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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So just to clarify, is the AAP "supporting" breastfeeding for 2 years so mothers don't have to hear their pediatricians tell them it will be hard to wean after a certain age (good advice IMO), or because they actually prefer that women breatsfeed for 2 years versus 1 year?

obviously neither. the guidance is not guidance. it’s just another opportunity to “support” breastfeeding as a moral imperitive.

Have you not yet realized how ineffective your trolling is on this thread?

I'm the first PP above. What's your take? What is the specific end goal of this guidance, in your mind?

I think firstly it’s to highlight that the full conception through lactation cycle is not always exactly one year and nine months, and that the nursing dyad may continue quite normally well past that. It think it intends to highlight benefits to the mother instead of endlessly focusing on what she can do for the child. And I think— because it says so— that it intends to advocate for additional workplace and government policies that allow women the best chance at successful breastfeeding.

Why is the “nursing dyad” (barf) elevated above all other aspects and labor of parenting, and other material aspects of family wellbeing? I believe it’s because breastfeeding occupies a place in some people’s mind as a symbol of utopia and idealized life. That’s why they over-focus on it to the exception of other more important things. It’s about attaining a perfect image of motherhood, and at its heart, as noxious as other myths of motherhood that distort public policy.

A woman is not half of a “nursing dyad.” She’s a person with autonomy.

If you find this subject so vomit inducing, maybe go back to Reddit.

DP, the PP is referring to a term used above, not the subject as a whole. Don't you dare try to censor those of us that think differently from you. If you can't handle other Pepe's opinions, you should be the one to leave.

The term the PP is “barf”-ing at is the same term used in all the peer reviewed articles about this since the 90s. It’s not censorship to suggest someone coming onto a thread about a breastfeeding recommendation and saying standard terminology for it is “barf” May have found themselves on the wrong part of the internet.

On the other hand, I notice that you autocorrect to Pepe. I do find those opinions difficult to handle. And evidence of a troll.

Nope, just evidence of typing on my phone.

This is a message board. People will express opinions you do not like, in ways that you do not like. You and the other AAP lovers here can tell us to leave as you have several times on this thread because you are too weak to tolerate people who don't worship breastfeeding. That doesn't mean that we will.

Funny, even when I type on my phone I don’t accidentally type racist dog whistles.

We live in a country where the government will buy you formula but won’t give you one minute of guaranteed time off to breastfeed an infant. Worship breastfeeding? Weak troll.

Wow, I genuinely apologize, I had no idea that Pepe had become a symbol.of hate (and I definitely didn't even intend to type it).

I find it funny you think the "government" is the one that needs to "give" you time off to breastfeed an infant. It's your employer, and many are required by the government to provide pumping breaks. If you are referring to paid parental leave, there are a ton of organizations fighting for this, and it's clear the AAP didn't bother to coordinate with them or they wouldn't be calling for "maternity" leave, which places the burden of caring for a newborn entirely on the mother.

If the “government” should “give” formula to formula-fed infants (which they should) they should be equally in the business of making sure breastfed infants are fed. They’re very clearly not. So much for your allegation that we “worship” breastfeeding.

How exactly do you propose the government do this? Should they hire an army of temp workers to run around to different businesses to cover for women while they pump?

It’s really not that hard to accommodate a pumping mother. They are short intervals and everyone copes. My kids are adopted so the issues of breastfeeding and pumping were never mine but I totally supported my co-workers who pumped as did everyone.

Ok, so YOU gave your time to your coworkers. Not "the government"

[Anonymous]

There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Its pretty clear- 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and after that breastfeeding should be maintained along with complementary foods-no change from previous recommendations. It is giving the thumbs up for those who want to continue breastfeeding from year 1-2 and if mutually desired, beyond 2. And that mothers who feed beyond 1 year need additional support from their medical providers, so stop shaming women and telling them there is no benefit to breastmilk. As if at 12months day 1 it is no longer a viable source of nutrients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Actually the reduction of obesity from breastfeeding (likely not bottle feeding or feeding expressed BM in a bottle) is one of the more logical effects of breastfeeding because babies will self-regulate intake better than parents pushing baby to finish bottle. Similarly to the effect of less dental malocclusion in breastfed babies. I’m not sure why you think this document is different from all other guidelines published by health organizations but I STRONGLY believe that women are capable of reading the document weighing the evidence it presents (including weak evidence) and making the best decision for themselves and their babies.

The organization is the American Association of PEDIATRICS so of course it focuses on BABIES and CHILDREN not women. Their mission is the well being of children not adults. Unfortunately I do think there is a gap in the focus on women’s health in the immediate postpartum period. I had numerous risk factors for delayed and inadequate milk suply which COULD have been recognized my OB. Supporting breastfeeding should have involved giving me a heads up and proving education on pumping (including the need to have a pump in advance, support needed to pump while being a solo mom caring for a newborn etc.) but of course breastfeeding is an OB thing so none of this occurred. I had to beg and beg for an LC the hospital and by the time they saw me 2+ days after birth my nipples were so bruised and injured that they pretty much just gave me a nipple shield. The peds in the hospital didn’t take my risk factors into account looking solely at my baby and only acting when her bili was rising and weight loss was too much. Of course then I had to beg for formula when they were discharging me (despite knowing my baby required donor milk in the hospital) It was a train wreck that I foresaw but wasn’t able to do anything about without appropriate medical support.

So in the end I agree women are not optimally supported in their choices BOTH for breastfeeding and for formula feeding. Still grateful for the extension to 2 years because it is will help me counter the judgement I am encountering feeding my baby past one. The new statement is less presciptive about feeding to one which should alleviate some of the pressure on women who want to stop earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Its pretty clear- 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and after that breastfeeding should be maintained along with complementary foods-no change from previous recommendations. It is giving the thumbs up for those who want to continue breastfeeding from year 1-2 and if mutually desired, beyond 2. And that mothers who feed beyond 1 year need additional support from their medical providers, so stop shaming women and telling them there is no benefit to breastmilk. As if at 12months day 1 it is no longer a viable source of nutrients.

Actually it's not clear. I remember when I was pregnant I looked to the AAP's website for guidance. Well this is all that it says now: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months. We support continued breastfeeding after solid foods are introduced as long as you and your baby desire, for 2 years or beyond," and "Beyond 6 months, we recommend continued breastfeeding alongwith adding nutritious complementary foods. Your baby does not need any infant or toddler formula."

So if I'm not continuing to breastfeed because I really really want to, but because I bought into the BS evidence they are pushing, 2 years is the only recommended end date that a person can glean from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Actually the reduction of obesity from breastfeeding (likely not bottle feeding or feeding expressed BM in a bottle) is one of the more logical effects of breastfeeding because babies will self-regulate intake better than parents pushing baby to finish bottle. Similarly to the effect of less dental malocclusion in breastfed babies. I’m not sure why you think this document is different from all other guidelines published by health organizations but I STRONGLY believe that women are capable of reading the document weighing the evidence it presents (including weak evidence) and making the best decision for themselves and their babies.

The organization is the American Association of PEDIATRICS so of course it focuses on BABIES and CHILDREN not women. Their mission is the well being of children not adults. Unfortunately I do think there is a gap in the focus on women’s health in the immediate postpartum period. I had numerous risk factors for delayed and inadequate milk suply which COULD have been recognized my OB. Supporting breastfeeding should have involved giving me a heads up and proving education on pumping (including the need to have a pump in advance, support needed to pump while being a solo mom caring for a newborn etc.) but of course breastfeeding is an OB thing so none of this occurred. I had to beg and beg for an LC the hospital and by the time they saw me 2+ days after birth my nipples were so bruised and injured that they pretty much just gave me a nipple shield. The peds in the hospital didn’t take my risk factors into account looking solely at my baby and only acting when her bili was rising and weight loss was too much. Of course then I had to beg for formula when they were discharging me (despite knowing my baby required donor milk in the hospital) It was a train wreck that I foresaw but wasn’t able to do anything about without appropriate medical support.

So in the end I agree women are not optimally supported in their choices BOTH for breastfeeding and for formula feeding. Still grateful for the extension to 2 years because it is will help me counter the judgement I am encountering feeding my baby past one. The new statement is less presciptive about feeding to one which should alleviate some of the pressure on women who want to stop earlier.

There is no good evidence suggesting that breastfeeding reduces child obesity.

This policy statement just increases pressure on women who can't or don't want to breastfeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Its pretty clear- 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and after that breastfeeding should be maintained along with complementary foods-no change from previous recommendations. It is giving the thumbs up for those who want to continue breastfeeding from year 1-2 and if mutually desired, beyond 2. And that mothers who feed beyond 1 year need additional support from their medical providers, so stop shaming women and telling them there is no benefit to breastmilk. As if at 12months day 1 it is no longer a viable source of nutrients.

Actually it's not clear. I remember when I was pregnant I looked to the AAP's website for guidance. Well this is all that it says now: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months. We support continued breastfeeding after solid foods are introduced as long as you and your baby desire, for 2 years or beyond," and "Beyond 6 months, we recommend continued breastfeeding alongwith adding nutritious complementary foods. Your baby does not need any infant or toddler formula."

So if I'm not continuing to breastfeed because I really really want to, but because I bought into the BS evidence they are pushing, 2 years is the only recommended end date that a person can glean from this.

Wow okay. So you think by support breastfeeding it means you have to? 2 years is not the recommend end date. It also says beyond 2 years. If you do not desire to do it then you dont need to. If you do desire, you shouldnt be shamed or told there isnt any benefit, because THERE IS. I can tell the people who havent BF or havent BF past 1 year because you have no idea regarding the medical communities approach to breastfeeding after a year. This is saying that breastfeeding past a year is not WRONG, should be supported., and has benefits.

ALL of this is with the understanding that breastfeeding is mutually desired. If you negate that part, then yes I can see how it isnt clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Actually the reduction of obesity from breastfeeding (likely not bottle feeding or feeding expressed BM in a bottle) is one of the more logical effects of breastfeeding because babies will self-regulate intake better than parents pushing baby to finish bottle. Similarly to the effect of less dental malocclusion in breastfed babies. I’m not sure why you think this document is different from all other guidelines published by health organizations but I STRONGLY believe that women are capable of reading the document weighing the evidence it presents (including weak evidence) and making the best decision for themselves and their babies.

The organization is the American Association of PEDIATRICS so of course it focuses on BABIES and CHILDREN not women. Their mission is the well being of children not adults. Unfortunately I do think there is a gap in the focus on women’s health in the immediate postpartum period. I had numerous risk factors for delayed and inadequate milk suply which COULD have been recognized my OB. Supporting breastfeeding should have involved giving me a heads up and proving education on pumping (including the need to have a pump in advance, support needed to pump while being a solo mom caring for a newborn etc.) but of course breastfeeding is an OB thing so none of this occurred. I had to beg and beg for an LC the hospital and by the time they saw me 2+ days after birth my nipples were so bruised and injured that they pretty much just gave me a nipple shield. The peds in the hospital didn’t take my risk factors into account looking solely at my baby and only acting when her bili was rising and weight loss was too much. Of course then I had to beg for formula when they were discharging me (despite knowing my baby required donor milk in the hospital) It was a train wreck that I foresaw but wasn’t able to do anything about without appropriate medical support.

So in the end I agree women are not optimally supported in their choices BOTH for breastfeeding and for formula feeding. Still grateful for the extension to 2 years because it is will help me counter the judgement I am encountering feeding my baby past one. The new statement is less presciptive about feeding to one which should alleviate some of the pressure on women who want to stop earlier.

There is no good evidence suggesting that breastfeeding reduces child obesity.

This policy statement just increases pressure on women who can't or don't want to breastfeed.

This is just like every other PH measure. All of a sudden everyone is an expert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Its pretty clear- 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and after that breastfeeding should be maintained along with complementary foods-no change from previous recommendations. It is giving the thumbs up for those who want to continue breastfeeding from year 1-2 and if mutually desired, beyond 2. And that mothers who feed beyond 1 year need additional support from their medical providers, so stop shaming women and telling them there is no benefit to breastmilk. As if at 12months day 1 it is no longer a viable source of nutrients.

Actually it's not clear. I remember when I was pregnant I looked to the AAP's website for guidance. Well this is all that it says now: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months. We support continued breastfeeding after solid foods are introduced as long as you and your baby desire, for 2 years or beyond," and "Beyond 6 months, we recommend continued breastfeeding alongwith adding nutritious complementary foods. Your baby does not need any infant or toddler formula."

So if I'm not continuing to breastfeed because I really really want to, but because I bought into the BS evidence they are pushing, 2 years is the only recommended end date that a person can glean from this.

Yeah I remember being confused by what happens at 6 months too.

What women deserve is a clear, objective rubric setting out the benefits (and degree of certainty) and the predictable costs of each phase of breastfeeding, with a continuous focus on the mental health of the mother. That’s why I like voices like Jodi Seagrave at Fed is Best. She discusses the evidence in early breastfeeding - which is where both the costs and benefits are the greatest. So for example she writes very realistically about the limits of “triple feeding”: https://fedisbest.org/2019/12/mothers-describe-their-triple-feeding-experiences-and-the-impact-it-had-on-their-mental-and-physical-health/.

The AAP in contrast provides absolutely zero practical consideration for the costs of its breastfeeding (and sleep) recommendations. Zero acknowledgement that these are behaviors that are very complex with tradeoffs. It’s not just “take a vitamin!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Its pretty clear- 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and after that breastfeeding should be maintained along with complementary foods-no change from previous recommendations. It is giving the thumbs up for those who want to continue breastfeeding from year 1-2 and if mutually desired, beyond 2. And that mothers who feed beyond 1 year need additional support from their medical providers, so stop shaming women and telling them there is no benefit to breastmilk. As if at 12months day 1 it is no longer a viable source of nutrients.

Actually it's not clear. I remember when I was pregnant I looked to the AAP's website for guidance. Well this is all that it says now: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months. We support continued breastfeeding after solid foods are introduced as long as you and your baby desire, for 2 years or beyond," and "Beyond 6 months, we recommend continued breastfeeding alongwith adding nutritious complementary foods. Your baby does not need any infant or toddler formula."

So if I'm not continuing to breastfeed because I really really want to, but because I bought into the BS evidence they are pushing, 2 years is the only recommended end date that a person can glean from this.

Wow okay. So you think by support breastfeeding it means you have to? 2 years is not the recommend end date. It also says beyond 2 years. If you do not desire to do it then you dont need to. If you do desire, you shouldnt be shamed or told there isnt any benefit, because THERE IS. I can tell the people who havent BF or havent BF past 1 year because you have no idea regarding the medical communities approach to breastfeeding after a year. This is saying that breastfeeding past a year is not WRONG, should be supported., and has benefits.

ALL of this is with the understanding that breastfeeding is mutually desired. If you negate that part, then yes I can see how it isnt clear.

They are a *health organization* making *public* recommendations. Yes, the should be clear, and yes, they should be based on solid evidence. Not just saying “hey, do this if you want, it might be good!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Its pretty clear- 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and after that breastfeeding should be maintained along with complementary foods-no change from previous recommendations. It is giving the thumbs up for those who want to continue breastfeeding from year 1-2 and if mutually desired, beyond 2. And that mothers who feed beyond 1 year need additional support from their medical providers, so stop shaming women and telling them there is no benefit to breastmilk. As if at 12months day 1 it is no longer a viable source of nutrients.

Actually it's not clear. I remember when I was pregnant I looked to the AAP's website for guidance. Well this is all that it says now: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months. We support continued breastfeeding after solid foods are introduced as long as you and your baby desire, for 2 years or beyond," and "Beyond 6 months, we recommend continued breastfeeding alongwith adding nutritious complementary foods. Your baby does not need any infant or toddler formula."

So if I'm not continuing to breastfeed because I really really want to, but because I bought into the BS evidence they are pushing, 2 years is the only recommended end date that a person can glean from this.

Wow okay. So you think by support breastfeeding it means you have to? 2 years is not the recommend end date. It also says beyond 2 years. If you do not desire to do it then you dont need to. If you do desire, you shouldnt be shamed or told there isnt any benefit, because THERE IS. I can tell the people who havent BF or havent BF past 1 year because you have no idea regarding the medical communities approach to breastfeeding after a year. This is saying that breastfeeding past a year is not WRONG, should be supported., and has benefits.

ALL of this is with the understanding that breastfeeding is mutually desired. If you negate that part, then yes I can see how it isnt clear.

They are a *health organization* making *public* recommendations. Yes, the should be clear, and yes, they should be based on solid evidence. Not just saying “hey, do this if you want, it might be good!”

There is a benefit to breastfeeding to two years which they lay out. Breastfeeding has to be mutually desired for it to work. Mutually desired is much better than saying for as long as the baby wants which would be ignoring the mother and her health and agency. I’m not sure how they could be more balanced in terms of presenting the evidence of benefit while also acknowledging that the mother’s wishes and desires (as well as the babies) are important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Its pretty clear- 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and after that breastfeeding should be maintained along with complementary foods-no change from previous recommendations. It is giving the thumbs up for those who want to continue breastfeeding from year 1-2 and if mutually desired, beyond 2. And that mothers who feed beyond 1 year need additional support from their medical providers, so stop shaming women and telling them there is no benefit to breastmilk. As if at 12months day 1 it is no longer a viable source of nutrients.

Actually it's not clear. I remember when I was pregnant I looked to the AAP's website for guidance. Well this is all that it says now: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months. We support continued breastfeeding after solid foods are introduced as long as you and your baby desire, for 2 years or beyond," and "Beyond 6 months, we recommend continued breastfeeding alongwith adding nutritious complementary foods. Your baby does not need any infant or toddler formula."

So if I'm not continuing to breastfeed because I really really want to, but because I bought into the BS evidence they are pushing, 2 years is the only recommended end date that a person can glean from this.

Wow okay. So you think by support breastfeeding it means you have to? 2 years is not the recommend end date. It also says beyond 2 years. If you do not desire to do it then you dont need to. If you do desire, you shouldnt be shamed or told there isnt any benefit, because THERE IS. I can tell the people who havent BF or havent BF past 1 year because you have no idea regarding the medical communities approach to breastfeeding after a year. This is saying that breastfeeding past a year is not WRONG, should be supported., and has benefits.

ALL of this is with the understanding that breastfeeding is mutually desired. If you negate that part, then yes I can see how it isnt clear.

Let me be more specific. When I was pregnant and then subsequently breastfeeding, I based my "goals" on what would be best for my baby, based on medical advice from my own research as well as our pediatrician. At that time, the advice was to breastfeed for one year (and the "mutually desired" language was there in the AAP recommendation). And that is what I did. I also continued nursing for a couple more months after the one year mark (never got any judgement for that by the way). Reading the current AAP website, it just says to continue breastfeeding after 6 months with complementary foods. It doesn't say until when it is "recommended" to breastfeed, but it has the language about "supporting" breastfeeding through "2 years and beyond". Why list any number if ostensibly, they support breastfeeding for any length of time? Why not just say that?

It also says "Your baby does not need any infant or toddler formula" which is just bizarre, many babies do NEED formula because most women cannot pump enough at work to fulfill their babies' nutritional needs. Moreover, it's so weird to lump in toddler formula (which truly is unnecessary for most children), with infant formula, which is THE alternative to breast milk in the first year of life. They are very clearly discouraging the use of any formula at all, which implies they definitely want women to breastfeed through 12 months, and certainly don't say anything about cow's milk (I'm sure some will say well this page is about breastfeeding, and I think that's absurd, why make people look at two different pages for recommendations about feeding?). So no, they are not saying that "breastfeeding past a year is not WRONG" first of all because they never say anything about breastfeeding FOR a year. They only mention 6 months (as the point when you can introduce "complementary foods" (but definitely not formula) and 2 years.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/breastfeeding/Pages/Where-We-Stand-Breastfeeding.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Its pretty clear- 6 months exclusive breastfeeding and after that breastfeeding should be maintained along with complementary foods-no change from previous recommendations. It is giving the thumbs up for those who want to continue breastfeeding from year 1-2 and if mutually desired, beyond 2. And that mothers who feed beyond 1 year need additional support from their medical providers, so stop shaming women and telling them there is no benefit to breastmilk. As if at 12months day 1 it is no longer a viable source of nutrients.

Actually it's not clear. I remember when I was pregnant I looked to the AAP's website for guidance. Well this is all that it says now: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months. We support continued breastfeeding after solid foods are introduced as long as you and your baby desire, for 2 years or beyond," and "Beyond 6 months, we recommend continued breastfeeding alongwith adding nutritious complementary foods. Your baby does not need any infant or toddler formula."

So if I'm not continuing to breastfeed because I really really want to, but because I bought into the BS evidence they are pushing, 2 years is the only recommended end date that a person can glean from this.

Wow okay. So you think by support breastfeeding it means you have to? 2 years is not the recommend end date. It also says beyond 2 years. If you do not desire to do it then you dont need to. If you do desire, you shouldnt be shamed or told there isnt any benefit, because THERE IS. I can tell the people who havent BF or havent BF past 1 year because you have no idea regarding the medical communities approach to breastfeeding after a year. This is saying that breastfeeding past a year is not WRONG, should be supported., and has benefits.

ALL of this is with the understanding that breastfeeding is mutually desired. If you negate that part, then yes I can see how it isnt clear.

They are a *health organization* making *public* recommendations. Yes, the should be clear, and yes, they should be based on solid evidence. Not just saying “hey, do this if you want, it might be good!”

There is a benefit to breastfeeding to two years which they lay out. Breastfeeding has to be mutually desired for it to work. Mutually desired is much better than saying for as long as the baby wants which would be ignoring the mother and her health and agency. I’m not sure how they could be more balanced in terms of presenting the evidence of benefit while also acknowledging that the mother’s wishes and desires (as well as the babies) are important.

They could start by acknowledging that the "benefits" they list in their tables are largely based on observational studies that can't control for all confounding variables and therefore grossly overestimate the benefits of breastfeeding. They could explain that the few robust studies (randomized or sibling comparison) suggest the benefits are much more limited than suggested by the observational data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Can you please cite your source for research suggesting breastfeeding is less beneficial to Black babies? That is 180 degrees from everything I’ve seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two problems with the new statement:

1. It is very unclear. For a first time mom that buys into all the benefits of breastfeeding to the baby, but for whom it does represent a burden (as it does to many women), should she try to get to the 12 month mark? The 24 month mark? What is the goal, if the mother is doing it solely for the baby?

2. On the first point, I know some of you will say that women can make their own decision about this and that I am saying women do not have agency (lol). Well, if that's the case, then unfortunately this document is totally unhelpful. Once again, it grossly exaggerates the benefits of breastfeeding to both baby and mother. I am sorry, but as an example, the idea that breastfeeding reduces childhood obesity is absolutely, utterly absurd and unsupported by the research. It also suggests that breastfeeding has even greater benefits for Black babies, but the most recent research suggests the opposite. This document then uses these purported benefits to advocate for practices that may be harmful to babies, and which all mothers I know pretty much hate (like being required to room in at the hospital after major surgery, or keeping pacifiers away from babies), and have no proven benefits.

My reaction to this document is not just about the AAP's decision to "support" breastfeeding for 2 years, which I find disingenuous for a variety of reasons. It's that the document as a whole reads like a piece of propaganda written by KellyMom and then made to sound "scientific" by a couple of White doctors who footnote a Black pediatrician to justify their extremely lazy racial equity analysis.

Can you please cite your source for research suggesting breastfeeding is less beneficial to Black babies? That is 180 degrees from everything I’ve seen.

We found statistically significant associations between any breastfeeding and post-perinatal infant deaths among most racial/ethnic groups, with 25% reductions in overall post-perinatal infant mortality for the non-Hispanic White population, 17% reduction in non-Hispanic Blacks, and even greater protection in association with breastfeeding among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian populations (36% and 49% lower death rates, respectively). The reasons for a smaller effect size among non-Hispanic black population cannot be explained by further analysis of our data, but we offer two potential explanations. First, our analysis does not address the impact of breastfeeding duration and exclusivity, which is known to be significantly lower in the non-Hispanic Black population compared to all others except for American Indian and Alaska Natives.6 Thus, breastfeeding “dose” to the infant whose mother initiates breastfeeding is not equal by race. Second, the small effect size might be explained by other risk factors for which we were not able to fully adjust for. [b]Social and structural determinants of infant death risks, such as poverty and structural racism, are more prevalent among non-Hispanic black population regardless of their breastfeeding status and thus may dilute the effect of breastfeeding. Given the high IMR in the US, any intervention that could reduce infant deaths would be worthwhile, even if itself alone does not reduce disparities proportionately.[b]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00090-9/fulltext

They are basically admitting that breastfeeding interventions are not going to reduce the disparity in infant mortality and may increase it. Poverty and structural racism cause infant deaths (not because they stop women from breastfeeding, but by themselves), so you have to address those things if you want to reduce disparities. Not saying promoting breastfeeding is bad, though I'm sure you'll twist my words anyway, but I do think it is bad to sell it as a way to reduce disparities in infant mortality.