PERB In Need of Banner

The Truth about breast feeding?

Naughty Nadia

Banned
Feb 13, 2007
67
0
0
My personal opinion Nadia? I believe that if one does not have all the nature, then they can substitute nurture in the place of nature. The child will benefit from the extra nurture. Spend more time with bonding and the child will bond. There is a reason that the view has two sides. Nature and Nurture. Love will transcend all. :D
Yep! I believe in attachment parenting, I co-slept with my daughter till she was 4, she's told she's loved and hugged and kissed a hundred times a day, and she has an incredible bond with both parents.

Ok maybe I DO spoil her rotten, but she's an only child so it's my perogative!! LOL. But you can't spoil with too much love. Just *cough* so many toys you can't move in her room *cough* ;)
 

metoo113

Member
Aug 2, 2002
407
0
16
Somewhere Down The Crazy River
georgebushmoron"Why is it also that it is thought of as "selfish" to worry about your beauty when the benefits to a child are not truly established?"[/QUOTE said:
The benefits to the child are very well established.

"Does a woman not have a life after the baby is born? "


Yes she does but if you make the choice to have a baby you have to be ready to commit to the raising of the child for the next 18 or so years.
 

tianna

JUST FUCKING HOT
Mar 19, 2006
945
2
0
babies best chance

is a great book to read and there are tons of excellent programs mothers can take to educate them:)
 

Sweetiepie

New member
Sep 7, 2005
230
0
0
Why is it also that it is thought of as "selfish" to worry about your beauty when the benefits to a child are not truly established? Does a woman not have a life after the baby is born? As far as I've observed, a woman's breasts are an integral part of her self esteem and identity. You surely wouldn't want to dismiss that so easily?
I don't know who is labelling it as selfish if a woman doesn't put her child's wellbeing and her bonding feelings ahead of trying to conform to some artificial standard of breast shape But it would be unusual. If the new mother is all that concerned about it, she probably wouldn't get pregnant to begin with and risk all the stretch marks, skin changes from hormones, etc. Her focus is on her baby and she is driven to do whatever she feels is best for that baby. Plus, your comment about establishing the benefits prior to making the decision doesn't make sense. The first thing ANY good pediatrician says is 'trust your instincts.' If women waited for established evidence for every decision they make in child rearing, they wouldn't make any at all. Its NOT that breastfeeding is right for everyone or the best, just that its natural and right for women to be thinking of what the baby needs, not on their appearance. I bet if you did a poll, most new fathers would say a similar thing happens to their priorities.
 

Naughty Nadia

Banned
Feb 13, 2007
67
0
0
I am NOT at all trying to make others feel upset. To be honest, i didnt even read what other people had to say first. I am sorry if I seemed like I was.............Rubbing it in or whatever. I just thought that everyone was intitled to their own opinions. I guess not!!!! Hmmm......

Of course your entitled to your opinion :) As I said at the bottom of my post,

I don't mean to imply that was your intent Miss Shay, and I apologize if this comes across bitchy, but unfortunately it is some people's intent. (yes, this is a sensitive issue for me)

And at the bottom of my next post to GBM, I said I love debates!
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,731
220
63
Why is it also that it is thought of as "selfish" to worry about your beauty when the benefits to a child are not truly established?
Today most folks appreciate that adults make choices about their lives. If a woman chooses not to breastfeed, I wager that, while there may be some who consider her "selfish", the vast majority will not, and will rather simply acknowledge without judgement that a choice was made.

As for the benefits of breastfeeding, these are indeed truly established by countless medical studies.

A personal recount. My first child was breastfed for two weeks, but my wife could not continue as her nipples became cracked and very sore, and so my first child was bottlefed thereafter. For the second child, my wife prepared her breasts by periodically rubbing them with a towel to toughen her nipples. The second child was successfully breastfed for eight months. My first child has Type I diabetes, a very serious disease which research teams of the Children's Hospital in Toronto have linked to bottle formula containing cow's milk. This is not to say all such circumstances give rise to Type I diabetes, but this does state that there is a greater risk, particularly if coupled with any degree of genetic disposition. Only as a matter of fact, without any speculation, my second child does not suffer from diabetes.

While it is obvious to even the most dim-witted that women's physiology appears hard-wired for breastfeeding, in addition there are a mind-numbing number of medical studies out there on the topic. Virtually all of these support the health benefits of breastfeeding infants, with the obvious exceptions of where the mother's life patterns inject harmful substances into her breast milk.

Just to mention one medical study, it cites the presence of "hard evidence indicating that long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) naturally occurring in breast milk may play a significant role in babies’ brain development. Until recently these fatty acids were absent from formula milk as it was assumed that babies could synthesise their own." Again, this does not mean that bottlefed folks like me, who consumed formula prior to the addition of fatty acids, are dummies, but this does point out that nature seems to have a significant purpose in the act of breastfeeding. And, generally speaking, one can also wonder about synthesized additives in any part of the food chain.

As for the psychological benefits, these are de facto less hard science due to the necessarily subjective nature of the adult participants in any test sample. But even a fairly skeptical person, if applying a modest degree of common sense, would acknowledge at least the potential for such benefits for both the mother and the infant - later life challenges notwithstanding.
 

Sweetiepie

New member
Sep 7, 2005
230
0
0
As for the benefits of breastfeeding, these are indeed truly established by countless medical studies. ...
As for the psychological benefits, these are de facto less hard science due to the necessarily subjective nature of the adult participants in any test sample. But even a fairly skeptical person, if applying a modest degree of common sense, would acknowledge at least the potential for such benefits for both the mother and the infant - later life challenges notwithstanding.
But at the same time, I think most people would agree that you can't really separate out the psychological from the physical benefits and so if breastfeeding is stressful for the mother for any reason that remains unresolved, then its better for the baby's physical and psychological health to be bottlefed. Especially nowadays when so much more is known about the right nutrition to provide that way.
Interesting discussion so thanks for starting it.
 

georgebushmoron

jus call me MR. President
Mar 25, 2003
3,126
2
0
56
Seattle
Just to mention one medical study, it cites the presence of "hard evidence indicating that long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) naturally occurring in breast milk may play a significant role in babies’ brain development. Until recently these fatty acids were absent from formula milk as it was assumed that babies could synthesise their own." Again, this does not mean that bottlefed folks like me, who consumed formula prior to the addition of fatty acids, are dummies, but this does point out that nature seems to have a significant purpose in the act of breastfeeding. And, generally speaking, one can also wonder about synthesized additives in any part of the food chain.
The operative word is may(be). I was bottle fed almost from birth. It is obvious to those who know me personally that there was no detrimental effect on my intelligence. And you are also evidence that this one medical study you cite underscores that they used the word "may(be)".

It would seem obvious, as you say, that women's breasts were naturally made for breast feeding the young. But perhaps this was left over from evolutionary need, when humans used to wander from region to region in search of food. Today we have tremendous knowledge and skill with regard to nutrition and products that provide the appropriate nutrition. I am all for whole foods, but there seems to be enough evidence to contradict study after study about the absolute necessity that breast milk is what an infant needs. My point, ultimately, is that breast feeding can be substituted with equally positive results for the infant because there is plenty of evidence of this.

The reason why this issue has contention is because I believe it has become a political one. Don't you see the enormous effort by various groups to promote breast feeding? The huge amount of studies for some reason is all being funded. Why? Is there a public health policy, or an agenda, to combat something the authorities think exists? When so much effort and money is poured into something to "educate" or "study" an issue toward always the same conclusion, you have to wonder.
 

metoo113

Member
Aug 2, 2002
407
0
16
Somewhere Down The Crazy River
The only political issue that I have heard about breast feeding is that some states won't allow a women to breast feed their baby in public.

In Europe they have a much healthier view of breasts as both a source of food for babies and part of a womens sexual identity.
 

georgebushmoron

jus call me MR. President
Mar 25, 2003
3,126
2
0
56
Seattle
As far as the sag issue goes, I'd have to dig up an actual study using a large cohort and objective ways of measuring 'sag' to be sure, but in my experience duration of breastfeeding and whether or not they breastfed made no difference in the amount of 'sag'. One thing that did make a difference, was wearing the right bra during their pregnancy and while breastfeeding and another thing that made a big difference was genetics.

I wonder if you would have reasonable opportunities to talk to plastic surgeons (who do breast augmentation) and ask what their take on it is. Surely they would run through a healthy cross section of the population, particularly those who have breast fed.
 

Sweetiepie

New member
Sep 7, 2005
230
0
0
I wonder if you would have reasonable opportunities to talk to plastic surgeons (who do breast augmentation) and ask what their take on it is. Surely they would run through a healthy cross section of the population, particularly those who have breast fed.
But on what basis are you assuming that breast shape/appearance plays a big role in the decision?? I think its highly unlikely that is the case for the majority of new mothers, and reflects a false assumption about importance of that to women at the time they give birth and in the first few months of when the baby is born. You are totally off base on that. A mother's experience with her body and pregnancy gives her a totallly difference set of priorities than you, as an ogling male have! As well, as one of the female posters tried to explain, women generally know that the sag or change is going to happen with the pregnancy anyways and just with age. So before this goes much further I'd like to see evidence that this is even an issue in the decision for many women. Lifestyle, healthy, Cracked, sore nipples, family customs, allowing others to feed the baby, etc. are all important to that decision. But not breast appearance.
 

Sweetiepie

New member
Sep 7, 2005
230
0
0
I have heard some women say that they didn't or won't breastfeed because they believe that it will make their breasts 'saggy' afterwards. Not a decent sample size or anything, but, SOME women do feel this way.
Point taken. But I still wonder if they were women who didn't think it made that much difference to the babies health or their relationship with them in the first place? And also who had a family background and friends not breastfeeding and so would be less likely to do it anyways? In that case I'd say it still wasn't the main deciding factor. But I don't know for sure either.
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,731
220
63
The reason why this issue has contention is because I believe it has become a political one. Don't you see the enormous effort by various groups to promote breast feeding? The huge amount of studies for some reason is all being funded. Why? Is there a public health policy, or an agenda, to combat something the authorities think exists? When so much effort and money is poured into something to "educate" or "study" an issue toward always the same conclusion, you have to wonder.
Usually if there is an agenda somewhere with lots of funding going on, there's money to be made by whoever is doing the funding - just look at prescription drugs. I don't see where breastfeeding ends up making folks a whole wack of dough. Maybe the agenda is simply that breastfeeding is healthy for the infant. Maybe the agenda-ists are on about not feeding multi-national corporations $$$ for no good reason other than a perceived convenience using a bottle. Or maybe they are rabid feminists - nah, a too broad spectrum seems to support breastfeeding.

Now, mothers can choose to breastfeed or to bottle feed. If women are easily swayed, well, there seems to be lots of influence on both sides of the issue - from the corporations and from the health groups. If they are not easily swayed, then they will review both sides and make a decision. If they have already decided without any particular review... well, what can one say anyway?

What is sure is that breastfeeding is generally not unhealthy for the infant, is likely at least as healthy as formula, and does not cost anything. It may not be as convenient as a bottle, and men cannot breastfeed but can assist with bottlefeeding. Earthshaking!
 

georgebushmoron

jus call me MR. President
Mar 25, 2003
3,126
2
0
56
Seattle
But on what basis are you assuming that breast shape/appearance plays a big role in the decision?? I think its highly unlikely that is the case for the majority of new mothers, and reflects a false assumption about importance of that to women at the time they give birth and in the first few months of when the baby is born. You are totally off base on that. A mother's experience with her body and pregnancy gives her a totallly difference set of priorities than you, as an ogling male have! As well, as one of the female posters tried to explain, women generally know that the sag or change is going to happen with the pregnancy anyways and just with age. So before this goes much further I'd like to see evidence that this is even an issue in the decision for many women. Lifestyle, healthy, Cracked, sore nipples, family customs, allowing others to feed the baby, etc. are all important to that decision. But not breast appearance.
It is totally true that a whole different set of priorities are beset upon a woman when she is pregnant, or just given birth, or a few years thereafter. I completely agree with you there, and it would make sense that it is the case. However, as an "ogling male" which you have elected to reduce me to, I still have noticed that women who breast feed tend to have far drastic sag issues as opposed to women who don't. Furthermore, you say I am way off base about "importance of that to women at the time they give birth and in the first few months of when the baby is born", but frankly I said nothing about it's importance to women at the time periods you stated. You best re-read with your <u>mind</u> what I wrote and see the truth in that. And I do question the nutritional value of breast feeding in the face of evidence of those who did not get it but seem very healthy, and also in the face of equally nutritional alternatives to breast milk. As you say, you'd like to see evidence that breast sag is an issue in the decision of women who breast feed, and I have to say that it is not my domain either way what a woman's decision is vis a vis her own body. What I care about is to raise the issue to find out the truth about sagging with respect to breast feeding, and whether or not breast feeding itself is necessary.
 

georgebushmoron

jus call me MR. President
Mar 25, 2003
3,126
2
0
56
Seattle
Usually if there is an agenda somewhere with lots of funding going on, there's money to be made by whoever is doing the funding - just look at prescription drugs. I don't see where breastfeeding ends up making folks a whole wack of dough. Maybe the agenda is simply that breastfeeding is healthy for the infant. Maybe the agenda-ists are on about not feeding multi-national corporations $$$ for no good reason other than a perceived convenience using a bottle. Or maybe they are rabid feminists - nah, a too broad spectrum seems to support breastfeeding.

Now, mothers can choose to breastfeed or to bottle feed. If women are easily swayed, well, there seems to be lots of influence on both sides of the issue - from the corporations and from the health groups. If they are not easily swayed, then they will review both sides and make a decision. If they have already decided without any particular review... well, what can one say anyway?

What is sure is that breastfeeding is generally not unhealthy for the infant, is likely at least as healthy as formula, and does not cost anything. It may not be as convenient as a bottle, and men cannot breastfeed but can assist with bottlefeeding. Earthshaking!
You're looking for a motive for funding breast feeding research? How's this one: Morality. Governments fund research which they think provide a set of morales that they like to promote. It is done often, and when it involves children, it is not hard to find money to fund it. Profit is not behind every motive.
 

metoo113

Member
Aug 2, 2002
407
0
16
Somewhere Down The Crazy River
It is totally true that a whole different set of priorities are beset upon a woman when she is pregnant, or just given birth, or a few years thereafter. I completely agree with you there, and it would make sense that it is the case. However, as an "ogling male" which you have elected to reduce me to, I still have noticed that women who breast feed tend to have far drastic sag issues as opposed to women who don't. Furthermore, you say I am way off base about "importance of that to women at the time they give birth and in the first few months of when the baby is born", but frankly I said nothing about it's importance to women at the time periods you stated. You best re-read with your <u>mind</u> what I wrote and see the truth in that. And I do question the nutritional value of breast feeding in the face of evidence of those who did not get it but seem very healthy, and also in the face of equally nutritional alternatives to breast milk. As you say, you'd like to see evidence that breast sag is an issue in the decision of women who breast feed, and I have to say that it is not my domain either way what a woman's decision is vis a vis her own body. What I care about is to raise the issue to find out the truth about sagging with respect to breast feeding, and whether or not breast feeding itself is necessary.
Sorry GBM but the nutritional advantages of breast milk over formula's is well established and unless you can show me some information that says formula is better then I think it is established that mothers, if they can, should breast feed.


With breast sag, all I can say is gravity works. Unless a women has a lift they all sag over time.
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,731
220
63
So this is really not about breastfeeding and health and so forth, but simply and totally about sagging.

Then, yes, there is an agenda, and it belongs to the corporations who provide formula, as they are the ones who make the dough from women who do not breastfeed to avoid possible sag. These suits are out there somewhere, supporting idealistic body images for women so their companies can continue to make their $billions. Never to miss an opportunity, it's not surprising that these folks really do push formula in 3rd world countries as the modern and more healthy way to do things. Cha-ching!

But then the plastic surgeons should be so on the side of breastfeeding (I wonder if our native BC Pammy breastfed or not?). Are they secretly funnelling big bucks to the natural health advocates?
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,731
220
63
You're looking for a motive for funding breast feeding research? How's this one: Morality. Governments fund research which they think provide a set of morales that they like to promote. It is done often, and when it involves children, it is not hard to find money to fund it. Profit is not behind every motive.
No doubt with God on our side! Hey, where's jjinvan! Should be the religious righties who push breastfeeding - whoa, but then breasts are sinful, aren't they? Leave it to the interfering lefties to push naturalism. Seriously, while I do not doubt your basis for cynicism, GBM, the sprectrum behind breastfeeding is pretty broad, across all political lines, that it's hard to see the topic as primarily a moral one, although certainly it is for some small groups - pro and con.
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,731
220
63
As far as convenience goes, you're kidding right? How could ANYTHING be more convenient than breastfeeding??

Here's an example for you:

It's 3am, the kid is hungry and screaming.. again.. you haven't slept much in the past week or so and you aren't entirely sure you are awake now. You have two choices:

1) put the baby in a 'nursing nest' beside you in the bed, whip out a boobie, stick it in and go back to sleep.

2) Get out of bed, Pick up screaming baby, Go down to the kitchen, get out a (hopefully clean already) bottle. Measure out some formula powder, take some of the pre-boiled water out of the fridge (you did remember to do that before you went to bed, right?) and measure the right amount into the bottle. Now turn on the stove under the pot of water that you keep on there to heat up the bottle in (you did remember that too before you went to bed, right?) wait until the bottle is at the right temperature, don't forget that all this time you are also carrying screaming baby, be careful not to burn screaming baby with the hot water in the pot too. Then finally you can put the sterilized nipple on the bottle (you did remember to do that before you went to bed, right?) and put the bottle in the baby's mouth and carry them back up to your room and then sit there for the 10-15 minutes it takes them to drink the bottle, you might have to stop and burp them a couple of times, they will probably puke on you, oh well, you already smell like puke from the last time anyway, then.. oh joy, put them back into bed and go back to bed yourself... the whole thing is going to repeat itself in about 2 hours or so.

Hmm.. 'more convenient' ?
My post said bottle-feeding was more convenient, not breastfeeding. Take a little time to read first, then type, bro'.

As I wrote earlier, one of my two kids was bottlefed and the other breastfed. I was the one who got up in the middle of the night and wee hours to bottlefeed, and happy to do it as well! While my wife had a lot less sleep for the second child due to breastfeeding, it was an experience she is happy she did not miss. And, while it was never a consideration for her, my wife's breasts did not sag afterward.
 

Sonny

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
3,731
220
63
You have the right idea but miss the point on this one.

In 3rd world countries the women are given the formula for free from corporate sponsors who are eager to see them get back to work in the sweatshops and on the plantations more quickly.

It isn't about the profit made on the formula sales at all...
I'd say it's the perfect double-whammy!

But, honestly, there is another reason for formula in some 3rd world countries. Where the availability of nutritious food is heartbreakingly scarce and the mother has little or no ability to adequately provide for her infant through breastfeeding, then formula plays an important role. Mind you, there's the morality of the 'have' nations to continually mal-address famine on this planet. But let's not go there.... in this thread, anyway.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts