I hate the AAP

[Anonymous]

The only recommendation was for providers to support those who breastfeed past 1 year which I can tell you as someone who breastfed until 25 months, providers denigrated my choices and said there was absolutely no benefit to breastfeeding magically past 12 months. As if breast milk just becomes nothing after 12 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only recommendation was for providers to support those who breastfeed past 1 year which I can tell you as someone who breastfed until 25 months, providers denigrated my choices and said there was absolutely no benefit to breastfeeding magically past 12 months. As if breast milk just becomes nothing after 12 months.

it basically is nothing, though. you’ll find very little evidence it matters at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I will agree to disagree— I think the AAP calling for workplace support for 2 year breastfeeding is beneficial. Colleagues before me started getting side-eye at a year, I have the “perk” of a pandemic baby, most moms I know are extending nursing for conferred immunity.

But it’s not about people who aren’t breastfeeding. It’s ok. When recommendations are released about what formulas are good/better, everyone who breastfeeds shouldn’t be personally affronted. Not everything is about every mom— though perhaps it’s suggestive that moms are judged too harshly that they believe the opposite to be true.

[Anonymous]

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

Ok, again, this has been on the books in Canada for years…massive northern conspiracy? Im skeptical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I will agree to disagree— I think the AAP calling for workplace support for 2 year breastfeeding is beneficial. Colleagues before me started getting side-eye at a year, I have the “perk” of a pandemic baby, most moms I know are extending nursing for conferred immunity.

But it’s not about people who aren’t breastfeeding. It’s ok. When recommendations are released about what formulas are good/better, everyone who breastfeeds shouldn’t be personally affronted. Not everything is about every mom— though perhaps it’s suggestive that moms are judged too harshly that they believe the opposite to be true.

no, it’s excessive. should I get workplace support for making dinner? all parents should get support regardless of what they feed their kids. choosing to breastfeed does not give you additional entitlements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I will agree to disagree— I think the AAP calling for workplace support for 2 year breastfeeding is beneficial. Colleagues before me started getting side-eye at a year, I have the “perk” of a pandemic baby, most moms I know are extending nursing for conferred immunity.

But it’s not about people who aren’t breastfeeding. It’s ok. When recommendations are released about what formulas are good/better, everyone who breastfeeds shouldn’t be personally affronted. Not everything is about every mom— though perhaps it’s suggestive that moms are judged too harshly that they believe the opposite to be true.

no, it’s excessive. should I get workplace support for making dinner? all parents should get support regardless of what they feed their kids. choosing to breastfeed does not give you additional entitlements.

Actually it does. It entitles you to a private room in which to express milk that is not a bathroom and reasonable breaks to do so. It’s law in most places.

I’m sorry you find it excessive for someone to take 40 minutes from their day to express milk and I’m sorry you don’t feel like you’re getting enough support in your workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I will agree to disagree— I think the AAP calling for workplace support for 2 year breastfeeding is beneficial. Colleagues before me started getting side-eye at a year, I have the “perk” of a pandemic baby, most moms I know are extending nursing for conferred immunity.

But it’s not about people who aren’t breastfeeding. It’s ok. When recommendations are released about what formulas are good/better, everyone who breastfeeds shouldn’t be personally affronted. Not everything is about every mom— though perhaps it’s suggestive that moms are judged too harshly that they believe the opposite to be true.

no, it’s excessive. should I get workplace support for making dinner? all parents should get support regardless of what they feed their kids. choosing to breastfeed does not give you additional entitlements.

PP, see here for the law in DC. It only protects women for one year. In theory the AAP recommendations will encourage localities to expand it.
https://dchealth.dc.gov/service/breastfeeding-workplace

[Anonymous]

The AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months, as long as mutually desired for 2 years or beyond. Studies and meta-analyses have also confirmed the impact of breastfeeding longer than 12 months on maternal health in decreasing maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer rates (Table 2). Mothers who decide to breastfeed beyond the first year need support. They often report feeling ridiculed or alienated in their choice and conceal their breastfeeding behavior to minimize unsolicited judgment and comments.20,21 There is evidence that only one-half of mothers who breastfeed past 1 year discuss their decision with their pediatric primary care provider and that 38% of women who reported that their provider was unsupportive of breastfeeding past the first year elected to change their pediatric primary care provider.22

Breastfeeding exclusively for about 6 months is an evidence-based recommendation. In an individual counseling situation, pediatricians and families can discuss the desires of the family and cultural variations. Pediatricians can review the importance of exclusive breastfeeding and ensure mothers and families are fully informed about their decisions, while at the same time engaging in nonjudgmental conversations about the family’s personal goals for breastfeeding. Exclusive or any breastfeeding is not always possible, despite the best of intentions, and these mothers and families need special support to overcome the disappointment that may accompany breastfeeding difficulties.

Outcomes
Extensive data confirm that many acute and chronic pediatric disorders, such as otitis media, acute diarrheal disease, lower respiratory illnesses, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), inflammatory bowel disease, childhood leukemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, asthma, and atopic dermatitis, occur less frequently among children who were breastfed as infants.18 Some of these outcomes may be secondary to the unique biologic composition of human milk. Mothers who breastfeed experience lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus; breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer; and hypertension12 (Tables 2 and 3).


Don't just read the announcement. Read the accompanying paper and technical review.
They have had more and more studies on breast milk and this reflect it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This statement from the AAP's press release is ridiculous:

"Exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months. There is no need to introduce infant formula or other sources of nutrition for most infants. Beyond 6 months, breastfeeding should be maintained along with nutritious complementary foods."

Yes, there is a need to introduce formula for any number of reasons:
- The birthing parent is not interested in breastfeeding
- The child is adopted
- The birthing parent cannot produce enough milk WHICH IS COMMON AND NORMAL AND NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF

Was always curious if the ‘can’t produce enough milk’ means there’s something unusual about the breast, or is it an emotional situation that’s preventing the ‘let down’.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months, as long as mutually desired for 2 years or beyond. Studies and meta-analyses have also confirmed the impact of breastfeeding longer than 12 months on maternal health in decreasing maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer rates (Table 2). Mothers who decide to breastfeed beyond the first year need support. They often report feeling ridiculed or alienated in their choice and conceal their breastfeeding behavior to minimize unsolicited judgment and comments.20,21 There is evidence that only one-half of mothers who breastfeed past 1 year discuss their decision with their pediatric primary care provider and that 38% of women who reported that their provider was unsupportive of breastfeeding past the first year elected to change their pediatric primary care provider.22

Breastfeeding exclusively for about 6 months is an evidence-based recommendation. In an individual counseling situation, pediatricians and families can discuss the desires of the family and cultural variations. Pediatricians can review the importance of exclusive breastfeeding and ensure mothers and families are fully informed about their decisions, while at the same time engaging in nonjudgmental conversations about the family’s personal goals for breastfeeding. Exclusive or any breastfeeding is not always possible, despite the best of intentions, and these mothers and families need special support to overcome the disappointment that may accompany breastfeeding difficulties.

Outcomes
Extensive data confirm that many acute and chronic pediatric disorders, such as otitis media, acute diarrheal disease, lower respiratory illnesses, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), inflammatory bowel disease, childhood leukemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, asthma, and atopic dermatitis, occur less frequently among children who were breastfed as infants.18 Some of these outcomes may be secondary to the unique biologic composition of human milk. Mothers who breastfeed experience lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus; breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer; and hypertension12 (Tables 2 and 3).


Don't just read the announcement. Read the accompanying paper and technical review.
They have had more and more studies on breast milk and this reflect it.

yeah I know what it says, same as always with these people. vastly overstate the benefits of breastfeeding based on bad research with confounders; ignore the solid research that shows no benefit; completely discount women’s preferences about their bodies; do not value women’s labor at all; and conclude with absolutely disgusting paternalism at this particular juncture that women who don’t breastfeed must be “disappointed” and need “special support.”

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Yes it is, you are just too dumb to understand why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months, as long as mutually desired for 2 years or beyond. Studies and meta-analyses have also confirmed the impact of breastfeeding longer than 12 months on maternal health in decreasing maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer rates (Table 2). Mothers who decide to breastfeed beyond the first year need support. They often report feeling ridiculed or alienated in their choice and conceal their breastfeeding behavior to minimize unsolicited judgment and comments.20,21 There is evidence that only one-half of mothers who breastfeed past 1 year discuss their decision with their pediatric primary care provider and that 38% of women who reported that their provider was unsupportive of breastfeeding past the first year elected to change their pediatric primary care provider.22

Breastfeeding exclusively for about 6 months is an evidence-based recommendation. In an individual counseling situation, pediatricians and families can discuss the desires of the family and cultural variations. Pediatricians can review the importance of exclusive breastfeeding and ensure mothers and families are fully informed about their decisions, while at the same time engaging in nonjudgmental conversations about the family’s personal goals for breastfeeding. Exclusive or any breastfeeding is not always possible, despite the best of intentions, and these mothers and families need special support to overcome the disappointment that may accompany breastfeeding difficulties.

Outcomes
Extensive data confirm that many acute and chronic pediatric disorders, such as otitis media, acute diarrheal disease, lower respiratory illnesses, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), inflammatory bowel disease, childhood leukemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, asthma, and atopic dermatitis, occur less frequently among children who were breastfed as infants.18 Some of these outcomes may be secondary to the unique biologic composition of human milk. Mothers who breastfeed experience lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus; breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer; and hypertension12 (Tables 2 and 3).


Don't just read the announcement. Read the accompanying paper and technical review.
They have had more and more studies on breast milk and this reflect it.

yeah I know what it says, same as always with these people. vastly overstate the benefits of breastfeeding based on bad research with confounders; ignore the solid research that shows no benefit; completely discount women’s preferences about their bodies; do not value women’s labor at all; and conclude with absolutely disgusting paternalism at this particular juncture that women who don’t breastfeed must be “disappointed” and need “special support.”

+1 amen