I hate the AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really, really weird that AAP continues to say solids not until 6 months, when 4 months is now perfectly well supported by the evidence. Almost as if … their true agenda is to push breastfeeding for 6 months, not actual research-based communication to help women weigh the costs and benefits for themselves.

if you actually read the paper they include the fact that it's complementary foods so foods that reduce allergy risk like peanuts and eggs should be introduced at 4 months if you have a history of allergy or eczema in the family and they actually talk about this so maybe you should read the actual paper.

maybe they should just stop trying to control women based on flimsy research that utterly disregards women’s autonomy. women are not breastfeeding engines.

Breast is best but if you can't or won't formula is available. That isn't a lie. Choices are made every day. It is best for baby. Infant mortality is lower in breastfed babies. That doesn't mean that it's the only item that goes into the calculus of what's best for a mother. If what's best for the mothers at odds of what's best of the baby having a mother who's healthy is ideal since the baby is dependent on a mother.
When you don't have those problems there is no reason to not be able to say I chose formula that was the best choice for me and the best choice therefore for our family and also be able to recognize that breast milk is best for infants. It has lots of things that formula does not have.

+1. The science on breastmilk is still new. It has so many biologic factors that affect the gut microbiome that are only just being discovered. I guarantee that the future will continue to show more benefits from breastfeeding. I'm also a mom and recognize that breastfeeding is hard, and I support anyone that prefers to use formula. My experience is that many people still think public breastfeeding and extended breastfeeding is inappropriate, so it's helpful to have supportive statements from public health organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why should the way you feed your baby entitle you to more assistance?

Ask WIC— they give you a larger monthly stipend if you breastfeed.

yes because you need more calories when you BF. WIC also pays for formula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

Where? In footnote six:

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144

What I mean by centering communities of color I mean LISTENING to them, not putting out a statement about "minorities" (barf) that seems focused out racism outside of healthcare as though pediatricians have no role in perpetuating racism.

I think you should look the authors up. I would personally not be comfortable accusing a Black pediatrician of racism.

The idea that a person can't be criticized if they are Black is pretty toxic and unhelpful.

I didn’t say she can’t be criticized. I said you should look up the authors before accusing people of perpetuating racism— which might also be toxic and unhelpful in this case.

I described specific reasons why I found that policy statement problematic, and you are just trying to distract from that. It did not discuss any process for consulting communities of color before using them to support a breastfeeding recommendation, which is what my original concern was. You are just changing the subject.

Are you just reading the statement or have you read the entire paper and technical report that the statement is based on? If not, get to reading and stop posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why should the way you feed your baby entitle you to more assistance?

Ask WIC— they give you a larger monthly stipend if you breastfeed.

This is because lactating people require more calories to produce milk and if you choose to get formula they cover that too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Yes if you look at the guidelines women who are bf multiples are given a higher allowance than those bf 1 baby. It’s all about extra caloric needs with breastfeeding.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why should the way you feed your baby entitle you to more assistance?

Ask WIC— they give you a larger monthly stipend if you breastfeed.

This is because lactating people require more calories to produce milk and if you choose to get formula they cover that too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why should the way you feed your baby entitle you to more assistance?

Ask WIC— they give you a larger monthly stipend if you breastfeed.

This is because lactating people require more calories to produce milk and if you choose to get formula they cover that too

Yes if you look at the guidelines women who are bf multiples are given a higher allowance than those bf 1 baby. It’s all about extra caloric needs with breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

Where? In footnote six:

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144

What I mean by centering communities of color I mean LISTENING to them, not putting out a statement about "minorities" (barf) that seems focused out racism outside of healthcare as though pediatricians have no role in perpetuating racism.

I think you should look the authors up. I would personally not be comfortable accusing a Black pediatrician of racism.

The idea that a person can't be criticized if they are Black is pretty toxic and unhelpful.

I didn’t say she can’t be criticized. I said you should look up the authors before accusing people of perpetuating racism— which might also be toxic and unhelpful in this case.

I described specific reasons why I found that policy statement problematic, and you are just trying to distract from that. It did not discuss any process for consulting communities of color before using them to support a breastfeeding recommendation, which is what my original concern was. You are just changing the subject.

You said it failed to center communities of color when one of the authors of the paper is a local Black pediatrician whose entire work is on supporting and centering children and families of color. You are just upset that it was pointed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

Where? In footnote six:

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144

What I mean by centering communities of color I mean LISTENING to them, not putting out a statement about "minorities" (barf) that seems focused out racism outside of healthcare as though pediatricians have no role in perpetuating racism.

I think you should look the authors up. I would personally not be comfortable accusing a Black pediatrician of racism.

The idea that a person can't be criticized if they are Black is pretty toxic and unhelpful.

I didn’t say she can’t be criticized. I said you should look up the authors before accusing people of perpetuating racism— which might also be toxic and unhelpful in this case.

I described specific reasons why I found that policy statement problematic, and you are just trying to distract from that. It did not discuss any process for consulting communities of color before using them to support a breastfeeding recommendation, which is what my original concern was. You are just changing the subject.

You said it failed to center communities of color when one of the authors of the paper is a local Black pediatrician whose entire work is on supporting and centering children and families of color. You are just upset that it was pointed out.

DP- to join the above- you keep mentioning the statement but have not confirmed that you have read either the paper or technical report that are referenced in the statement. i.e. the whole reason for the statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

Where? In footnote six:

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144

What I mean by centering communities of color I mean LISTENING to them, not putting out a statement about "minorities" (barf) that seems focused out racism outside of healthcare as though pediatricians have no role in perpetuating racism.

I think you should look the authors up. I would personally not be comfortable accusing a Black pediatrician of racism.

The idea that a person can't be criticized if they are Black is pretty toxic and unhelpful.

I didn’t say she can’t be criticized. I said you should look up the authors before accusing people of perpetuating racism— which might also be toxic and unhelpful in this case.

I described specific reasons why I found that policy statement problematic, and you are just trying to distract from that. It did not discuss any process for consulting communities of color before using them to support a breastfeeding recommendation, which is what my original concern was. You are just changing the subject.

You said it failed to center communities of color when one of the authors of the paper is a local Black pediatrician whose entire work is on supporting and centering children and families of color. You are just upset that it was pointed out.

Black kids experience more SIDS and allergies, both of which breastfeeding help prevent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really, really weird that AAP continues to say solids not until 6 months, when 4 months is now perfectly well supported by the evidence. Almost as if … their true agenda is to push breastfeeding for 6 months, not actual research-based communication to help women weigh the costs and benefits for themselves.

if you actually read the paper they include the fact that it's complementary foods so foods that reduce allergy risk like peanuts and eggs should be introduced at 4 months if you have a history of allergy or eczema in the family and they actually talk about this so maybe you should read the actual paper.

maybe they should just stop trying to control women based on flimsy research that utterly disregards women’s autonomy. women are not breastfeeding engines.

Breast is best but if you can't or won't formula is available. That isn't a lie. Choices are made every day. It is best for baby. Infant mortality is lower in breastfed babies. That doesn't mean that it's the only item that goes into the calculus of what's best for a mother. If what's best for the mothers at odds of what's best of the baby having a mother who's healthy is ideal since the baby is dependent on a mother.
When you don't have those problems there is no reason to not be able to say I chose formula that was the best choice for me and the best choice therefore for our family and also be able to recognize that breast milk is best for infants. It has lots of things that formula does not have.

+1. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Not sure why everyone is being so defensive.

Feeding your kids a diet of all organic meats and vegetables freshly cooked each day with no processed foods is best. I am not able to fully adhere to that. Sometimes I’m tired or busy so we get Chick Fil A or pizza. It’s okay, there are trade-offs in life.

I don't understand why people don't understand that it is a goal. Nobody is sending you to mommy hell for not crossing the finish line. My optometrist told me to get my kids outside for 2 hours a day and we rarely do. Am I going to go rage about the recommendation on the internet?

The issue is that the recommendations are not science based and they are not based on women’s revealed preferences either. Totally inappropriate for a public health recommendation.

Of course they are. What a ridiculous thing to say. Obesity, allergies, GI bugs, bonding, lower cancer risk for mom, even less picky eating. We can sit here and debate if you want, but you can't say the other side has zero scientific merit because it is simply false.

P.S. I weaned my 2nd at 16 months because I was pregnant with #3 so I'm not an angelic follower of this advice myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

Where? In footnote six:

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144

What I mean by centering communities of color I mean LISTENING to them, not putting out a statement about "minorities" (barf) that seems focused out racism outside of healthcare as though pediatricians have no role in perpetuating racism.

Does hearing that breastfeeding is difficult lower the benefit of breastfeeding? Not sure how you're linking the two logically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

Where? In footnote six:

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144

What I mean by centering communities of color I mean LISTENING to them, not putting out a statement about "minorities" (barf) that seems focused out racism outside of healthcare as though pediatricians have no role in perpetuating racism.

I think you should look the authors up. I would personally not be comfortable accusing a Black pediatrician of racism.

The idea that a person can't be criticized if they are Black is pretty toxic and unhelpful.

Trotting the race card out where it doesn't belong (breastfeeding?!?!?!?) is toxic and unhelpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really, really weird that AAP continues to say solids not until 6 months, when 4 months is now perfectly well supported by the evidence. Almost as if … their true agenda is to push breastfeeding for 6 months, not actual research-based communication to help women weigh the costs and benefits for themselves.

if you actually read the paper they include the fact that it's complementary foods so foods that reduce allergy risk like peanuts and eggs should be introduced at 4 months if you have a history of allergy or eczema in the family and they actually talk about this so maybe you should read the actual paper.

maybe they should just stop trying to control women based on flimsy research that utterly disregards women’s autonomy. women are not breastfeeding engines.

Breast is best but if you can't or won't formula is available. That isn't a lie. Choices are made every day. It is best for baby. Infant mortality is lower in breastfed babies. That doesn't mean that it's the only item that goes into the calculus of what's best for a mother. If what's best for the mothers at odds of what's best of the baby having a mother who's healthy is ideal since the baby is dependent on a mother.
When you don't have those problems there is no reason to not be able to say I chose formula that was the best choice for me and the best choice therefore for our family and also be able to recognize that breast milk is best for infants. It has lots of things that formula does not have.

+1. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Not sure why everyone is being so defensive.

Feeding your kids a diet of all organic meats and vegetables freshly cooked each day with no processed foods is best. I am not able to fully adhere to that. Sometimes I’m tired or busy so we get Chick Fil A or pizza. It’s okay, there are trade-offs in life.

I don't understand why people don't understand that it is a goal. Nobody is sending you to mommy hell for not crossing the finish line. My optometrist told me to get my kids outside for 2 hours a day and we rarely do. Am I going to go rage about the recommendation on the internet?

The issue is that the recommendations are not science based and they are not based on women’s revealed preferences either. Totally inappropriate for a public health recommendation.

The “revealed preferences” of women (of parents) is clearly not to have their kids outside for two hours a day either. Quick fire the optometrist

If an optometrist association engaged in a public health campaign to say that mothers (but not fathers) should get time off work to spend 2 hours a day physically working on their child’s vision, despite a lack of evidence showing it helped much more than glasses … I would say the same thing.

The fact that mom has the boobs doesn't lower the effectiveness of breastfeeding.
The fact that black moms are more likely to work multiple crappy part time jobs and not have paid leave does not lower the effectiveness of breastfeeding.
The truth matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why should the way you feed your baby entitle you to more assistance?

Ask WIC— they give you a larger monthly stipend if you breastfeed.

This is because lactating people require more calories to produce milk and if you choose to get formula they cover that too

Yes if you look at the guidelines women who are bf multiples are given a higher allowance than those bf 1 baby. It’s all about extra caloric needs with breastfeeding.

Right…which is why how you feed you baby does change what support is available to you. Lactation requires calories and lactation requires time, that’s why nursing mothers need different support than formula-feeding mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really, really weird that AAP continues to say solids not until 6 months, when 4 months is now perfectly well supported by the evidence. Almost as if … their true agenda is to push breastfeeding for 6 months, not actual research-based communication to help women weigh the costs and benefits for themselves.

if you actually read the paper they include the fact that it's complementary foods so foods that reduce allergy risk like peanuts and eggs should be introduced at 4 months if you have a history of allergy or eczema in the family and they actually talk about this so maybe you should read the actual paper.

maybe they should just stop trying to control women based on flimsy research that utterly disregards women’s autonomy. women are not breastfeeding engines.

Breast is best but if you can't or won't formula is available. That isn't a lie. Choices are made every day. It is best for baby. Infant mortality is lower in breastfed babies. That doesn't mean that it's the only item that goes into the calculus of what's best for a mother. If what's best for the mothers at odds of what's best of the baby having a mother who's healthy is ideal since the baby is dependent on a mother.
When you don't have those problems there is no reason to not be able to say I chose formula that was the best choice for me and the best choice therefore for our family and also be able to recognize that breast milk is best for infants. It has lots of things that formula does not have.

+1. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Not sure why everyone is being so defensive.

Feeding your kids a diet of all organic meats and vegetables freshly cooked each day with no processed foods is best. I am not able to fully adhere to that. Sometimes I’m tired or busy so we get Chick Fil A or pizza. It’s okay, there are trade-offs in life.

I don't understand why people don't understand that it is a goal. Nobody is sending you to mommy hell for not crossing the finish line. My optometrist told me to get my kids outside for 2 hours a day and we rarely do. Am I going to go rage about the recommendation on the internet?

The issue is that the recommendations are not science based and they are not based on women’s revealed preferences either. Totally inappropriate for a public health recommendation.

The “revealed preferences” of women (of parents) is clearly not to have their kids outside for two hours a day either. Quick fire the optometrist

If an optometrist association engaged in a public health campaign to say that mothers (but not fathers) should get time off work to spend 2 hours a day physically working on their child’s vision, despite a lack of evidence showing it helped much more than glasses … I would say the same thing.

The fact that mom has the boobs doesn't lower the effectiveness of breastfeeding.
The fact that black moms are more likely to work multiple crappy part time jobs and not have paid leave does not lower the effectiveness of breastfeeding.
The truth matters.

All of this is predicated on the idea that breastmilk is better though. And it's a myth that it is. The benefits do not equal the costs in many circumstances. This is what many of us are saying.