Reply to I hate the AAP

Forum Index » Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers

Reply to "I hate the AAP"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Also which other recommendation requires 8-12 hours of labor per day by one parent (with the expectation that we consider this method of feeding to be "free")? Makes it extremely difficult for that parent to separate from their baby for more than a few hours unless you are one of those unicorns that doesn't find pumping to be a hellish experience? [/quote]

We get that your triggered by the mirror mention of breast-feeding, but it does not take 8 to 12 hours a day.[/quote]

It absolutely did for me for a painfully long time. Newborns eat frequently and many are very slow nursers. I was instructed to make sure she fed for 20 minutes per side, that's 40 minutes right there, it would also take a while to wake her up because she was very sleepy (or I'd have to keep her from nodding off while nursing), so in the end it was about an hour per feeding and I had to feed her every 2-3 hours on demand. The couple of times DH gave her a bottle of pumped milk in the early days she drank it up in 15 minutes. Breastfeeding is real labor. And it takes a lot of extra calories so even if my labor is free in your mind, the extra food I had to eat was not.[/quote]

In the initial month or two, yes it is time taking. After that it is not (for most people).[/quote]

I recall it being pretty intense for at least 4 or 5 months. Again, which other recommendation is this burdensome for women? It's not just that it impacts women and not men, it is that there is another option that, for some families, would be significantly easier (I know for some people breastfeeding is a breeze, great, then this recommendation is fine for you), but [b]the AAP basically says in its technical document that you are harming your child by using formula[/b], which is over the top and in many cases a misinterpretation of the research.
[/quote]

It does not say this. Anywhere. Identifying benefits of doing something is not an accusation of harm if you don’t do it. [/quote]

Oh my gosh, it talks about how many babies die because their mothers don't breastfeed. Based on observational research that doesn't effectively account for confounders. GTFOOH.[/quote]

If you read the document, you know it also discusses situations in which [i]breastfeeding[/i] can actually be harmful to children. Not a word about formula. Get over yourself, this isn’t about you.[/quote]

Wow, now you are just lying. The document mentions formula several times and implies it is somehow bad that mothers give their babies any formula in the first days of life, when the latest research [b]actually shows that supplementing helps the breastfeeding relationshi[/b]p. [/quote]

please feel free to quote the article[/quote]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666109/

There are other studies that show no impact, meaning, it's actually not bad to supplement with formula even if you accept the shaky premise that breastfeeding is really that important.[/quote]

Its 10ml of formula and limited to those that lost >5% and was d/c AFTER MATURE MILK PRODUCTION so tops 2-3 days TOTAL since they started at 24-48 hours and its limited to those with early weight loss.  Thats not the type of supplementation people are referencing. There's a big difference between exclusively breastfeeding and adding 10ml of formula after each BREASTFEED to using 1+ bottles of formula (anywhere from 2-4oz) for breastfeeding week 1-month 6. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics