I hate the AAP

[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: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.

I think this is an important way to phrase it. I think maybe breastmilk is better -- say an arbitrary unit of 1 iota better -- but if the challenges of breastfeeding make the entire family's life many iotas (or even kiloiotas) worse, that's not actually better. And I think a lot of us (and I'm a breastfeeding parent who weans sometime between one and two years, so I actually would like to have my ped not side-eye me for not instantly stopping nursing at my kid's first birthday) are annoyed by the fact that the AAP is only touching the 1 iota better without addressing any of the kiloiotas of worse. It's disingenuous.

Great way to put it, agree 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

[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:

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.

When the criticism is that the Black community was not consulted, yet the pediatrician is a member of that community, how is this even a question? Do you know how many other Black people were consulted?

Because that pediatrician is also a part of the medical community. Centering Black communities does not mean that if a Black pediatrician writes something, all is good. It means you talk to the people being served by the medical community to understand their needs.

Another one who didn’t read the paper or look up the author’s work.

By all means, please quote the place where they consulted communities of color regarding their infant feeding priorities and preferences.

The reference has already been cited. I am sorry it didn’t fit your narrative about not centering Black communities or understanding their medical needs. You should ask Jeff to delete your posts calling a local Black pediatrician who works specifically on these issues racist.

I did not find anything in that document describing what I asked about.

One footnote does not “center” the black community. Like everything else, anything that is bad for women in general is going to be worse for black women (as a group, individual cases vary). This tone-deaf, propagandistic AAP policy does nothing to help women and even less to help black women. It’s a complete waste of resources and shifts responsibility for child outcomes onto what a mother does with her body. Actually “centering” black women would mean advocating for better child care, child tax credits, accessible prenatsl health clinics, better maternity care, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Highlighting extremely flimsy benefits and implying that women will feel guilty and need consolation if they don’t meet their “breastfeeding goals”
is absolutely a statement that formula harms and should be avoided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

[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: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.

I think this is an important way to phrase it. I think maybe breastmilk is better -- say an arbitrary unit of 1 iota better -- but if the challenges of breastfeeding make the entire family's life many iotas (or even kiloiotas) worse, that's not actually better. And I think a lot of us (and I'm a breastfeeding parent who weans sometime between one and two years, so I actually would like to have my ped not side-eye me for not instantly stopping nursing at my kid's first birthday) are annoyed by the fact that the AAP is only touching the 1 iota better without addressing any of the kiloiotas of worse. It's disingenuous.

Great way to put it, agree 100%.

Seems to me like the people being sensitive are the ones offended because their pediatrician looked at them funny at the 12 month appointment. I actually did nurse past 12 months and I would say our ped also gave a funny look, who TF cares? At that time, I was not a sleep deprived mother of a newborn being told how "easy" it was to have my child attached to my breasts for 8-12 hours a day. I did what I wanted.

[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:

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.

When the criticism is that the Black community was not consulted, yet the pediatrician is a member of that community, how is this even a question? Do you know how many other Black people were consulted?

Because that pediatrician is also a part of the medical community. Centering Black communities does not mean that if a Black pediatrician writes something, all is good. It means you talk to the people being served by the medical community to understand their needs.

Another one who didn’t read the paper or look up the author’s work.

By all means, please quote the place where they consulted communities of color regarding their infant feeding priorities and preferences.

preferences are not public health oriented!!!!! i dont like have a speculum in my vagina but I do it because of cervical cancer---LIKE WTF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

please feel free to quote the article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

please feel free to quote the article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666109/

There are other studies that show no impact, meaning, it's actually not bad to supplement with formula even if you accept the shaky premise that breastfeeding is really that important.

[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: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.

I think this is an important way to phrase it. I think maybe breastmilk is better -- say an arbitrary unit of 1 iota better -- but if the challenges of breastfeeding make the entire family's life many iotas (or even kiloiotas) worse, that's not actually better. And I think a lot of us (and I'm a breastfeeding parent who weans sometime between one and two years, so I actually would like to have my ped not side-eye me for not instantly stopping nursing at my kid's first birthday) are annoyed by the fact that the AAP is only touching the 1 iota better without addressing any of the kiloiotas of worse. It's disingenuous.

Great way to put it, agree 100%.

Seems to me like the people being sensitive are the ones offended because their pediatrician looked at them funny at the 12 month appointment. I actually did nurse past 12 months and I would say our ped also gave a funny look, who TF cares? At that time, I was not a sleep deprived mother of a newborn being told how "easy" it was to have my child attached to my breasts for 8-12 hours a day. I did what I wanted.

Gosh our Ped (who is pretty old school) told us to wean “before college”. I don’t think the histrionics here are coming from the nursing mothers….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

Please quote the document saying it is bad if mothers supplement with formula. Not your feelings that anything you don’t like is a criticism. Please quote the technical document.

[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: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.

I think this is an important way to phrase it. I think maybe breastmilk is better -- say an arbitrary unit of 1 iota better -- but if the challenges of breastfeeding make the entire family's life many iotas (or even kiloiotas) worse, that's not actually better. And I think a lot of us (and I'm a breastfeeding parent who weans sometime between one and two years, so I actually would like to have my ped not side-eye me for not instantly stopping nursing at my kid's first birthday) are annoyed by the fact that the AAP is only touching the 1 iota better without addressing any of the kiloiotas of worse. It's disingenuous.

Great way to put it, agree 100%.

Seems to me like the people being sensitive are the ones offended because their pediatrician looked at them funny at the 12 month appointment. I actually did nurse past 12 months and I would say our ped also gave a funny look, who TF cares? At that time, I was not a sleep deprived mother of a newborn being told how "easy" it was to have my child attached to my breasts for 8-12 hours a day. I did what I wanted.

Gosh our Ped (who is pretty old school) told us to wean “before college”. I don’t think the histrionics here are coming from the nursing mothers….

You know someone is full of it when they use the term "histrionics" to attack someone they disagree with. Come up with an actual argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

Please quote the document saying it is bad if mothers supplement with formula. Not your feelings that anything you don’t like is a criticism. Please quote the technical document.

You mean like how you provided actual quotes to defend your assertions? Oh wait, you've just been spewing lies, and it's an actual waste of time for me to spell out to you what is obvious to anyone who reads the document. Have a wonderful day you dishonest POS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience?

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula, which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it.

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which breastfeeding can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationship.

please feel free to quote the article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666109/

There are other studies that show no impact, meaning, it's actually not bad to supplement with formula even if you accept the shaky premise that breastfeeding is really that important.

Its 10ml of formula and limited to those that lost >5% and was d/c AFTER MATURE MILK PRODUCTION so tops 2-3 days TOTAL since they started at 24-48 hours and its limited to those with early weight loss. Thats not the type of supplementation people are referencing. There's a big difference between exclusively breastfeeding and adding 10ml of formula after each BREASTFEED to using 1+ bottles of formula (anywhere from 2-4oz) for breastfeeding week 1-month 6.