Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Moms: How long did you breastfeed?
Six weeks or less 1 1.23%
Six weeks to six months 5 6.17%
Six to 12 months 21 25.93%
12 to 24 months 24 29.63%
24 to 36 months 20 24.69%
didn't breastfeed at all 10 12.35%
Voters: 81. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2013, 09:24 AM
 
5,346 posts, read 9,850,070 times
Reputation: 9785

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That's interesting! I don't think I've ever been asked if I breast fed at a mammogram appointment. I have been asked about family history of breast cancer.

We always ask family history plus personal history questions of smoking, number of pregnancies, number of live births, mother's age at first pregnancy and total months of breastfeeding.

Last edited by missik999; 03-25-2013 at 09:25 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2013, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,685,448 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADVentive View Post
If you don't trust the study, then say that. But it clearly concludes a risk reduction of 7% for each pregnancy and 4.3% for each year of breastfeeding.

If people think that breastfeeding is a magic bullet, then they are the ones misinterpreting the studies. Reducing risk is completely different from eliminating risk, and nobody is claiming that breastfeeding, or anything else, eliminates your risk for breast cancer.
Well, I DID say some of that stuff made me raise my eyebrows, didn't I?

Here is some good information on breast cancer:
Risk Factors for Breast Cancer
**In fact, 75% of all women with breast cancer have no known risk factors.

Significantly higher risk
A woman with a history of cancer in one breast is three to four times likelier to develop a new breast cancer, unrelated to the first one, in either the other breast or in another part of the same breast. This is different than a recurrence of the previous breast cancer.

Moderately higher risk
Getting older.
Direct family history.
Genetics.
Breast lesions.


And so on.

Here's another link, which states a weak decrease in risk from breastfeeding.
Susan G. Komen® | Understanding Breast Cancer | Risk Factors and Prevention | Breast Cancer Risk Factors Table

There are lots of good reasons to breast feed, and certainly a weak decrease in the risk of breast cancer is a good thing. However, I'd rather see women breast feed for the benefits to the baby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Hillsborough
2,825 posts, read 6,922,857 times
Reputation: 2669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
There are lots of good reasons to breast feed, and certainly a weak decrease in the risk of breast cancer is a good thing. However, I'd rather see women breast feed for the benefits to the baby.
I agree and I do think that decreasing cancer risk is just a perk, and it's not really the reason that anyone I know breastfed or continued to do so longer. It's just a nice little added benefit. But I do think that it is worth mentioning that there is a decreased risk after breastfeeding, mainly because it is one of the very few risk factors that a woman has some control over.

The Komen page that you linked, cited the same study I did in describing the impact of breastfeeding on breast cancer. I'm just speculating, but perhaps the reason it was categorized by them as a "weak decrease" is because most women in America do not breastfeed for a whole 12 months, therefore even most women who have breastfed would see far less benefit with regard to breast cancer than would someone such as myself who has breastfed for about 7 years so far.

Last edited by ADVentive; 03-25-2013 at 11:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Hillsborough
2,825 posts, read 6,922,857 times
Reputation: 2669
Oh, I see where they defined it:

Weak decrease = 10-30% reduced risk of disease
Moderate decrease = 30-60% reduced risk of disease
Strong decrease = Greater than 60% reduced risk of disease

So at 4.3% per year, you would need to breastfeed for 7 years (like me) to get bumped up into the moderate category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 11:59 AM
 
16,579 posts, read 20,696,519 times
Reputation: 26860
We have one daughter and I breastfed til she was 3.5 years old. Even then it was a struggle to wean her--that kid loved the boobie!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,685,448 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADVentive View Post
I agree and I do think that decreasing cancer risk is just a perk, and it's not really the reason that anyone I know breastfed or continued to do so longer. It's just a nice little added benefit. But I do think that it is worth mentioning that there is a decreased risk after breastfeeding, mainly because it is one of the very few risk factors that a woman has some control over.

The Komen page that you linked, cited the same study I did in describing the impact of breastfeeding on breast cancer. I'm just speculating, but perhaps the reason it was categorized by them as a "weak decrease" is because most women in America do not breastfeed for a whole 12 months, therefore even most women who have breastfed would see far less benefit with regard to breast cancer than would someone such as myself who has breastfed for about 7 years so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADVentive View Post
Oh, I see where they defined it:

Weak decrease = 10-30% reduced risk of disease
Moderate decrease = 30-60% reduced risk of disease
Strong decrease = Greater than 60% reduced risk of disease

So at 4.3% per year, you would need to breastfeed for 7 years (like me) to get bumped up into the moderate category.
I don't think you're interpreting that correctly. Get your mammograms anyway!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Hillsborough
2,825 posts, read 6,922,857 times
Reputation: 2669
I will certainly get my mammograms anyway - when I'm old enough, which I'm not yet!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2013, 12:29 AM
 
7,974 posts, read 7,346,115 times
Reputation: 12046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That's interesting! I don't think I've ever been asked if I breast fed at a mammogram appointment. I have been asked about family history of breast cancer.

I just had my routine mammogram last week, and that was all they asked me about - family breast cancer history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2013, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,499 posts, read 54,047,287 times
Reputation: 47919
Had to leave son at hospital for 10 days cause he was a premmie. He got used to the bottle and I had breasts which turned into bricks while I waited for him to come home. But I was hell bent on nursing him. He wanted nothing to do with me. I was crushed so took him to ped who told me:

"The good lord is not going to let that child starve to death with a food supply so close. You have my permission to try him ever hour for 36 hours without worry of him being sick and he will latch on. Also you must take this opportunity to show him who is boss so you better start early."

When I told my mother what I was trying she had a hissy fit. Good thing she wasn't anywhere close. DS went about 35.5 hours before he gave in and started to nurse and he didn't quit till he was 2.5 and only then cause hwas more interested in his toys than in me. He went from breastfeeding to a sippy cup in 1 days with rare bottles.

For first adopted daughter I tried to nurse her but not much milk left over after 2 .5 year old son was finished so she lost interest real soon and I was too tired to follow through. Also she had gained only 1 lb since birth to 3 months when we brought her home from Korea and i wasn't comfortable with holding out for her. She would suck the life out of a bottle in no time and blew up so fast we called her The Happy Buddah when she was only 5 months old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2013, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Arizona
563 posts, read 1,498,652 times
Reputation: 637
My first was 11-12 months. My current is 8.5 months and going strong. I know a lot more this time and think I might go longer. I am in a group with several moms of 1.5-2 yr olds still nursing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:10 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top