I hate the AAP

[Anonymous]

I’m still breastfeeding my 22 month old so I’m obviously pro-breastfeeding but I found the AAP recommendation curious as well. I really feel that I should have weaned at 17 or 18 months and before my DD was so emotionally attached to it as a way of calming and connecting. I anticipate weaning being very emotionally hard for her. My older son self-weaned at 15 months.

What exactly is my toddler getting nutritionally at this point? Is it my Covid vaccine immunity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m still breastfeeding my 22 month old so I’m obviously pro-breastfeeding but I found the AAP recommendation curious as well. I really feel that I should have weaned at 17 or 18 months and before my DD was so emotionally attached to it as a way of calming and connecting. I anticipate weaning being very emotionally hard for her. My older son self-weaned at 15 months.

What exactly is my toddler getting nutritionally at this point? Is it my Covid vaccine immunity?

I agree. I don't know the answers to the science questions but I am glad that our ped recommended I drop all feeds except morning and bedtime when I wanted to keep nursing after 12 months. I recognized that this was more sort of general parenting advice than hard medical advice but I thought it was helpful. I don't think pediatricians should be directing anyone to breastfeed or not to breastfeed for any length of time but there shouldn't be a gag order on being honest about the challenges of breastfeeding past 12 months. I generally think it's okay for pediatricians to give general parenting advice based on their own experience and the AAP should not be trying to control that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree though, there should be more focus on access -- the women who are most vulnerable and would benefit most from breastfeeding are those who are least able to do it. And a level-set that the WHO's "until 2 years old" rec is more meaningful for parents in countries without clean water or reliable nutritious food.

That's code for "I want to spend fewer tax dollars on formula in the WIC program" . Maybe we should just make sure babies get fed. FFS.

Jesus, no. But it would be great if there were real choices for women other than going right back to a minimum-wage job vs. having maternity leave long enough to breastfeed if they choose.

Ok, maybe the AAP should recognize maternity leave as a goal in and of itself rather than simply being only good for breastfeeding. Btw a 2 year "maternity leave" would be horrible for women. 6 months parental leave for persons of all genders is what we need and it should not be about breastfeeding, that is a side benefit for those who want it.

THIS, a thousand million!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still breastfeeding my 22 month old so I’m obviously pro-breastfeeding but I found the AAP recommendation curious as well. I really feel that I should have weaned at 17 or 18 months and before my DD was so emotionally attached to it as a way of calming and connecting. I anticipate weaning being very emotionally hard for her. My older son self-weaned at 15 months.

What exactly is my toddler getting nutritionally at this point? Is it my Covid vaccine immunity?

I agree. I don't know the answers to the science questions but I am glad that our ped recommended I drop all feeds except morning and bedtime when I wanted to keep nursing after 12 months. I recognized that this was more sort of general parenting advice than hard medical advice but I thought it was helpful. I don't think pediatricians should be directing anyone to breastfeed or not to breastfeed for any length of time but there shouldn't be a gag order on being honest about the challenges of breastfeeding past 12 months. I generally think it's okay for pediatricians to give general parenting advice based on their own experience and the AAP should not be trying to control that.

+2. It’s so hard on the child to wean after around 16 months usually. I really don’t get this AAP recommendation.

[Anonymous]

Did I read it wrong or are they saying that from aged one to two the benefit is for the mother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did I read it wrong or are they saying that from aged one to two the benefit is for the mother?

LOLOLOLOLOL obviously a man wrote this. Maybe this is just part of our giant backslide to the 1950s. Keep women chained to their babies for as long as possible. Oh wait in the 50s it was acceptable to use formula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's garbage. I stopped listening to them when they insisted babies should sleep in the same room as their parents the first year.

Yeah lol every ped I've ever seen has laughed at that rec IRL and said no one would ever get any sleep if they followed it to the letter.

[Anonymous]

I mean…peoples feelings about the AAP are very extreme. They don’t recommend co-sleeping, a decision that was reached by *one vote* and people are very emotionally invested in that choice as well.

Support for breastfeeding means genuine maternity leave. That doesn’t mean other values of parental leave don’t also exist, but supporting prolonged leave to give women who wish to the opportunity to breastfeed doesn’t do anything to harm efforts for people trying to get long term parental leave for both.

If you don’t breastfeed why can’t you just decide this one isn’t about you and ignore it? That’s what I do when all the formula-from-Europe debates come up…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree though, there should be more focus on access -- the women who are most vulnerable and would benefit most from breastfeeding are those who are least able to do it. And a level-set that the WHO's "until 2 years old" rec is more meaningful for parents in countries without clean water or reliable nutritious food.

That’s really not what I think of when I think of Canada who also has this recommendation…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I read it wrong or are they saying that from aged one to two the benefit is for the mother?

LOLOLOLOLOL obviously a man wrote this. Maybe this is just part of our giant backslide to the 1950s. Keep women chained to their babies for as long as possible. Oh wait in the 50s it was acceptable to use formula.

No, actually I am a 67 year old grandmother who was raised on formula.

I’m just asking about the quote in the links given. I might have missed it but I didn’t see their reasons beyond health if the mother after aged one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I read it wrong or are they saying that from aged one to two the benefit is for the mother?

LOLOLOLOLOL obviously a man wrote this. Maybe this is just part of our giant backslide to the 1950s. Keep women chained to their babies for as long as possible. Oh wait in the 50s it was acceptable to use formula.

No, actually I am a 67 year old grandmother who was raised on formula.

I’m just asking about the quote in the links given. I might have missed it but I didn’t see their reasons beyond health if the mother after aged one.

I meant the AAP recommendation was written by a man...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean…peoples feelings about the AAP are very extreme. They don’t recommend co-sleeping, a decision that was reached by *one vote* and people are very emotionally invested in that choice as well.

Support for breastfeeding means genuine maternity leave. That doesn’t mean other values of parental leave don’t also exist, but supporting prolonged leave to give women who wish to the opportunity to breastfeed doesn’t do anything to harm efforts for people trying to get long term parental leave for both.

If you don’t breastfeed why can’t you just decide this one isn’t about you and ignore it? That’s what I do when all the formula-from-Europe debates come up…

I do breastfeed, for a long time. But I also know bs when I see it and I want to push back against unrealistic and frankly regressive recommendations that do nothing to actually help mothers or babies.

[Anonymous]

They told them to pressure people because of formula shortages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They told them to pressure people because of formula shortages

Still makes no sense from one to two. The kids aren’t on formula after one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I read it wrong or are they saying that from aged one to two the benefit is for the mother?

LOLOLOLOLOL obviously a man wrote this. Maybe this is just part of our giant backslide to the 1950s. Keep women chained to their babies for as long as possible. Oh wait in the 50s it was acceptable to use formula.

No, actually I am a 67 year old grandmother who was raised on formula.

I’m just asking about the quote in the links given. I might have missed it but I didn’t see their reasons beyond health if the mother after aged one.

I meant the AAP recommendation was written by a man...

Okay, but did it say there was any benefit to the child? That’s what I am asking.