When does extended breastfeeding become weird....

POPPYOSCAR

Gillyx wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there was a breast feeding programme and the parent was still breast feeding her 9 year old occasionally.

Yes I can remember watching something like that. Not for me personally but if it works for them.

I stopped breastfeeding when it felt right for me to do so at about 18 months for both of my children.Could not explain why I felt like that, it just felt the right time to stop.

Both my children would have a bottle of cows milk to go to bed with and they both just stopped wanting this around this time to.

I suppose every family is different and does what they feel is right for them.

hayleyc_2

Haven't read all the replies as there are so many! To me 'extended' BF is anything over about 2yrs as the world health organisation recommends BF for at least 2 yrs and to continue as long as you want after that. There is no upper limit as far as they're concerned, although obviously older children lose their ability to suckle after a certain point anyway. I BF my son until be was about 2 and 3 months, and he self weaned because I was pregnant with my daughter, and he was sleeping through the night without waking for milk anymore. My daughter is now 18 months and is a bit of a booby monster so I don't see her stopping any time soon! I think a lot of people think anything over a year is 'extended', and some even think anything over 6 months. I think it's a perception that needs changing, as it's totally normal in most parts of the world for children to BF and self-wean much later.

hayleyc_2

Gorgeestwo wrote: »

I can bet that there are a fair amount of breast feeding mothers out there that would find it 'unacceptable' (for want of a better word ) to see an older toddler drinking out of a bottle, even if it were just for bedtime and if this had been a question about when to stop giving a child a bottle, the answers (age related ones anyway ) would have been very different.

But, BF is very differnt to drinking from a bottle. The main reason to stop bottles is to do with the health of the child's teeth because milk from a bottle pools in the mouth, and causes decay. Milk from a breast doesn't pool in the mouth because the milk only comes out whilst the baby is sucking, and also the nipple is in a totally different position so the milk goes straight down and doesn't touch the teeth. Apart from the obvious thing that BF is totally natural and we've evolved to do it for millions of years.

poet123

hayleyc wrote: »

But, BF is very differnt to drinking from a bottle. The main reason to stop bottles is to do with the health of the child's teeth because milk from a bottle pools in the mouth, and causes decay. Milk from a breast doesn't pool in the mouth because the milk only comes out whilst the baby is sucking, and also the nipple is in a totally different position so the milk goes straight down and doesn't touch the teeth. Apart from the obvious thing that BF is totally natural and we've evolved to do it for millions of years.

Both methods of feeding are used for "need" though surely? So, if the need is not there, i.e the child is old enough to get their nutrition from other sources of food and drink, neither a bottle or the breast is strictly required. I agree that a lot of people would look askance at a child still being bottle fed at 2.

hayleyc_2

poet123 wrote: »

Yes, my bottle fed children moved onto milk, but (genuine question)if you breastfeed do you not also give cow's milk (as a drink) to your children? If yes, then that would negate the calcium argument, if no, why is that?
QUOTE]

I can see what you mean, but isn't it more odd to give the milk of a totally different species rather than the milk evolved specifically for your child? My daughter drinks cows milk as a drink during the day if she wants it, but she doesn't see breastmilk and cows milk as swappable.. if that makes sense. Offer her a cup of cows milk when she wants a breastfeed and she'll push it away. Also the calcium in cows milk isn't very well absorbed, so i'd much rather give my children human milk for as long as they want it.

hayleyc_2

poet123 wrote: »

Both methods of feeding are used for "need" though surely? So, if the need is not there, i.e the child is old enough to get their nutrition from other sources of food and drink, neither a bottle or the breast is strictly required. I agree that a lot of people would look askance at a child still being bottle fed at 2.

I see your point, but BF is about more than just nutrition. Also there has been a lot of research showing how important the antibodies in breastmilk are well in to toddlerhood.

poet123

hayleyc wrote: »

I see your point, but BF is about more than just nutrition. Also there has been a lot of research showing how important the antibodies in breastmilk are well in to toddlerhood.

But nothing actually proven beyond doubt. The studies only prove possible benefits short term not long term.

So, to compare like with like, formula is a food for babies, breastmilk is a food for babies, therefore, when other sources of nutrition kick in surely both cease to become required food and become "drinks" instead? To follow that to its logical conclusion would mean that the vessels used to dispense the food are no longer required and the usual mode of taking in drinks can be used.

It is of course up to the individual how long they feed for, but beyond the age where they can hold a cup I think it is probably less about need and more about how the mother feels about the process.

FatVonD

poet123 wrote: »

Yes, my bottle fed children moved onto milk, but (genuine question)if you breastfeed do you not also give cow's milk (as a drink) to your children? If yes, then that would negate the calcium argument, if no, why is that?

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly as I didn't think I had a calcium argument but I may not have explained myself clearly. I meant that, whatever type of milk chosen (either breast milk or formula) the mother would continue with that type past the 'baby' age (as the child still needs the calcium.) If a bottle feeding mother then wants to move onto a cup that is entirely up to her but, if you intend to stick with your choice, ie breast milk then there is no need to make a lot of work for unnecessary work for yourself by expressing.

I didn't give my son cow's milk as a drink before he was 3 though he had cheese etc and in fact I always used formula to make up baby rice etc (bet you didn't see that one coming ), rather than expressing because for the small amounts involved I didn't want to faff around with sterilising (and using) breast pumps.

For me while breast feeding may have started out as being what was best for my baby for me, once established, I also found it incredibly trouble-free and convenient and I am also incredibly lazy. I could go out for the day without carrying bags of milk, I could extend my day out at short notice if I wanted without fretting about how to feed the baby because I was carrying the supply with me. I never had to worry about sterilising stuff (and trust me, I'd have been way too neurotic to ever think it was clean enough!) I just don't see the point of introducing equipment where none is needed. Since we haven't had a toilet analogy lately, if I can go to the toilet perfectly happily on my own why would I have colonic irrigation?

Any old how... weekend is here so I'll have to bow out of this discussion for a couple of days...

poet123

FatVonD wrote: »

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly as I didn't think I had a calcium argument but I may not have explained myself clearly. I meant that, whatever type of milk chosen (either breast milk or formula) the mother would continue with that type past the 'baby' age (as the child still needs the calcium.) If a bottle feeding mother then wants to move onto a cup that is entirely up to her but, if you intend to stick with your choice, ie breast milk then there is no need to make a lot of work for unnecessary work for yourself by expressing.

..

That is not my experience (which was why I asked) when a bottle feed was no longer needed for nutrition I stopped using formula and switched to ordinary milk, as it was not food they needed.

When I said "argument" I didn't mean literally I meant that if they were now getting a balanced diet, that calcium requirement would be met elsewhere. So, effectively, those who continue to breastfeed and bottle feed alongside other nutrition are feeding twice? That is surely the way to obesity.

I have to say that I think that does fall under heading of comfort feeding and not something I have ever seen the need to do. I really don't think that is prevalent amongst bottle feeders, but I stand to be corrected.

melb

I wish they would just admit that they want to keep their children as babies for as long as possible instead of enjoying seeing them progressing and becoming independent. I think it's a bit sad really.