I hate the AAP

[Anonymous]

And I should note that the massive effect sizes in Hispanic and Asian populations is a huge red flag telling me there is more to this than breastfeeding alone.

[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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

[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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

Just to be clear, you believe the AAP is recommending that women breastfeed for two years (that is what they think is "best")? Because on that point, we agree, but many people on this thread are insisting that is not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

Just to be clear, you believe the AAP is recommending that women breastfeed for two years (that is what they think is "best")? Because on that point, we agree, but many people on this thread are insisting that is not true.

Saying there are benefits to breastfeeding beyond a year while qualifying if mutually desired and NOT using the word "recommend" is a very soft recommendation. This is in contrast with their very rigid and strong recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months.

Personally I think they would be better off in their guidances to be a bit more nuanced. Exclusive breastfeeding is one of those places and I also think bedsharing is another (too absolute on bedsharing could actually lead to public health harm, if parents avoid a bed and then fall asleep on the sofa and also inhibits open conversations with doctors about individual risk.) I feel like the focus on exclusive breastfeeding means that women sometimes feel like breastfeeding is all or nothing and since partial breastfeeding is better than nothing may end up discouraging partial breastfeeding (which can be both safer and more realistic and also can lead to people breastfeeding longer and maybe even exclusively as issues get worked out.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

Just to be clear, you believe the AAP is recommending that women breastfeed for two years (that is what they think is "best")? Because on that point, we agree, but many people on this thread are insisting that is not true.

Saying there are benefits to breastfeeding beyond a year while qualifying if mutually desired and NOT using the word "recommend" is a very soft recommendation. This is in contrast with their very rigid and strong recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months.

Personally I think they would be better off in their guidances to be a bit more nuanced. Exclusive breastfeeding is one of those places and I also think bedsharing is another (too absolute on bedsharing could actually lead to public health harm, if parents avoid a bed and then fall asleep on the sofa and also inhibits open conversations with doctors about individual risk.) I feel like the focus on exclusive breastfeeding means that women sometimes feel like breastfeeding is all or nothing and since partial breastfeeding is better than nothing may end up discouraging partial breastfeeding (which can be both safer and more realistic and also can lead to people breastfeeding longer and maybe even exclusively as issues get worked out.)

Totally. It's like do whatever you want but if you don't do what we say your child will be obese, get cancer and be less smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

Just to be clear, you believe the AAP is recommending that women breastfeed for two years (that is what they think is "best")? Because on that point, we agree, but many people on this thread are insisting that is not true.

Saying there are benefits to breastfeeding beyond a year while qualifying if mutually desired and NOT using the word "recommend" is a very soft recommendation. This is in contrast with their very rigid and strong recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months.

Personally I think they would be better off in their guidances to be a bit more nuanced. Exclusive breastfeeding is one of those places and I also think bedsharing is another (too absolute on bedsharing could actually lead to public health harm, if parents avoid a bed and then fall asleep on the sofa and also inhibits open conversations with doctors about individual risk.) I feel like the focus on exclusive breastfeeding means that women sometimes feel like breastfeeding is all or nothing and since partial breastfeeding is better than nothing may end up discouraging partial breastfeeding (which can be both safer and more realistic and also can lead to people breastfeeding longer and maybe even exclusively as issues get worked out.)

Totally. It's like do whatever you want but if you don't do what we say your child will be obese, get cancer and be less smart.

It's weird because what the AAP actually WANTS to say is that BF after 1 should not be stigmatized. Why not just say that? I think it's because they are so deeply deeply entrenched in infant feeding as a moral choice instead of a matter of autonomy and family choice, that they can't just say that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

Just to be clear, you believe the AAP is recommending that women breastfeed for two years (that is what they think is "best")? Because on that point, we agree, but many people on this thread are insisting that is not true.

Saying there are benefits to breastfeeding beyond a year while qualifying if mutually desired and NOT using the word "recommend" is a very soft recommendation. This is in contrast with their very rigid and strong recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months.

Personally I think they would be better off in their guidances to be a bit more nuanced. Exclusive breastfeeding is one of those places and I also think bedsharing is another (too absolute on bedsharing could actually lead to public health harm, if parents avoid a bed and then fall asleep on the sofa and also inhibits open conversations with doctors about individual risk.) I feel like the focus on exclusive breastfeeding means that women sometimes feel like breastfeeding is all or nothing and since partial breastfeeding is better than nothing may end up discouraging partial breastfeeding (which can be both safer and more realistic and also can lead to people breastfeeding longer and maybe even exclusively as issues get worked out.)

Totally. It's like do whatever you want but if you don't do what we say your child will be obese, get cancer and be less smart.

It's weird because what the AAP actually WANTS to say is that BF after 1 should not be stigmatized. Why not just say that? I think it's because they are so deeply deeply entrenched in infant feeding as a moral choice instead of a matter of autonomy and family choice, that they can't just say that.

I actually don't think that's what they want to say. If it was, they would have said that, and they didn't state that clearly anywhere except on the press release which nobody will be looking at 5 years from now. Their policy statement (for doctors) and their website (for the public) clearly implies they want women to breastfeed for 2 years. They want women to breastfeed and they want to be consistent with the WHO. The whole "support" and "stigma" thing is intended to sanitize the fact they are trying to harangue women into breastfeeding. If they really wanted to combat stigma they'd launch a PR campaign.

[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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

+1

BF for two years is not and never has been the “gold standard”!!! that’s the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

+1

BF for two years is not and never has been the “gold standard”!!! that’s the point.

It has for the WHO for decades and also Health Canada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

+1

BF for two years is not and never has been the “gold standard”!!! that’s the point.

It has for the WHO for decades and also Health Canada.

Come on, when was the last time you saw a WHO office in the US? Their recommendations aren’t really relevant to the US. Unfortunately the majority of babies in the world are born into less fortunate circumstances than they would be in the US, so if you’re making a recommendation for the average baby anywhere in the world, yes. But US/Canada/UK/etc.? Give us some choice because we’re fortunate enough to have those choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Even before the AAP statement my goal was to breastfeed for two years or as long as my baby wanted to (recognizing she may want to stop before 2 years) since there are clear benefits to breastfeeding to two years (I always said I was following the WHO recommendations.) That is why they, the WHO, and other health organizations (Canadian, etc) specify two years and beyond. I don't think studies have been done to define the upper limit but studies have found benefits to feeding > 12 months. For the health benefits to the mother, longer is better and there is a bit more evidence about that but that sometimes involves counting total time breastfeeding across multiple children.

Good for you that you have not been discouraged from breastfeeding for >12 months. To be honest I have been discouraged from breast feeding starting already at 3-4 months but it has definitely intensified after 12 months. I was formula fed, my dad was formula fed and many people I know thinks that formula feeding is a more rational choice than breastfeeding. That is why the AAP advocacy for breastfeeding is important.

Health organizations will propose guidelines what is "best" for the generic person. There is evidence that exclusive breastfeeding is the best. It doesn't mean it is best for everyone. Of course if someone has inadequate supply it is not best. If someone needs to be on medications incompatible with breastfeeding it is not best. If someone can't breastfeed and remained employed, it is not best. If there are mental health issues with breastfeeding it is not best. These are all very obvious and best discussed with one's physician.

I accept there are things I can't do for my child that would be "best" because I don't have the resources (financial and otherwise). Sometimes it stings a bit but I don't actively try to tear down these "gold standards." I accept they are best for the generic child (and may even be better for my child if I could do them) but still go ahead and make the best decision for my child based on my individual situation.

My Qigong master has a saying good, better, best. 100% formula is good, partial breastfeeding is better, exclusive breastfeeding is best. But the key is is that formula is still good and is good enough. (Good thing too because my child required supplementation!!!)

Guidelines are not for the lowest common denominator - they define what is ideal. And for the AAP their goal is to define what is ideal for the child. Go complain to ACOG if you want better guidelines for the mother. Perhaps the two organization should meet given that breastfeeding only exists in a dyad so having an organization dedicated to children's health solely in charge of breastfeeding recommendations shortchanges the mother part of the dyad.

Just to be clear, you believe the AAP is recommending that women breastfeed for two years (that is what they think is "best")? Because on that point, we agree, but many people on this thread are insisting that is not true.

Breast is best in the beginning, but where is the evidence that breast milk is best for 2 years?

[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!”

+1 it's a medical org! So it should be based on actual studies and evidence. It's not an internet mommy blog!

[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!”

+1 it's a medical org! So it should be based on actual studies and evidence. It's not an internet mommy blog!

Yes and they cite the evidence. There is plenty of evidence.

[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.

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.

That’s quite a stretch from your assertion that “the opposite is true” about breastfeeding being more beneficial to Black infants.