I hate the AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

NP then you should get out more because you obviously have a very self selecting group of acquaintances.

I mean…women at a government agency who had babies at the same approximate time and so were on the same listserve? The people who had everything going well tended to keep it up to about 18M at least at naps/bedtime. The people who had difficulties dropped at a year or sooner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

NP then you should get out more because you obviously have a very self selecting group of acquaintances.

I mean…women at a government agency who had babies at the same approximate time and so were on the same listserve? The people who had everything going well tended to keep it up to about 18M at least at naps/bedtime. The people who had difficulties dropped at a year or sooner.

NP here. I don’t disagree with your point but your proof of acquaintances could not be more limited, PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

NP then you should get out more because you obviously have a very self selecting group of acquaintances.

I mean…women at a government agency who had babies at the same approximate time and so were on the same listserve? The people who had everything going well tended to keep it up to about 18M at least at naps/bedtime. The people who had difficulties dropped at a year or sooner.

NP here. I don’t disagree with your point but your proof of acquaintances could not be more limited, PP!

Sure, but it’s not self selecting as accused— it’s not like I met these people at my LLL Masonic Rite for Extended Breastfeeders where we all ate lactation cookies and nursed our nine year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really, really weird that AAP continues to say solids not until 6 months, when 4 months is now perfectly well supported by the evidence. Almost as if … their true agenda is to push breastfeeding for 6 months, not actual research-based communication to help women weigh the costs and benefits for themselves.

if you actually read the paper they include the fact that it's complementary foods so foods that reduce allergy risk like peanuts and eggs should be introduced at 4 months if you have a history of allergy or eczema in the family and they actually talk about this so maybe you should read the actual paper.

maybe they should just stop trying to control women based on flimsy research that utterly disregards women’s autonomy. women are not breastfeeding engines.

Breast is best but if you can't or won't formula is available. That isn't a lie. Choices are made every day. It is best for baby. Infant mortality is lower in breastfed babies. That doesn't mean that it's the only item that goes into the calculus of what's best for a mother. If what's best for the mothers at odds of what's best of the baby having a mother who's healthy is ideal since the baby is dependent on a mother.
When you don't have those problems there is no reason to not be able to say I chose formula that was the best choice for me and the best choice therefore for our family and also be able to recognize that breast milk is best for infants. It has lots of things that formula does not have.

+1. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Not sure why everyone is being so defensive.

Feeding your kids a diet of all organic meats and vegetables freshly cooked each day with no processed foods is best. I am not able to fully adhere to that. Sometimes I’m tired or busy so we get Chick Fil A or pizza. It’s okay, there are trade-offs in life.

[Anonymous]

You know it's really interesting to me how the pendulum has swung so far away from breastfeeding that people are like triggered if you even discuss the benefits of extended breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know it's really interesting to me how the pendulum has swung so far away from breastfeeding that people are like triggered if you even discuss the benefits of extended breastfeeding.

+1. I struggled to get to 10 months. Do I wish I could have gone longer? Absolutely. But the AAP rec doesn’t make me feel bad. I tried my best.

[Anonymous]

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

I was told by my reproductive endocrinologist the benefits end at 6 months and I was post C section too (every reason to wait). People have extremely strong irrational opinions about BFing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the AAP is trying to achieve with this. Most women do not want to breastfeed past 12 months. Many of us worked really hard to get to the 12 month point because that is what was recommended, not because we love breastfeeding so much. Those that do nurse past 12 months are going to continue to face people who don't want them to do so, just as I got the side eye from my MIL for nursing my infant. If you do something most people don't want to do, you're going to get some people being d$cks about it. Welcome to parenthood.

This statement really strikes me as a doubling down on "breast is best" and I think it's ridiculous. The tell is the idea that we should give more parental leave so women can breastfeed. That's absurd, there are so many more important reasons we we need paid parental leave for everyone, and it should not matter whether they are breastfeeding or not. The statement about how most babies should be EBF through 6 months is just...really? Like, a lot of babies do need formula, and solids are recommended at 4 months. This is lactivism, it is not medical advice.

Where? Footnote six.

Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J; Section on Adolescent Health; Council on Community Pediatrics; Committee on Adolescence. Policy statement: The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics. 2019;144
Where are the stats on the bolded? Everyone I know who made it to one without issues kept going (though not as far as two).

See the link in the Twitter post above with stats from Sweden where support parents is not an issue

That’s still not a statistic about U.S. women not wanting to nurse past one. Heck it’s not even a stat about Swedish women not wanting to nurse past one, only evidence that they don’t. WHO and others have been recommending this for years and it hasn’t harmed anyone who wants to use formula…

The point the Twitter poster was making is that at best 30% of women nurse past 12 months if all the government supports are there. Lack of support is not the reason that the majority of women do not nurse past 12 months.

I see your point, but even if only 30% of American mothers wanted to breastfeed to a full year, I would still consider it wise of the AAP to support more assistance for the thousands of women and babies that represents. Again, I don’t see how that takes away from anyone.

Why? Honest question. The evidence of benefits is weak. Should we also "support" families that choose not to sleep train? We should support all families and this statement is all about supporting families solely for the purpose of breastfeeding. That's messed up.

Because what the AAP recommends as support is currently only available to comparably well-off, disproportionately white, women. Removing more of the barriers of breastfeeding at a policy level is a step toward evening the playing field. I can nurse to 3 or 4 and take all the pumping breaks I want and no one would say boo, but that’s not a right afforded to a woman working three jobs to make her rent.

Also, while the benefits are frequently overstated, they are not non-existent. Many of the benefits to many AAP recommendations (such as room sharing) are on the margins. That doesn’t mean they’re bad recommendations. Also, and I feel this one in particular, breastfeeding unlike so many other baby-related issues has documented health benefits to the mother. Yeah, I am ok with supporting a policy that reduces a woman’s chance of getting cancer over her lifetime, particularly given how many other recommendations come at the expense of mothers.

Where did the AAP say they centered communities of color by reaching out to them to understand their perspectives on breastfeeding? it's obvious that they didn't which means they are just using them to promote something they would have done anyway. This is not my area of expertise but from what I have read there are a lot of concerns about how the medical establishment treats mothers and babies of color, with fatal consequences. They need to focus on fixing that, which this statement does zilch to to address.

Would it be okay for a person to have to work 3 jobs if they were able to breastfeed? No. That's sick. Not being able to breastfeed is far from the worst health-related consequence of having to go back to work days after giving birth and working 3 jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really, really weird that AAP continues to say solids not until 6 months, when 4 months is now perfectly well supported by the evidence. Almost as if … their true agenda is to push breastfeeding for 6 months, not actual research-based communication to help women weigh the costs and benefits for themselves.

if you actually read the paper they include the fact that it's complementary foods so foods that reduce allergy risk like peanuts and eggs should be introduced at 4 months if you have a history of allergy or eczema in the family and they actually talk about this so maybe you should read the actual paper.

maybe they should just stop trying to control women based on flimsy research that utterly disregards women’s autonomy. women are not breastfeeding engines.

Breast is best but if you can't or won't formula is available. That isn't a lie. Choices are made every day. It is best for baby. Infant mortality is lower in breastfed babies. That doesn't mean that it's the only item that goes into the calculus of what's best for a mother. If what's best for the mothers at odds of what's best of the baby having a mother who's healthy is ideal since the baby is dependent on a mother.
When you don't have those problems there is no reason to not be able to say I chose formula that was the best choice for me and the best choice therefore for our family and also be able to recognize that breast milk is best for infants. It has lots of things that formula does not have.

+1. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Not sure why everyone is being so defensive.

Feeding your kids a diet of all organic meats and vegetables freshly cooked each day with no processed foods is best. I am not able to fully adhere to that. Sometimes I’m tired or busy so we get Chick Fil A or pizza. It’s okay, there are trade-offs in life.

I don't understand why people don't understand that it is a goal. Nobody is sending you to mommy hell for not crossing the finish line. My optometrist told me to get my kids outside for 2 hours a day and we rarely do. Am I going to go rage about the recommendation on the internet?