the US, formula feeding doubles the risk of death for babies. The risk is still small, mind you, but read it again: doubles the risk of death.
But again, is it that formula feeding doubles the risk of death, or that babies who have been formula fed have had twice as many deaths? There's a big difference.

ETA:

LF, I just don't care for the "But I turned out okay" argument. It has no statistical merit. To continue the metaphor, it's like the 95-year-old smoker who says, "Well, look at me! I'm still alive and kicking!" I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there whose kids eat nothing but fast food and processed snacks would also say, "Junior here subsists on Ho-Hos, and he's as healthy as a horse!" It's just not a very persuasive method of argument for me.
I absolutely agree. I'm just saying that, I personally have not seen the direct effect of formula feeding that I have on something like smoking. I personally am more skeptical of the statistics because my experience has not been at all the same as the studies.

[chefker]

Lead paint is not good for kids, no. But who "chooses" to feed their child lead paint and then defends it?



Please. NOBODY is going to feed their child lead paint, for crying out loud (at least I hope not!). However--we (and many others I know with children), live in a home built before 1978, where lead paint MAY or may not exist. That's a risk we've taken by buying an older home (but at the same time remedying by painting over everything with non-lead paint).

If you want to BF your baby, fine. There's no need to chastize those who may choose formula over BFing, either because they can't or won't BF. Again, PERSONAL choice. Nobody's business what I feed my child, but ME.

[RileyMom]

There's no need to chastize those who may choose formula over BFing, either because they can't or won't BF. Again, PERSONAL choice. Nobody's business what I feed my child, but ME.

I don't think ANYONE here is "chastizing" anyone. :confused: I think Carolc and BTB have gone well out of their way to remain objective and focus on the statistical evidence available re: formula feeding (which, by the way was not offered until asked for in this thread). If anyone takes that as "chastizing," then that is really too bad.

[kam]

Chefker, right on.


I think it's very easy for us as a nation to be in denial about the inferiority of formula. Why? Because it's so very common--so very accepted. It seems like it must not be so bad, right? Everyone does it. Everyone used to smoke, too, though, too.

So really, are we comparing formula to smoke? I don't think this holds water whatsoever. We're talking about 2 different ways to feed a child. Obviously, smoking does active harm to your body. You can't say "Well, I'll just change the ways in which I smoke, but I will actively continue to smoke." It's still harmful. You have two real choices: 1) smoke 2) don't smoke. Okay, there's still the third wuss (me) option of only smoking when I drink, but still you're doing active harm to your body.

A comparison would be, say 1) feeding your child (depending on what you feed the child, this could be good or better) 2) not feeding your child (which is generally bad considering the child would starve). Obviously, we're all for choice #1. Go eating!

[chefker]

I don't think ANYONE here is "chastizing" anyone. :confused: I think Carolc and BTB have gone well out of their way to remain objective and focus on the statistical evidence available re: formula feeding (which, by the way was not offered until asked for in this thread). If anyone takes that as "chastizing," then that is really too bad.

I appreciate the statistical evidence that was posted, which I've read over. And personally, I DO believe that breastfeeding is best or the most natural food source for one's baby (if the mother chooses to do so) .

I do not get the smoking while pregnant vs. formula feeding comparison though. That's akin to saying that you might as well be feeding your baby nicotine, if you choose Enfamil over BF'ing. Maybe I'm interpreting that comparison wrongly, but this is how I'm reading it. :confused:

[Delta]

If you want to BF your baby, fine. There's no need to chastize those who may choose formula over BFing, either because they can't or won't BF. Again, PERSONAL choice. Nobody's business what I feed my child, but ME.
I don't think anyone is being chastised. Pointing out the facts about the risks of not breastfeeding is simply speaking the truth. And the formula/breastfeeding 'debate' is actually a public health issue. The government is spending millions of dollars right now on a PR campaign in at-risk neighborhoods all across the country in order to raise the awareness and rates of breastfeeding in those areas. On an individual level it is your choice no doubt, but on a public health level, it is not a private issue.


It seems this has devolved into a discussion where people are feeling the need to have to justify and defend their choices or their future choices by downplaying the well-documented facts about formula feeding. If the facts about breastfeeding are not meant to make anyone feel bad about formula feeding. Own your choice to formula feed if you must, but don't blow off the scientific and medical research that proves the risk of formula feeding. This really serves nobody well, especially babies.

[wendalah]

BTW, Delta, right on if you are considering going veggie! :D (Did I read your comment correctly?) Talk about something we all could do to improve overall health.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the risks, but I do think that the risks are being inflated here. That's not helpful either.

[carolc]

But again, is it that formula feeding doubles the risk of death, or that babies who have been formula fed have had twice as many deaths? There's a big difference.

You keep coming back to this. These are controlled studies. It is not a question of "But maybe they're FF because of some inherent health problems they had." BTB can probably go over this again if need be.


Again, PERSONAL choice. Nobody's business what I feed my child, but ME.

Yes, as I say, I'm familiar with this rhetoric, and in the broad sense I agree. However, would you use the same rhetoric about, again, a pregnant woman who smokes? A parent who doesn't always use a carseat?

If you (general you) decide to formula-feed and do so with informed opinions on the risks--if you have looked at the evidence and decided that the other factors weighing against breastfeeding for you are more important--then hey, you own that decision. I applaud your honesty. What bugs me is the constant attempt to disown, discredit and mimimize the evidence that breastmilk is superior.

Here's a piece that might help explain my position a bit more:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/07/19/formula/

[Delta]

And personally, I DO believe that breastfeeding is best or the most natural food source for one's baby (if the mother chooses to do so) .
If you take out the part in parenthesis, then yes, this would be a true statement. Breastfeeding will always be the superior choice no matter what the mother chooses. If a mother chooses to formula feed, it doesn't magically make formula the better choice for her baby.

[bookworm]

I can't quite believe I'm wandering into this (particularly so long after the fact), but I wanted to talk about the "it's a public health issue" angle.

My concern about women feeling so much pressure to BF (note, no personal experience, this is from observing a handfull of close friends) is that it's a barrier to women working. I know there are ways around it (pumping, etc.), and there are plenty of women who do both, but in general I really don't like women being pressured to do something that compromises their careers.

The fact that so many older women end up in poverty is also a public health issue (poverty being generally bad for health), and poverty is tightly coupled with having taken time away from work to have/raise children. I do understand there is a strong element of choice in there, and that's fine--I just don't care for the push.

[chefker]

See, the thing is, I never know WHAT statistics to trust, if any. Studies can vary so widely. For example, I'm researching autism/Asperger's syndrome. BIL has it, and I'm certainly afraid that our baby MAY inherit this disorder. Which of course we'll deal with if tha happens.

It's amazing how so many autism studies are different (not saying that this is so with BFing vs. formula feeding studies). Some say it IS genetic, some say it's not. Some say that the gene for autism may lie 'dormant' in a child, and is triggered by any number of factors, e.g., the mother eating fish containing mercury during pregnancy, to MMR immunizations a child receives as a toddler. There is so much conflicting evidence (at least with autism studies), that I feel like banging my head against a wall sometimes.

This may be why I look at statistical studies with a wary eye. Not to completely dismiss everything they say as bunk; but I just want to remain objective and not be an alarmist. It is hard to find a happy medium sometimes.

[Delta]

BTW, someone mentioned feeding sugar and junkfood to kids as being bad for their health. Have you ever looked at the label on some of these baby formulas? They are chock full of corn syrup and sugar and the like.

[carolc]

I do not get the smoking while pregnant vs. formula feeding comparison though. That's akin to saying that you might as well be feeding your baby nicotine, if you choose Enfamil over BF'ing.

My intent was not to make a direct comparions of nicotine and Enfamil, no. (Do I need to mention again that *I supplemented my baby with formula* because of nursing problems?) What I was trying to point out is that *choosing* to formula feed carries risks to the baby, period. As does smoking during pregnancy. However, one of those courses of action is considered "just a choice" and one is widely considered irresponsible.

Chefker, yes, statistics and studies can be confusing and contradictory. What I'm trying to point out is that this is NOT a case where the numbers are, in any way, confusing or contradictory. Again, being skeptical of the claims supporting breastfeeding is rather like being skeptical of the claims that smoking causes lung cancer. It puts you in opposition to a vast body of robust, medically accepted evidence.

[chefker]

Yes, as I say, I'm familiar with this rhetoric, and in the broad sense I agree. However, would you use the same rhetoric about, again, a pregnant woman who smokes? A parent who doesn't always use a carseat?



Different situations, different rhetoric. :) The examples you've cited DO affect a child--but in varying ways.

A parent who doesn't use a carseat for their child--certainly unsafe by any standard, but a different situation than BF vs. formula feeding, IMO.

[Delta]

BTW, Delta, right on if you are considering going veggie! :D (Did I read your comment correctly?) Talk about something we all could do to improve overall health.
Yes, are you veggie?

(I'm on day 9 of no meats. Go me!)

[chefker]

carolc ~ Thanks for explaining your comparison. I'm honestly trying to understand where you're coming from, not start a fight. ;)

By the same token, any food that enters my body has potential to harm a fetus (which freaks me out!)

OT, but I wonder if there's a way to make your own soy formula (as a supplement to breast milk). I plan on making our own baby food in our Cuisinart, once that need arises. But that's a whole other enchilada.

[wendalah]

Yes, lacto-ovo, so is DH. I'm not hardcore enough to go vegan. I occasionally have fish (a couple times a year) but trying to cut that out too.

[wendalah]

Again, being skeptical of the claims supporting breastfeeding is rather like being skeptical of the claims that smoking causes lung cancer.

I'm not sure this is a fair parallel. I'm not skeptical of the claims supporting breastfeeding as a superior food. I'm skeptical of what sound to me like exaggerated claims that your child has double the chance of dying, etc. if you feed him/her formula.

[Delta]

I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the risks, but I do think that the risks are being inflated here. That's not helpful either.
If you take the time to go read the research out there, the benefits of breastfeeding and the risks of formula feeding are obvious and speak for themselves. If the risks are sounding inflated to you in this discussion by some of us, it is probably a reaction to the dismissive attitude towards the studies on the other 'side.' ;)

[bamboo]

wendelah - I'm fairly sure that the NIH (National Institutes of Health), are not in the habit of publishing exaggerated claims. They're the source of the 2x greater risk of dying if you're formula fed. Seriously, the fact that some of this sounds exaggerated to you just goes to show how pervasive and successful the formula marketing has been. The problem is that it's not a "breast is best but formula is pretty close" situation. The situation really is that formula increases a baby's risk of a whole host of diseases, from ear infections and colds to long term chronic diseases like diabetes by a lot. You are putting your baby at a greater risk of many many health problems by formula feeding. That is not overstating the fact. The formula companies have been very very successful at their marketing unfortunately, which is why the government is now in the midst of a large scale campaign to try to improve breastfeeding rates which are sadly low in this country. What is even sadder though, is that the formula companies have enough political power that they were able to negatively affect the public health campaign because they are afraid of losing the millions (perhaps billions) of dollars in profit they get from formula sales. So really, who do you think is more likely to have a motivation for overstating their case and twisting statistics? Public health officials or comapnies who are watching their profits?

[jesvet]

Has anyone here actually said they don't believe breast is best? I really haven't seen that from anyone. I just hate when discussions take this direction and serve, intentionally or not, to make a lot of women feel terribly guilty and defensive. JMO.

[Delta]

I'm fairly sure that the NIH (National Institutes of Health), are not in the habit of publishing exaggerated claims. They're the source of the 2x greater risk of dying if you're formula fed. Seriously, the fact that some of this sounds exaggerated to you just goes to show how pervasive and successful the formula marketing has been. The problem is that it's not a "breast is best but formula is pretty close" situation. The situation really is that formula increases a baby's risk of a whole host of diseases, from ear infections and colds to long term chronic diseases like diabetes by a lot. You are putting your baby at a greater risk of many many health problems by formula feeding. That is not overstating the fact. The formula companies have been very very successful at their marketing unfortunately, which is why the government is now in the midst of a large scale campaign to try to improve breastfeeding rates which are sadly low in this country. What is even sadder though, is that the formula companies have enough political power that they were able to negatively affect the public health campaign because they are afraid of losing the millions (perhaps billions) of dollars in profit they get from formula sales. So really, who do you think is more likely to have a motivation for overstating their case and twisting statistics? Public health officials or comapnies who are watching their profits?

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/clap.gif

[wendalah]

(Mildly) OK, y'all. I give up. John 14:6.

I gotta go do some work before I get fired.

But, btw, I must say this--pervasive formula company marketing got into my brain how? Who pays attention to that if they aren't a mother? (Shrug) I don't even know a brand name, if you want the truth, beyond Enfamil or whatever it's called.

[chefker]

(Mildly) OK, y'all. I give up. John 14:6.

I gotta go do some work before I get fired.

Work? Oh crap. I better do that as well. :)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

These are controlled studies. It is not a question of "But maybe they're FF because of some inherent health problems they had."
The studies are controlled, but from what I have read thus far, very few of them are controlled for how the choice was made to formula-feed. One out of twenty I've looked over so far controls for that by examining children who were all bottle-fed, but some fed breast milk and some fed formula.

Evidence in infants with cleft palate that breast milk protects against otitis media (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/6/853?ijkey=da34c539fb7992005982fd6e1a2c59f4ba45e864&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

Now that right there though- that's the sort of study that really proves something. IMO. I want to find more studies that compare children who were bottle-fed breast milk versus formula.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

If you take the time to go read the research out there, the benefits of breastfeeding and the risks of formula feeding are obvious and speak for themselves. If the risks are sounding inflated to you in this discussion by some of us, it is probably a reaction to the dismissive attitude towards the studies on the other 'side.'
Right. Because as Wendy said, I'm constantly being bombarded by formula advertising. Believe it or not, my questions have nothing to do with brainwashing by the evil formula companies. In fact, Nestle was badmouthed in my family because of their whole formula fiasco.

[amew]

I fully agree that breast milk is a far superior food compared to formula and that breastfeeding has dramatic health benefits. And I fully agree that the formula industry has alot bigger incentive to publish false claims than NIH. However, I think this stat


I'm fairly sure that the NIH (National Institutes of Health), are not in the habit of publishing exaggerated claims. They're the source of the 2x greater risk of dying if you're formula fed.

when not properly explained does, IMO, exaggerate the benefits a little. As I understand it, it is true that children in developing countries who are formula fed are twice as likely to die, largely because formula is often not used correctly in those countries (i.e., its diluted, cow or goat milk is substituted, etc.). It is not, however, true that formula fed babies in the US who are feed proper amounts of undiluted formula are twice as likely to die as breastfeed babies here. Don't get me wrong -- there are still HUGE health incentives for women in developed countries to breastfeed and the formula industry is still responsible for the death rate in developing countries IMO (as they are the reason these babies got off the breast in the first place). I just don't think it is entirely accurate to suggest that all formula fed babies truly have twice the risk of death as a result of their feeding method.

[chefker]

Right. Because as Wendy said, I'm constantly being bombarded by formula advertising. Believe it or not, my questions have nothing to do with brainwashing by the evil formula companies. In fact, Nestle was badmouthed in my family because of their whole formula fiasco.

Honestly, you don't get bombarded until the first prenatal visit to the OB-GYN where you find out you're pregnant. I actually got a 'care package' from my doctor's office--it had some useful information in it, like a list of area daycares, schedule of birthing classes, etc. It also included a free baby bottle and a sample from Enfamil, along with coupons. Umm....what do I do with this NOW? Try some myself to see if I like it? :rolleyes:

And, of course, the formula ads are in nearly every baby/parenting magazine there is. So it's only aimed at that demographic of expectant mothers, and frankly, it does get annoying after a while. Esp. the baby-spam I'm getting now in my email.

[carolc]

No, amew, to my knowledge, that stat does refer to babies in the US. The issue is not unsafe drinking water in this case.

"Report Finds that Using Formula Doubles the Death Rate for U.S. Infants"

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/formula.asp

In other countries, with waterr supply issues, the relative risk may be much higher.

"IBFAN Africa states that "there is 14 times greater risk of death from diarrhea and three times greater risk due to acute respiratory infection in babies not breastfed."

(http://www.gawh.org/pov/breastfeeding.htm)


But, btw, I must say this--pervasive formula company marketing got into my brain how?

It's not so much that you, wendalah, are sitting around eagerly reading formula ads. It's that the general cultural opinion on breast vs. formula in this country (the idea that it's a personal choice and that breastmilk is just marginally superior) has been informed by, among other things, the formula industry.

So, littlefred, you're saying that you're not convinced that the reason BF babies have better health is because of the actual breastmilk, but because of the method of delivery? Well, the method of delivery *does* have implications, as BTB pointed out (better teeth and oromuscular development for nursed babies) but...are you really suggesting that say, childhood leukemia is being prevented not by the substance ingested, but by the method of ingestion? :confused:

[Delta]

deleted so as not to make people puke. :o

[gayle]

subscribing

[Jaycee]

small vent: I have to say that I have always been planning on BF'ing, but all this militant pro-bf'ing talk is a major turn-off. :(

ok, sorry, return to your normally scheduled debating...

[prudies]

This thread is giving me a headache. I'd like to go talk about becoming a veggie with wendalah. I'm kind of inspired. The problem is my husband. Hmmm, and he was formula fed.

A note about formula advertising. I never noticed it either before I became a mom. But when you're in the hospital and establishing the breastfeeding relationship, you get a lot of formula samples and advertising, and often no one tells you, hey, if you give formula you need to pump. I was really, really out of it after I gave birth (long story), and I was a little irritated that the nurses didn't really explain the ramifications of supplementing. I should have known better, but let's just say my pregnancy was kind of a bitch, and leave it at that.

The other thing that drives me crazy...No one can make you feel guilty. I mean, carol has already said it quite well. Facts are facts. There is some disagreement about the risks of using formula and how to interpret those studies. But we should be able to discuss those facts without worrying about hurting someone else's feelings.

And also, there's a difference between having a discussion about this stuff, and lecturing a total stranger about her parenting choices without knowing the whole story.

What's lurking beneath the surface here (or maybe dancing around on top and having a party) is the competition to out-mom everyone else. The finger wagger mom feels it, the mom who "failed" at breastfeeding feels it. I suppose that's really a topic for another thread though.

[bamboo]

that 2 times greater risk of death is for the US. It's much much greater thsn that in developing countries.

[Delta]

small vent: I have to say that I have always been planning on BF'ing, but all this militant pro-bf'ing talk is a major turn-off. :(

ok, sorry, return to your normally scheduled debating...
Please don't let the tone of this message board thread affect such an important decision for your baby. (And really, I don't think it is so militant. For militant go to mothering.com's breastfeeding discussions. ;) )

[amew]

that 2 times greater risk of death is for the US. It's much much greater thsn that in developing countries.

My mistake then. This aticle http://www.newint.org/issue194/boycott.htm talk about the twice as likely rate as being for developing countries, hence the origin of my confusion.

[Katy]

Okay, ladies, I admit, I did not read this entire thread, but I did read enough to learn that it is *WAY* off topic from what the OP had originally posted. If you ladies really want to debate the merits of BF vs. FF then go right ahead (as often as you feel necessary since this topic seems to pop up on a pretty regular basis), but please do so in a different thread.

Let me remind you of the original topic...

What if all public places had a nursing room? It would be comfortable with nice couches, rocking chairs, etc. It would be carpeted with nice decor and maybe music playing. There would be some areas for your other kids to play, and dads would be welcome. There would be some tables and chairs so you would be welcome to eat in there if you wished. So, if you had to nurse, say at the mall, you could go to this very nice, well-furnished room (that is kept very clean). Would you use it? Or, would you still prefer to nurse in the 'public' area?

[carolc]

Jaycee, if you don't mind me asking, what is it you find a turn-off? I'm not being facetious. Would such a feeling sway your decision?

Here's the thing. As bamboo, who works in the field, can tell you, public health advocates have been trying to increase BFing rates for years by using the "here are the benefits of breastfeeding" approach. Frankly, it isn't really working. Why not? Well, perhaps because all the squishy "choice" and "benefits" talk doesn't actually work to convince people. Sometimes, it takes honest talk about risks and dangers and deaths to change people's minds about health behavior. Think about the "truth" tobacco ads, for instance. Why do you think they do them that way? Well, because a soft-focus ad of a healthy person walking through a field of flowers with a voice-over saying "Look how healthy this nonsmoker is! Not smoking has lots of health benefits, you know!" isn't going to be all that effective.

(Have to give credit to bamboo, by the way, for helping me "get" all this.

[Delta]

Hmmm, notice all of the enfamil formula ads on the right side of the page? It's pervasive!

I don't see any ads for breastfeeding. I guess nobody makes money from it. ;)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

So, littlefred, you're saying that you're not convinced that the reason BF babies have better health is because of the actual breastmilk, but because of the method of delivery? Well, the method of delivery *does* have implications, as BTB pointed out (better teeth and oromuscular development for nursed babies) but...are you really suggesting that say, childhood leukemia is being prevented not by the substance ingested, but by the method of ingestion?
Well, my point really just goes to what can be read from the statistics. The studies show controls for economic standing, birth weight, etc., but very little is said about why the child is not being breast-fed. I know BTB said that studies are controlled for breastfed versus breastfed combined with formula fed versus totally formula fed, and I do see that in the studies. But they don't seem to control for reasons for not breastfeeding. If you have a number of babies who are refusing to breastfeed because they are less robust to begin with, and these babies are in the formula-feeding group, you're going to have a skewed group. The study I linked to does control for this because all babies are being fed the same way for the same reason. Because of this, I think you can be more confident that there aren't other influences not being accounted for.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Hmmm, notice all of the enfamil formula ads on the right side of the page? It's pervasive!

I don't see any ads for breastfeeding. I guess nobody makes money from it. ;)
Actually, the ads I'm seeing are for green tea and preventing lung cancer. Nyah. ;)

[wendalah]

Without disrespecting Katy's wishes, I'll throw you all another bone.

Why breastfeeding? Why is this THE cause that makes so many women nowadays, a good deal of whom wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthful, suddenly care so much about public health issues?

Why is it not, say, vegetarianism--or, if we want to stay in the realm of babies, car seats or organic foods or cloth diapers or whatever? Why has this particular issue become something that has actually spawned a militant term (i.e. "lactivist"?)

THAT, and I am being totally honest--is something that makes me exceedingly skeptical. It's mildly creepy, to be honest. Again, I'm not skeptical of the information necessarily. I'm skeptical of the fundamentalist fervor in which many women have chosen to embrace this particular cause when we all know there are umpteen other causes with equal (at least) impact out there on public health and child welfare.

ETA: Women getting involved with causes is GOOD, don't get me wrong. I just am a cynic about this one as it seems to have almost cultlike fervor in those who choose to be active in it. When I see women in the same number going around yanking Gerbers out of toddler's hands and saying "GO ORGANIC! IT'S BETTER!" I will reform my opinion.

ETA: Not that my opinion should even matter to anyone, really!

[Delta]

Actually now I am seeing ads for nursing clothes and nipples shields. Good deal. I guess there is money to be made in breastfeeding after all. ;)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Actually now I am seeing ads for nursing clothes and nipples shields. Good deal. I guess there is money to be made in breastfeeding after all.
Ooh... Me too. Hmm... I think I'm going to start a new thread to see how interesting I can get the ads to be.

[wendalah]

Giraffe. (looking to see if the ads changed)

[ginadc]

Yep, green tea and lung cancer tests here too.

Here's the thing for me. I think it's pretty well established that breast is indeed best. I don't disagree, and would try to BF if I were in fact able to get pregnant. But we are adopting (I am a breast cancer survivor and am leery of the unknown risk of recurrence that may be involved with pregnancy), and I will not be able to BF. (Yes, I know some adoptive mothers have induced lactation, but it's really hard, the drugs involved are not recommended for someone post-BC, and it usually can't provide the full feedings needed.)

Anyway--so I will be walking around bottle-feeding my baby, when I'm lucky enough to have one. And I know from other threads on this topic here and elsewhere that "militant BFers" will be looking at my child with pity, and actually thinking he/she is being ill treated, because of the formula feeding. And that is what horks me off. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might not be breastfeeding their infant, and it's none of anyone else's business. Just as someone's choice to NIP is their business, so is formula feeding. If you don't know the person, if you just walk past them in the mall, to assume that they have somehow just "selfishly" chosen to formula feed because they don't feel like it is as ignorant as assuming that someone who NIPs is an exhibitionist.

Frankly, I have enough negative assumptions to deal with already simply as an adoptive parent. My MIL worries that we'll get a baby with "something wrong with it." A thread on another message board morphed into a battle when an adoptive mother weighed in and was told she was a "pseudomom" and it "must be stressful pretending to be a child's parent." (Yes, other posters gave those two what for, but still--I can't tell you what a sick feeling those words gave me.)

And I know that I will also have to deal with the assumptions of strangers that I'm formula feeding my child because I can't be bothered to nurse, or "didn't try hard enough,"--and that this is somehow, apparently, the equivalent of smoking while pregnant.

So please, let me weigh in on the "have a little mercy on those of us who are or will formula feed" side of the equation. Don't assume the worst, and think before you make comparisons between a perfectly good method of nutrition that may not be as good as breastfeeding, but is in no way comparable to smoking while pregnant or stuffing a child with greaseburgers 24-7.

[msnicolea]

So please, let me weigh in on the "have a little mercy on those of us who are or will formula feed" side of the equation. Don't assume the worst, and think before you make comparisons between a perfectly good method of nutrition that may not be as good as breastfeeding, but is in no way comparable to smoking while pregnant or stuffing a child with greaseburgers 24-7.

RIGHT ON!!!!

[Delta]

Why is it not, say, vegetarianism--or, if we want to stay in the realm of babies, car seats or organic foods or cloth diapers or whatever? Why has this particular issue become something that has actually spawned a militant term (i.e. "lactivist"?)
Well, vegetarianism is not a choice that every woman is faced with once they have kids. It is something that is always out there, but you can go your whole life without have to make a conscious choice about it. When you become a mom, you have to decide how to feed your baby.

As for the other parenting issues you mentioned -- none of those have the same amount of impact on the lives of the mothers that breastfeeding does. As someone here mentioned earlier, they don't like the pressure moms face to breastfeed because they think it may hurt their careers if they feel the need to stay home to do it. (Which is not even the case, actually. I have multiple friends who continued to nurse even past the age of one while working full time.)

The women's movement is all about choice and having choices and many see breastfeeding as something that keeps women at home and out of the workplace. It's like nothing should be said that may make them feel guilty for choosing work over nursing. This is a false choice, for one thing, and for another, the negative attitudes towards NIP and the 'being discreet' clause in our society are more repressive towards women than the pressure to breastfeed, IMO. Breastfeeding is a volatile issue because it does take more out of the mothers than other parenting decisions, and it involves women's bodies as well.

[Marisa]

Kerrie -- I keep seeing you bring up soy formula, and in light of the popularity of research studies around here today ;) -- I wanted to throw something else out there.

Soy formula was introduced pretty much with our generation, as an alternative for babies who could not tolerate dairy-based formulas. However, in recent years they are learning more about soy and phytoestrogens -- chemicals that mimic mammalian estrogen.

Because soy formula has only been in widespread use for 20-30 years, researchers are actually not certain of the longterm effects (if any) of feeding infants a wholly soy-based diet for the first 6-12 months of life. There is particular concern about its effect on males, as you might imagine.

If I were in a position where I had to give formula, and my baby would not tolerate the cow's milk version, I'd go to the expensive predigested stuff before I'd give soy. But that is just what I'm comfortable with. :)



Sorry, Katy, I couldn't help myself. :)

[Delta]

FTR, I always keep an open mind when seeing mothers bottlefeed their babies. I have no idea what is in that bottle, nor do I have any idea what has led that mother to use bottles in the first place. I couldn't imagine confronting anyone about it either, no way.

However, I will be the first to correct false information or misperceptions about breastfeeding should I come across it as has happened here.

[wendalah]

"This is a false choice, for one thing, and for another, the negative attitudes towards NIP and the 'being discreet' clause in our society are more repressive towards women than the pressure to breastfeed, IMO."

I get you, but IMO, getting competent, loving, caring, intelligent women to the point where they feel they are failed mothers because they cannot breastfeed their child, to the point where they become judgmental and inflict superiority complexes on each other, to the point where something that should be natural and normal becomes yet another arena for female competition--AND becomes something else for women to obsess about being "perfect" in...this is what I see, and I don't find it liberating or powerful. I think it's a good thing gone a little overboard, is all.

ETA going in a meeting talk later y'all.

[Delta]

I get you Wendy. And FWIW I don't like the judgemental mommy attitudes either, though lord knows I've done it. (Moreso when I was a new mom, not so much anymore.) But what I dislike even more are people blowing off the facts in order to soothe their consciences.

Also, I have a very good friend who would have given her right arm to be able to nurse but she couldn't for various reasons. She knows she is a wonderful mother and would not ever let discussions like this make her feel otherwise. She can deal, and I think most women can.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

But what I dislike even more are people blowing off the facts in order to soothe their consciences.
Do you really believe anyone in this thread is doing that?

[msnicolea]

But what I dislike even more are people blowing off the facts in order to soothe their consciences.

This it iself is a loaded statement--like moms who choose to formula feed should have guilty consciences.

[Delta]

Do you really believe anyone in this thread is doing that?
I have no idea about this thread, but I see it all the time.

[Delta]

But what I dislike even more are people blowing off the facts in order to soothe their consciences.

This it iself is a loaded statement--like moms who choose to formula feed should have guilty consciences.
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that you should own your choice. Don't spread false information to others (especially other new moms and moms to be) about breastfeeding and formula feeding in order to make yourself feel better.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I have no idea about this thread, but I see it all the time.
About breastfeeding? Like, you know their intentions, and are certain that the excuse is just a sop to the conscience, and not something more personal than what they might've felt comfortable with telling you?

[katmg]

Why breastfeeding? Why is this THE cause that makes so many women nowadays, a good deal of whom wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthful, suddenly care so much about public health issues?

Why is it not, say, vegetarianism--or, if we want to stay in the realm of babies, car seats or organic foods or cloth diapers or whatever? Why has this particular issue become something that has actually spawned a militant term (i.e. "lactivist"?)

Though Delta already addressed this, I'll jump in on this with the GIANT caveat that I'm not a mom yet.

I think part of the back-lash against formula feeding came from the fact that the lactivists felt like they "had" to become militant. With the amount of advertising and marketing that the formula companies did, there wasn't an equivalent amount of marketing being done for breast-feeding. As it was pointed out before, no one makes money from breast-feeding, but the formula market is million (billion?) dollar industry. Who would tell people of the benefits of breastfeeding, especially now, when so many people were themselves formula fed? Certainly not their mothers who were sold on formula by the formula companies in the 60's and 70's.

In a nutshell, it is THE cause because there was/is such a pervasive campaign surrounding the alternative.

[Delta]

Yes littlefredpumpkinhead. I saw it all the time on WC, in fact, on a daily basis.

I also know from experience on WC that this conversation is going to keep changing and going until you find something to be right about. So I am going to bow out about now and let you try to score points with someone else. ;)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I also know from experience on WC that this conversation is going to keep changing and going until you find something to be right about. So I am going to bow out about now and let you try to score points with someone else.
Nice. Delta, putting a winky face behind a snotty comment doesn't make it any less snotty. But I'm pretty sure you already know that. ;)

[msnicolea]

Ah, Delta--how I've missed your "fair and balanced" reporting.

Littlefred is one of the most intelligent, articulate and appropriate posters on the CC, just as she was on the WC. Give me a break.

[Delta]

Littlefred - You got something right in this thread, finally. I really didn't mean for it to be snotty though. It was a round about way of saying you are very stubborn, as you've said yourself. I wanted to soften the statement with *something.*

msnicolea - I actually do think those same things of littlefred and always have.

[wendalah]

What do you think of me? Hoohahahhhahhaaa!

[Delta]

waiting for this thread to get closed or me banned or something....

What do you think of me? Hoohahahhhahhaaa! FAH-REAK!!! j/k ;)

[wendalah]

But, I'm a Republican! A Catholic one at that! :D

[carolc]

And I know from other threads on this topic here and elsewhere that "militant BFers" will be looking at my child with pity, and actually thinking he/she is being ill treated, because of the formula feeding. And that is what horks me off. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might not be breastfeeding their infant, and it's none of anyone else's business. Just as someone's choice to NIP is their business, so is formula feeding. If you don't know the person, if you just walk past them in the mall, to assume that they have somehow just "selfishly" chosen to formula feed because they don't feel like it is as ignorant as assuming that someone who NIPs is an exhibitionist.

Hey, am I included among the "militant" here? Because let me tell you what: I would never assume anything. Why would I, when I ended up expressing milk and bottle-feeding? When I faced nursing obstacles that I certainly myself would have considered valid reasons to stop nursing altogether? :confused: I also have adopted family members and continue to consider adopting myself.

I am perfectly well aware that there are many reasons to formula feed or bottlefeed. I would never in a million years make a comment to a stranger. That said, I will echo Delta:



However, I will be the first to correct false information or misperceptions about breastfeeding should I come across it as has happened here.

Let me ask this, in all seriousness. Here's the deal: breastfeeding rates, and especially breastfeeding continuation rates, are pretty low in the US, and this results in public health issues and costs to mother, baby and society. (Please don't make me argue this...) So, if you're in public health, you want to encourage more moms to breastfeed. How do you go about this? What would you say? Or should no one say anything? Should it all continue to be couched in "It's a personal choice"? If so, then do you feel the same way about public education/advocacy on the risks of:

Not wearing a seatbelt?
Not using a carseat?
Smoking?
Obesity?
Poor nutritional habits?
Drug use?
Unsafe sex?

Probably some people out there don't think any of these things should be educated about/advocated about on a large-scale basis (some libertarians think this, I'm sure). If you're one of them--well, okay. If not, can you explain why this issue is somehow different?

(This is not meant as some kind of one-to-one comparison. Unsafe sex is not the same as smoking is not the same as formula-feeding by choice is not the same as smoking pot. I'm just listing issues with potential health risks that most people think the public should be educated about.)

BTW, littlefred, your thought process is sort of interesting wrt babies who have trouble with breastfeeding, but very few babies just "refuse" to breastfeed, and very few mothers stop breastfeeding because the baby won't or can't. I'm guessing here, but I bet that's less than 10%. In any case, I think something like 35-40% of mothers never breastfeed at all. If those babies were all healthy as horses, and the only ones with issues were the 10% of the 60% initially breastfed who had problems nursing, I would expect that the evidence would not be NEARLY as robust as it is. See what I mean?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Delta, you're priceless. Read this thread again tomorrow morning, and tell me again how reasonable and well-intended your statements were.

[Delta]

Wow! Both of us - Republican. Catholic. And now...VEGGIE! :p

[wendalah]

If not, can you explain why this issue is somehow different?


With the exception of obesity, I don't think any of these issues are ones that women specifically compete with each other and hold superiority complexes over each other's heads regarding them. Nor, with the exception of obesity, do I think any of them are ones that specifically have turned into issues that have the power to make competent WOMEN (drug use is both sexes) feel like incompetent, poor members of their sex.

[wendalah]

And, btw, I find it mind-boggling that so many pro-choice women are perfectly willing to allow abortion to be a personal decision--but then turn around and are critical of the validity of "personal decision" for SUSTAINING a life.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

WTH are you trying to start here Wendy? ;)

[DiscoDiva]

Okay, ladies, I admit, I did not read this entire thread, but I did read enough to learn that it is *WAY* off topic from what the OP had originally posted. If you ladies really want to debate the merits of BF vs. FF then go right ahead (as often as you feel necessary since this topic seems to pop up on a pretty regular basis), but please do so in a different thread.

Let me remind you of the original topic...

What if all public places had a nursing room? It would be comfortable with nice couches, rocking chairs, etc. It would be carpeted with nice decor and maybe music playing. There would be some areas for your other kids to play, and dads would be welcome. There would be some tables and chairs so you would be welcome to eat in there if you wished. So, if you had to nurse, say at the mall, you could go to this very nice, well-furnished room (that is kept very clean). Would you use it? Or, would you still prefer to nurse in the 'public' area?

Thank you for pointing that out! I've tried once, but I only got a few responses and it was back to breastfeeding v. not breastfeeding. When it comes to a hot topic like this, a thread just won't stay on topic, so I gave up.

Here's a thought, close this thread and start a new one called "Breastfeeding v. not breastfeeding." Or "Breastfeeding: pros and cons."

[Delta]

Delta, you're priceless. Read this thread again tomorrow morning, and tell me again how reasonable and well-intended your statements were.
Are you talking about in the entire thread, or my comments to you?

[wendalah]

I'm all about the choice, Fred. I'm a Catholic. We are awfully busy beating ourselves up with guilt--no time to get on others. ;)

[DiscoDiva]

.....and now abortion was just brought up...... *sigh*

[wendalah]

Like I said, I'm a Catholic! Hyuk.

ETA look! I changed the ads! Overturn Roe? NO! Stop the right-wing madness! :p

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

but very few babies just "refuse" to breastfeed, and very few mothers stop breastfeeding because the baby won't or can't. I'm guessing here, but I bet that's less than 10%. In any case, I think something like 35-40% of mothers never breastfeed at all. If those babies were all healthy as horses, and the only ones with issues were the 10% of the 60% initially breastfed who had problems nursing, I would expect that the evidence would not be NEARLY as robust as it is. See what I mean?
I do, really I do... I guess I'd just have a much easier time really gauging the meaning of the results if I could see research that broke it down all nice and tight like that. Meh. ;)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Are you talking about in the entire thread, or my comments to you?
Just yours to me.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

ETA look! I changed the ads! Overturn Roe? NO! Stop the right-wing madness! :p
Huh? My ads say "Tell Wendy to get back to work."
;)

[carolc]

With the exception of obesity, I don't think any of these issues are ones that women specifically compete with each other and hold superiority complexes over each other's heads regarding them. Nor, with the exception of obesity, do I think any of them are ones that specifically have turned into issues that have the power to make competent WOMEN (drug use is both sexes) feel like incompetent, poor members of their sex.

So then, what's the answer? How would your campaign to encourage breastfeeding go? Or should there be no such campaign, because it makes women feel bad? Look, I completely agree that nobody should come up to any poor mom and give her crap about what she is feeding her baby. I mean, hell, that's not just bad activism--that's bad manners. But where is the line? Am I holding superiority complexes? Am I making people feel incompetent? Shall I say again that *I had terrible difficulties with nursing and had to pump and supplement*? Man, where is my street cred for that? ;) Yes, I felt terrible about it, but not because other women were giving me hell--uniformly, everyone, including my "militant lactivist" friends, was very supportive--because I very much wanted to nurse, and I knew the facts on the issue.

There are a million things that can make you feel incompetent and inferior when you become a mom. Shall we not talk about any of them, for fear of making women feel bad? Even when we are simply disseminating facts? Why do we need to protect women from the truth? Speaking of paternalistic...

[yaya]

I can't quite believe I'm wandering into this (particularly so long after the fact), but I wanted to talk about the "it's a public health issue" angle.

My concern about women feeling so much pressure to BF (note, no personal experience, this is from observing a handfull of close friends) is that it's a barrier to women working. I know there are ways around it (pumping, etc.), and there are plenty of women who do both, but in general I really don't like women being pressured to do something that compromises their careers.

The fact that so many older women end up in poverty is also a public health issue (poverty being generally bad for health), and poverty is tightly coupled with having taken time away from work to have/raise children. I do understand there is a strong element of choice in there, and that's fine--I just don't care for the push.

I think this is a fantastic point. The question is about how to promote the best total package, right? That promotes mothers' and childrens' health and empowers us all and creates conditions for individuals making optimal choices.

(It seems clear enough to me that this "total package" takes full account of the seemingly overwhelming health benefits of breastfeeding, among others. That's not the answer to the question, as it were, so much as part of our larger question...)

We might tweak the original posted question to ask whether nursing rooms in public places can help create those sort of conditions -- such that individuals are empowered to make their best choices?

I think that's debatable.

But what's really interesting to me is that we're talking about nursing rooms (or - er -- we were,) when we could be talking about more maternity leave, on-site daycare, education all around, yada yada yada.

Nursing rooms at the mall? Feh. Maybe I'd use one, maybe I wouldn't. But I know that it was a lot easier for me to go back to school when my son was six weeks old because the dean's office made it plain that I would be absolutely supported as a nursing mom, whatever that meant. Now, that's the kind of thing that *really* makes a difference, I think.

[wendalah]

Huh? My ads say "Tell Wendy to get back to work."

(Looks at watch) Shit. I really do need to get back to work.

Carol, I don't think making parallels to smoking is particularly helpful, for a start--I think a few others agree with me there--you're going into PETA territory there (btw, I do support PETA, just recognize they piss a lot of people off in a bad way). This isn't my particular campaign so I can't tell you how to do it, but I can tell you what makes me go "Ooookay, this is shit is bananas," personally.

[Delta]

LF - I was annoyed with your questioning because I am not pulling this stuff out of my butt, and I felt like you were implying I was just making it up. I do see that stuff here (WC) and in real life very, very often. I was frustrated when I wrote that, I admit.

[wendalah]

And, to the point Delta just made--I am afraid you all think that I am simply being argumentative and shutting my ears to reasonable information. I really want to reiterate that it's not the information I have a problem with. It's a myriad of elements surrounding this particular topic that have me scratching my head as to why it's gone so awry and into separate camps.

[kris97]

It's my understanding that between the 50s and the 80s at least, a majority of women chose to formula feed rather than breastfeed. I've no doubt this was due to the efforts of the formula companies, but what I'm wondering is if there has been a documented epidemic (not sure if that's the right word) of the diseases or health conditions that breast feeding protects against among the US population born in these decades since so many of the past several generations have been formula fed?

I ask because intuitively, you would expect some macro-level indication of poor health in this country since formula feeding was so widespread. (I'm thinking of skin cancer, tied to the deterioration of the ozone layer; lung cancer, tied to the prevalence of smoking). Does anyone know the answer to this?

[Marisa]

Kris -- I have no stats on hand, and a jammie'd baby waiting for his mommy, but I think that you'd probably *easily* find information about this generation being the most obese this country has seen, or the number of ear infections we now consider to be 'typical', stuff like that.

[chefker]

This thread is still off-track from the OP's question, I see. :)

Quickyreply to what Marisa said though:

I'd daresay that this generation is predominantly obese because of too much crappy fast food, and sitting on our butts not exercising. Seriously, the movie Supersize Me is a must-see, for those who haven't seen it. Scared me somewhat!

[carolc]

Kris, there are so many potential risks to FFing that the effects are probably pretty spread out. However, one that comes to my mind: allergies. Don't you feel like everybody and their brother has an allergy to everything but the kitchen sink these days? Yes, well, breastfeeding does have a significant protective effect against allergies.

Diabetes also comes to mind--that's considered an ever-worsening epidemic, and yes, breastfeeding protects against it.

One thing we haven't talked about too much is that breastfeeding also protects the *mom* against a number of health problems, including various cancers, such as breast cancer. Breast cancer rates are increasing all the time. (It also protects female *babies* against breast cancer. Pretty neat!)

Wendalah, dude, no one's ever put me in the "PETA" category before. Oh well. My point really was not that formula= a cigarette. It's just one of the better examples I could come up with. Again I will say: formula feeding puts your baby's health at significantly increased risk, compared to breastfeeding.

Is that offensive? It's factual.

[bookworm]

As for the other parenting issues you mentioned -- none of those have the same amount of impact on the lives of the mothers that breastfeeding does. As someone here mentioned earlier, they don't like the pressure moms face to breastfeed because they think it may hurt their careers if they feel the need to stay home to do it. (Which is not even the case, actually. I have multiple friends who continued to nurse even past the age of one while working full time.)



Since I was the one who made this comment, I wanted to respond. As I acknowledged originally, I know some women can make it work. I even know some of these women personally. However, I also know women who could not make it work, either because of supply issues, office setup issues, break timing issues, or even the fact that those breaks extended the length of the work day, making it more difficult to get to daycare pick up on time.

I do not deny that many women make it work, but I would speculate most of those women are in a position of privilege-- with offices, working for semi-progressive companies, good enough at their jobs to make companies want to keep them, even if that means compromises.

I think there are downstream implications involved in this choice, and I believe they deserve consideration. We hear about the "good" (reduced risk of breast cancer), but not about trade-offs beyond short-term inconveniences.

I suppose (and really, I haven't given this much thought beyond sympathizing with a friend or reading the occasional thread) I'd rather see the same zeal put into addressing the implications of BFing as I see pressuring women into making the choice in the first place.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Here's what I think would be most effective for the promotion of breast feeding:

- Push the cost savings more
- Get celebrities to do it

Seriously. Imagine the response if we were seeing pictures of Gwyneth Paltrow and Denise Richards, NIPing while shopping, NIPing at a concert, etc., etc.?
I know it's not a particularly palatable thought- that appealing to people's vanity would be more effective than appealing to their sense of responsibility to their child. The thing is though, it's much easier to get someone to look at the cover of a magazine than it is to get them to read another dry article about a research study.

[Sarah]

Push the cost savings more

Diffficult to do when WIC pays for formula. But I agree, both those would be great PR. The few celebrities who have chosen to nurse and be somewhat vocal about it* have made an impact, I think.

*Debra Messing, Courtney Cox-Arquette, Gywneth Paltrow, and Pam Anderson come to mind. Denise Richards actually weaned her baby so she could drink and pose for Playboy. Ick.

[carolc]

Bookworm, one thing that could be done is that more laws could be passed requiring employers to provide pumping rooms for moms. CA has such a law; I'm not sure which other states do. You know who's lobbying for more such laws? "Militant lactivists." You bet your bottom dollar.

I wanted to say this, too, about all the talk about the big bad meanie lactivists inflicting inferiority complexes and guilt and so on: who do you think is there for the women who do have a hard time with nursing? Who are the people at La Leche League who call back the crying moms in the middle of the night? Who spends hours of time helping out moms here at CC with BFing issues, just because they want to help? Who offers to pump for other women with undersupply and donates the milk? Well, that'd be the "militant lactivists," too. Many of these women give so much of themselves. You know, when I was having trouble with nursing, I did not want to hear "Well, formula's really just as good. Don't beat yourself up!" That was of no help to me. I needed (and got) "That sounds really rough. I know you're trying so hard. You're an amazing mom! Here's an idea that might help..." And if I'd thrown in the towel, would these women have given me crap about it? I know they would not have.


I'd rather see the same zeal put into addressing the implications of BFing as I see guilting of women into making the choice in the first place.

How do you feel they should be addressed? I'm not being snarky. I think the issue of women being poor in their old age due to staying home with a child is a large and complex one, much more to do with limited workplace options, daycare issues, "mommy tracking," and the overworked American lifestyle than with pressure to breastfeed. I don't think very many women choose to stay at home *only because* of the breastfeeding issue, you know?

[Delta]

I totally agree that celebs should talk about nursing and NIP more.

Actually Gwyneth NIPped all the time, apparently. There was a photo of Carrie Ann Moss walking and nursing her toddler in some mag, but unfortunately the caption read, "Not Normal."

Denise Richards is probably better about it with her second, but with her first she quit nursing at 6 weeks so she could "get her body back."

As for the cost incentives - I agree completely that the fact that bfing is free should be at the forefront of the awareness campaign, especially in 'at risk' areas. Unfortunately, many WIC offices (not all) that deal with these at risk moms and kids hand out free formula like it's going out of style, besides the fact they know diddly about breastfeeding.

[Delta]

jinx sarah :p

[bookworm]

I don't think very many women choose to stay at home *only because* of the breastfeeding issue, you know?

Oh, I absolutely agree with this-- and I wasn't quick enough editing my post, but I did change "guilting" to "pressuring" because (I think) it's a less loaded word, and is closer to what I meant.

I guess I think as an overall "best choices" solution (as yaya mentioned) involves putting systems in place that mitigate the trade-offs. However (and this is an entirely-different-yet-equally-loaded topic) I'll be surprised if those systems are enacted while so many women voluntarily take themselves outside of the power structure.

I'm glad you found the support you needed--I am. And I'm delighted that women are supporting each other. I guess my exposure (again, via friends) has been to the flip side of the coin--where my intelligent, capable, loving, amazing friends were getting consistent feedback that they just weren't trying hard enough.

[wendalah]

Denise Richards is probably better about it with her second, but with her first she quit nursing at 6 weeks so she could "get her body back."

(Mildly again) Let's remember here that Denise Richards is a working actress who recently divorced her husband and is raising two children alone. I don't think she's hurting for money or ever will--but if she wants to continue with her career, which I think she's entitled to want to continue, she's going to need her "body." It's a requirement of the job here in Hollywood unless you are one of a very few, exceedingly talented minority.

ETA: I know lots of actresses BF, but let's face it--Denise Richards isn't exactly A-list, so if she wanted to stop doing it so she could continue to put juice behind her developing career (which is, I suspect, the reason she wanted her body back, not just vanity)--that's her choice. Oh God! Did I say "choice" again? ;)

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

*Debra Messing, Courtney Cox-Arquette, Gywneth Paltrow, and Pam Anderson come to mind. Denise Richards actually weaned her baby so she could drink and pose for Playboy. Ick.
Really? See, I didn't know that any of them did. Man- just imagine what a few "candid" shots of any of them NIPing placed in "People" or "InStyle" or "Star" would do.

[Delta]

(Mildly again) Let's remember here that Denise Richards is a working actress who recently divorced her husband and is raising two children alone. I don't think she's hurting for money or ever will--but if she wants to continue with her career, which I think she's entitled to want to continue, she's going to need her "body." It's a requirement of the job here in Hollywood unless you are one of a very few, exceedingly talented minority.
Actually, she did this after her first baby when she was still married to Charlie Sheen. Apparently he was putting the pressure on her to 'get her body back' - for him. I am not talking about getting back in shape. Besides, plenty of actresses manage to work and nurse. In fact, I think it'd be easier than with an office job.

[wendalah]

Well, so, what if she did it so she could pose nude for Playboy? (ick?) If she wants to pose nude for playboy (which women generally do to further their acting or modeling careers)--big deal, that's her career choice.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Is it possible to hire wet nurses anymore?

[Delta]

I don't know if she weaned so she could pose for Playboy. Wouldn't it be more useful to have big tatas when you do that anyway?

[wendalah]

I don't know either, but that's what Sarah said.
There are porns and mags that specialize in the lactating boob fantasy, btw. Not sure if they pay as good as playboy!

[Delta]

Ah ha. I found some research where apparently she says this about the first in People Mag:
Denise Richards, 33, will appear nude in the December issue of Playboy,the actress tells USA Today. She said the shoot, which took place in the Bahamas last month, was encouraged by her husband, Charlie Sheen, who even helped pick out the final photos for publication. "He was very supportive," she says. "Charlie's been a Playboy fan for years." As for appearing nude six months after having a baby (the Sheens have a daughter, Sam), Richards did admit to a fear of sagging breasts, and therefore stopped breastfeeding. "I felt like I was still pregnant," she says. "You're trapped when you always have this kid attached to your boob."


And then in US Weekly earlier this summer she said she was bfing Lola (the second) and will continure to do so while filming her new movie.

[carolc]

Uh, yeah. I don't think the "have my body back" comment was about "I want to get back to my pre-baby fitness level." (Man, anyway, if you *wanted* to lose weight while nursing, and you had the time/resources of a wealthy person, it would be easy. I've never in my life FELT my body burning calories like I did while I was nursing.) And, er, the time for ME to appear in PLayboy would definitely have been *during* nursing. Hubba, hubba.

[Delta]

Yep. I was at my pre-baby weight in 2-3 months because of nursing. I never worked out or watched what I was eating or anything. I'm now about 5-7 pounds under my pre-baby weight, I'm actually underweight, and even that is a struggle to keep on. :rolleyes:

[DiscoDiva]

Really? See, I didn't know that any of them did. Man- just imagine what a few "candid" shots of any of them NIPing placed in "People" or "InStyle" or "Star" would do.
Their pics would be zoomed in and splashed all over the place. But, instead of being for breastfeeding, it would be to show their breasts and nipples. Then the pervs would get ahold of the pics and put them on some gross "see your favorite movies stars nude" web site. :rolleyes:

[prudies]

Really? See, I didn't know that any of them did.

What, you don't read Celebrity Baby Blog?

[Katy]

I see that things have appeared to calm down right now, but this is your thread and it has gone WAY off topic. If you would like us to close it down (I know that I sure would) then please just PM me or a mod and let us know.

Otherwise, if we get any other complaints or if the "attitudes" and "finger pointings" (my words) start back up again, we'll be forced to close it down.

DD, it's your call (and ladies, it's your call to see how the thread moves on from this point on) ;)

Once again I bring you, the original topic...

What if all public places had a nursing room? It would be comfortable with nice couches, rocking chairs, etc. It would be carpeted with nice decor and maybe music playing. There would be some areas for your other kids to play, and dads would be welcome. There would be some tables and chairs so you would be welcome to eat in there if you wished. So, if you had to nurse, say at the mall, you could go to this very nice, well-furnished room (that is kept very clean). Would you use it? Or, would you still prefer to nurse in the 'public' area?

[wendalah]

Uh, yeah. I don't think the "have my body back" comment was about "I want to get back to my pre-baby fitness level."

So WHAT? Who cares WHAT her rationale was? Is it HER body or not? Is it only her body when she's pregnant, and she's free to choose whether or not she wants to house a fetus? And then when she has a child it suddenly becomes different? She has no say in the matter about HER body anymore? Is that how it is? Eh?

[wendalah]

deleted to condense posts

[wendalah]

As for appearing nude six months after having a baby (the Sheens have a daughter, Sam), Richards did admit to a fear of sagging breasts, and therefore stopped breastfeeding. "I felt like I was still pregnant," she says. "You're trapped when you always have this kid attached to your boob."


Let's gag the b-tch. She's clearly dissident. (Snapping to formation and saluting.)

I'm sorry but I am so angry right now. Who the F-CK are any of you to tell ANY woman what she can or can't think, or do, or manipulate about HER OWN body? Is it HER property or NOT? Real, real pro-choice!

[wendalah]

Going to bed--but in reality--I HATE being a woman.

My body? Not mine. Maybe a bit mine. But really, not. Ever.

[BTB]

Our of respect for our favorite admin's request:

http://www.constantchatter.com/showthread.php?p=128419#post128419post128419

[Katy]

Thanks BTB! Once I hear back from DD we'll probably close this one down.

favorite admin :o I'm blushing (*thanks*)

[carolc]

I know we're wanting to close the thread down (honestly, though I know it's OT, I don't think it's really been out of control, and I'm feeling slightly "overmodded" right now) , but wendalah, my point wasn't that what'sherface doesn't have a right to her body or whatever. It was that you misunderstood the quote. That's all. :shrug:

This is your issue, I think.

[wendalah]

Admittedly I'd had a margarita before I wrote that post, but in reality--yeah, sure, that is my issue. There is always someone telling you what you can and can't do, or passing judgment on your decisions, when you are female.

[Sarah]

So WHAT? Who cares WHAT her rationale was? Is it HER body or not? Is it only her body when she's pregnant, and she's free to choose whether or not she wants to house a fetus? And then when she has a child it suddenly becomes different? She has no say in the matter about HER body anymore? Is that how it is? Eh?

Well, I'm not pro-choice, so I guess this doesn't apply to me, but I don't see how it really relates. No one is saying what she CAN or CANNOT do, just that I think it is a crappy, shallow decision. I her husband is just as much if not more of a jerk for encouraging her to do so, so I don't see it as being about her being a woman.

I said ick because I think choosing a highly inferior food for your child just so you can be in porn is kind of nasty and selfish. She also said in other magazines that she weaned because she wanted to be able to have a cocktail.

No, I don't think women need to sacrifice themselves totally in order to fit some mothering standard- there are plenty of women I know who have quit nursing who I respect and admire as mothers- but she seems to have pretty dumb reasons to stop. Yes, it's her choice and I am not trying to make weaning illegal- but it's still a bad decision, IMO.

Especially since sagging breasts have nothing to do with BFing. If they are going to sag, they sag because of pregnancy, not nursing. If she wanted to keep them perky, she should have kept nursing. :D

I think it's silly to say that because we are women, or because we are feminists, we have to totally support each others' decisions, whether they are good or bad. The choice of a celebrity to stop BFing and resort to formula is a big decision, which impacts many other mothers and influences cultural perspectives on BFing, especially when DR is giving out misinformation like she is (BFing makes saggy boobs, you can't drink while BFing).