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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2015, 03:30 PM
 
Location: The point of no return, er, NorCal
6,910 posts, read 4,229,909 times
Reputation: 8891

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
I agree. It seems that some people would rather remain ignorant on the subject and resort to name calling and anecdotes rather then trying to gain a better understanding from those who have taken the time to share their knowledge which is backed by research and evidence. It is sad.


The mother's who choose to nurse past infancy are not "Nazi's. They are just trying to take care of their children in the way that they see fit. And what they are doing is 100% biologically normal and healthy. There is no valid reason whatsoever to be offended, angry or concerned about it.
Their personal feelings and cognitive biases get in the way. I'm not bothered by someone giving their child cow's milk, so why the does it concern them my child gets my, human, milk? Oh, wait, it doesn't concern them.

Last edited by Miss Blue; 12-20-2015 at 03:35 PM.. Reason: deleted the filtered word****

 
Old 12-20-2015, 03:31 PM
 
Location: The point of no return, er, NorCal
6,910 posts, read 4,229,909 times
Reputation: 8891
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy View Post
Saying that nursing past infancy is normal is not jamming anything down anyone's throat or claiming perfection.
Oh, it's not normal, but giving one's child cow's udder milk surely is. This is completely and utterly fallacious and erroneous.
 
Old 12-20-2015, 04:19 PM
 
15,752 posts, read 13,180,165 times
Reputation: 19641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
A lot of body parts are considered sexually appealing - eyes, hands, lips, hair etc. Should we cover those up as well?
Adam's apples are secondary sexual characteristics. Maybe we should require all men to wear turtle necks.

Beards too. Maybe we need male burkas to cover up all their exposed secondary sexual characteristics.
 
Old 12-20-2015, 04:21 PM
 
15,752 posts, read 13,180,165 times
Reputation: 19641
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird View Post
It's not their choice to do it, it's their jamming down how right, superior and perfect they are down other people's throats. Come on, we all know those people. It's so cringe worth.
Except that not one person on this thread did any of the above and you still labeled many as "breast nazis".
 
Old 12-20-2015, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,084 posts, read 3,066,094 times
Reputation: 8617
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Adam's apples are secondary sexual characteristics. Maybe we should require all men to wear turtle necks.

Beards too. Maybe we need male burkas to cover up all their exposed secondary sexual characteristics.
So is facial hair in men. Surgical masks might help.
 
Old 12-20-2015, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Maryland
912 posts, read 592,800 times
Reputation: 1078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphysique View Post
Offs. If you can't cite your sources and support your claims, with your anecdote of one, and you continue to misconstrue what I said, due to your lack of reading comprehension, then it is no wonder you're going to pull this tired logical fallacy of appealing to your version of authority. Anecdote is not data. Try again.
No, sweet misguided dear, this is not about an anecdote of one. This is hard evidence they had to provide to me about the development of ALL children to even convince me he needed help. This is about science. This is about medicine. This is about what all children need. Again, I haven't heard that you are more qualified than my sources, so until I do, I'll leave it at that.

If you are so inclined to educate yourself before speaking, you are more than welcome to call Johns Hopkins or any of the other sources I've generously provided to you. Now, if you don't mind, I have better things to do than educate the misguided, like finally eat my dinner now that my son is asleep.
 
Old 12-20-2015, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,084 posts, read 3,066,094 times
Reputation: 8617
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserName14289 View Post
No, sweet misguided dear, this is not about an anecdote of one. This is hard evidence they had to provide to me about the development of ALL children to even convince me he needed help. This is about science. This is about medicine. This is about what all children need. Again, I haven't heard that you are more qualified than my sources, so until I do, I'll leave it at that.

If you are so inclined to educate yourself before speaking, you are more than welcome to call Johns Hopkins or any of the other sources I've generously provided to you. Now, if you don't mind, I have better things to do than educate the misguided, like finally eat my dinner now that my son is asleep.
LOL Spouting off the name of a medical facility is not providing sources. Here are some, though:

Extended breast-feeding: What you need to know - Mayo Clinic

Quote:
Worldwide, babies are weaned on average between ages 2 and 4. In some cultures, breast-feeding continues until children are age 6 or 7. In other parts of the world, however, extended breast-feeding is less common and can sometimes provoke uninformed, negative reactions.
The MayoClinic also has a list of benefits for children who are breastfed past one year, including better nutrition, boosted immunity, reduced risk of disease, and improved health.

Parental Concerns About Extended Breastfeeding in a Toddler | | Pediatrics

Quote:
Breastfeeding in the first year of life is protective against numerous infections and the development of allergies.5 There is limited but increasing evidence that breastfeeding beyond 1 year is also beneficial to the health of the child and, possibly, the mother. The duration of an episode of otitis media is shortened in children who are breastfeeding after 1 year of age.6 This finding is consistent with the data that concentrations of lysozyme, lactoferrin, and secretory IgA are stable and even increase in the breast milk of mothers who are breastfeeding for longer than 1 year.7 Preliminary studies suggest that extended breastfeeding may be protective against childhood lymphoma and leukemia.8,9 Evidence is now accumulating that increasing duration of lifetime breastfeeding reduces the risk of premenopausal breast cancer in the mother.10,11 Reports that some children breastfed beyond 1 year were at increased risk for malnutrition have been discredited because of poor study designs.12 Most experts agree that, as long as a breastfeeding toddler is eating a variety of grains, vegetables, fruits, and foods or supplements that provide adequate iron and vitamin D, nutrition will be adequate and appropriate growth and development will be ensured.
 
Old 12-20-2015, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Maryland
912 posts, read 592,800 times
Reputation: 1078
Okay. I'll inbox you the doctors names, if you truly plan to call them.

In the meantime, how about you read about why children should be started on solids? Yes, you can breastfeed until your little one goes off to college (if you allow them to go to college because then they'd have to eat solids). However, they should ALSO be eating solids at 1yo, and here is why.

#1
The introduction of solids in your baby’s diet is not only important for nutritional reasons, but for the development of oral motor skills. These are the actions of the mouth, lips, tongue, cheeks and jaw as they suck, bite, chew and lick. These motor skills work the same muscles in the mouth as those which are needed for speech development.
Source: Speech Development Oral Motor Skills

#2
If breastmilk is the best food, why not continue exclusive breastfeeding indefinitely? Delaying solid foods is risky. First of all, some nutrients need to be added to the baby’s diet at around six months, when iron stores from birth are starting to be depleted. While the iron in breastmilk is well-absorbed, iron is only present in small amounts. Also, at around this age, babies’ mouths and digestive system develop the physical ability to deal with solids. There is a psychological element too—at this age babies enjoy tasting, using their mouths, and experimenting with textures. Babies only offered solids for the first time at around a year of age often gag. I frequently see these babies in my clinic.
Source: Don’t Wait too Long to Start Solids

#3
Introducing solid foods is the only way to teach babies to chew and swallow instead of suck... And delaying this step in your baby’s development can also cause delays in other aspects of your baby’s physical and emotional growth.

Helping your baby transition gradually from a diet which consists exclusively of breast or formula milk, to a diet which includes food from a range of groups with different textures and consistencies is teaching them skills they will use for a life time. The transition from milk should begin at six months of age and by 12 months your baby should be eating a full range of healthy foods. Delays in starting solids slows the whole development process down and is associated with many disadvantages.

Source: Introducing solids- complementary baby foods are needed from 6 months

I have a ton more, but will save myself the time of doing your work. You can Google more articles, of which there are plenty. Even better, you can actually speak to a well-qualified and highly-esteemed doctor. I have, multiple times over because I'm a firm believer in receiving three opinions. And I have offered you their contact information too, because I realize that not every part of the country has access to world-class medical care.

In your free time, you can also speak to a pediatric dentist about the effects of extended breastfeeding on children's teeth. I can give you the phone number of one, if you need that too. Just let me know and I'll inbox it. The dentist is at Cross Keys Dental, if your google is working well enough to give him a call.
 
Old 12-20-2015, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,084 posts, read 3,066,094 times
Reputation: 8617
No one said that they weren't also feeding solids. It's not one or the other. You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist. Why would you waste any doctor's time asking if children should eat food? Exclusive breastfeeding lasts six months or so; after that it's supplementary breastfeeding. Are you confusing "exclusive" breastfeeding with "extended" breastfeeding?

My pediatric dentist nursed her own children through toddlerhood and was supportive of me nursing my own child that long (along with my pediatrician and my own physician). So I guess that one is 1-1.
 
Old 12-20-2015, 08:37 PM
 
15,752 posts, read 13,180,165 times
Reputation: 19641
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserName14289 View Post
No, sweet misguided dear, this is not about an anecdote of one. This is hard evidence they had to provide to me about the development of ALL children to even convince me he needed help. This is about science. This is about medicine. This is about what all children need. Again, I haven't heard that you are more qualified than my sources, so until I do, I'll leave it at that.

If you are so inclined to educate yourself before speaking, you are more than welcome to call Johns Hopkins or any of the other sources I've generously provided to you. Now, if you don't mind, I have better things to do than educate the misguided, like finally eat my dinner now that my son is asleep.
What they are asking for, is that if this is medical advice, it will come from peer reviewed sources and appear in primary literature somewhere.

In a discussion of scientific merit, the "source" needs to be a scientifically verifiable one. And while I believe you that your doctor at JHU said these things to you, it is not the same thing as providing a link to a research paper that supports what your doctor said to you. The three sources in your last post are blogs and are not scientific lit.

I have seen plenty of lit that states you need to wait until at least 6 months to start solids, but as I am coming into this late, I wanted to make sure I understand the issue. Is your positive claim that if infants are not eating solids by 6 months old they will have oral motor delays?
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.


Closed Thread

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top