Why is breastfeeding frowned upon?

[ShawnD1]

There's only one thing I offer up as advice for new parents, because it's about sleep: the one thing that almost all new parents have only in very short supply. It's a well-written exploration of sleep for children, and while it offers it's opinions on the matter, it also gives many other points of view from parents their methods worked for, and parents they DIDN'T work for, and talks about alternatives to their own suggestions.

http://www.amazon.com/Healthy-Sleep-...1333296&sr=8-1

Neato. A book I got from a used book store is this. It has a lot of stuff in it about sleep studies, things that doctor has seen in patients, and personal experiences. One thing that has an entire chapter devoted to it is how sleep affects memory and learning. Children not getting enough sleep is one of the main causes of attention problems. Kids can be well fed and well behaved and still not learn a damn thing just because they're tired. Adults need 8 hours of sleep. Kids need a lot closer to 10 hours.

 

[classy]

Never even heard of that being frowned upon. Maybe public display being an issue, but not in general.

Agreed. If anything there is far more support for it, then against it.

 

[rivan]

Neato. A book I got from a used book store is this. It has a lot of stuff in it about sleep studies, things that doctor has seen in patients, and personal experiences. One thing that has an entire chapter devoted to it is how sleep affects memory and learning. Children not getting enough sleep is one of the main causes of attention problems. Kids can be well fed and well behaved and still not learn a damn thing just because they're tired. Adults need 8 hours of sleep. Kids need a lot closer to 10 hours.

It goes way up from 10, even, based on age.

My 3-year-old (almost 4) still sleeps HARD for 11-12 hours, and still has a good 2-3 hour nap most days. My 7-yo is still around 10-11/night and will (without being asked) still wander upstairs and nap on the weekends.

They're also both very tall kids - the 7-yo's just shy of 4'9"; taller than almost all her classmates by a full head.

Maybe someday I'll apply all those lessons on sleep to my own habits

 

[JimW1949]

Yep, we need to also stop people from taking a sh*t at work and it is about time we stop those smokers.

You have no argument here.

Breast pumping does not take 8 hours a week. My wife spent 30 minutes a DAY away from her desk at work. And considering your guaranteed two 15 minute breaks in an 8 hours shift. You have no argument.

Some places of business have banned smoking anywhere in the building and on the premises. In some cases, bathroom trips are supposed to be done during breaks and/or lunch time. If it is an emergency, OK fine, but depending on where you work there may need to be someone to take over while you are in the bathroom.

As far as how long it takes a woman to pump her breasts, it depends on the woman, how much milk she produces, and how quickly she produces it. In this case, the woman pumped them 4 times per day, sometimes 5 times, and she would be gone from her desk 20-25 minutes each time. You do the math.

 

[Jeff7]

Neato. A book I got from a used book store is this. It has a lot of stuff in it about sleep studies, things that doctor has seen in patients, and personal experiences. One thing that has an entire chapter devoted to it is how sleep affects memory and learning. Children not getting enough sleep is one of the main causes of attention problems. Kids can be well fed and well behaved and still not learn a damn thing just because they're tired. Adults need 8 hours of sleep. Kids need a lot closer to 10 hours.

Allegedly it's supposed to decrease as you age.

I'm 28 and can still easily sleep for 12 hours straight. My sweet spot still seems to be 9-10 hours.:\

Nik, you are ignorant of the realities of breastfeeding, and that's why you think just pumping a bottle of milk for a baby isn't a big deal. So, let me help out a bit, your view is not really that uncommon. Babies who breastfeed have to work harder to get milk. Bottles are easy to suck from. Pumping takes a lot of time for most women, and the milk starts losing nutrient content as soon as it's pumped. So, if you start just giving a bottle, the baby may start refusing the breast, because it's harder to get milk from. Pumping does not stimulate milk production in the same way that a nursing baby does, and supply drops and is much harder to maintain. Pumping is REALLY uncomfortable for many. Also, nursing is a supply/demand system. There is interaction between nipple and baby that signals what is needed in the milk (more/less fat, variants in nutrients, etc) that does not happen with pumping. Since bottle feeding is easier and faster for baby to fill up, they can get confused about learning when they feel satiated and become more likely to overeat in infancy and the rest of their lives. Additionally, sometimes babies just need to comfort nurse. Going out in public can be very overwhelming for an infant, so they just want a quick snuggle and some comfort nursing and then are happy again (nobody wants to hear a screaming baby while shopping).

Also, a lot of breastfed babies will simply absolutely refuse a bottle. Mine wouldn't have anything to do with a bottle for a very long time.
...

Darn you people with your practical thinking and all.

Sounds like a lot of good points.

 

[waggy]

It goes way up from 10, even, based on age.

My 3-year-old (almost 4) still sleeps HARD for 11-12 hours, and still has a good 2-3 hour nap most days. My 7-yo is still around 10-11/night and will (without being asked) still wander upstairs and nap on the weekends.

They're also both very tall kids - the 7-yo's just shy of 4'9"; taller than almost all her classmates by a full head.

Maybe someday I'll apply all those lessons on sleep to my own habits

my kids are 4 and 8. they go to bed at 8:30 (my daughter reads and my son plays) but both are asleep by 8:45.

i get them up at 7am for school.

its not uncommon for my 4 yr old to get a short nap from 4-6 or so every now and then.

kids NEED the sleep to help grow, get energy, and to keep a clear head.

i know a few kids that stay up until 12 and get up at 6. 6 hours just does not seem enough.

 

[ShawnD1]

It goes way up from 10, even, based on age.

My 3-year-old (almost 4) still sleeps HARD for 11-12 hours, and still has a good 2-3 hour nap most days. My 7-yo is still around 10-11/night and will (without being asked) still wander upstairs and nap on the weekends.

This reminds me of something else it said. Sleep time goes up dramatically when the brain is growing quickly. It's normal for kids going through puberty to sleep 10, 11, 12 hours.
Another thing the book said was that you can't really "over sleep" as some people say. If you're tired after sleeping 12 hours, it's not the sleep that made you tired. You were really really tired and 12 hours was not enough. You still need more sleep.

i know a few kids that stay up until 12 and get up at 6. 6 hours just does not seem enough.

I'm 25 and this is how I live. I feel like shit every day.

 

[Codewiz]

Most people do not realize that a c-section is major surgery.

My daughter-in-law had a c-section, developed a staph infection, and had to wear a pump for around 4 weeks. The pump kept the puss sucked out of the incision site. It was a pretty bad situation, she was in and out of the hospital for maybe 6 weeks after delivery.

There is also a chance that a woman will not be able to get pregnant after their c-section, due to scar tissue in the uterus.

Once again, it is called risk management. If you have a baby going through distress during labor, and you ignore it to give birth naturally you could end up with all sorts of damage.

What has bigger odds of long term damage? Oxygen deprivation or staph?

The other issue is that you are talking about ifs, ands instead of what is ACTUALLY happening. During labor, if the baby is struggling, you KNOW what is going on. We have the benefit of great sensors and information that lets us know what is happening. When a baby is distressed, you can either ignore it and hope for the best or worry about the low risk dangers that could happen.

Look, my wife went through a series of rare things happening. But at each stage, we picked the lowest risk options.

C-section in many many scenarios is the LOWER risk option for the baby and mother. You seem to be falling on the side of the nutjobs that want things like home water births because it is more natural for the baby.

Should there be as many c-sections as occur today? I argue that many are to lower the risk to the baby. Simple as that.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

My wife was originally against it, but years before i had convinced her it was the right thing to do, there are simply too many health benefits to not do it just because you might think its odd, or yucky

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Once again, it is called risk management. If you have a baby going through distress during labor, and you ignore it to give birth naturally you could end up with all sorts of damage.

What has bigger odds of long term damage? Oxygen deprivation or staph?

The other issue is that you are talking about ifs, ands instead of what is ACTUALLY happening. During labor, if the baby is struggling, you KNOW what is going on. We have the benefit of great sensors and information that lets us know what is happening. When a baby is distressed, you can either ignore it and hope for the best or worry about the low risk dangers that could happen.

Look, my wife went through a series of rare things happening. But at each stage, we picked the lowest risk options.

C-section in many many scenarios is the LOWER risk option for the baby and mother. You seem to be falling on the side of the nutjobs that want things like home water births because it is more natural for the baby.

Should there be as many c-sections as occur today? I argue that many are to lower the risk to the baby. Simple as that.

MY wife ended up with a c-section with both our children due to unforseen issues, but you are wrong about them not being risky, they are absolutely more dangerous. I work in a hospital and you wont find a single doc that would pick it as a first choice.

 

[Codewiz]

MY wife ended up with a c-section with both our children due to unforseen issues, but you are wrong about them not being risky, they are absolutely more dangerous. I work in a hospital and you wont find a single doc that would pick it as a first choice.

Where did I say first choice? Where did I suggest c-sections as the default? Where did I say there was no risk?

My point is that typically c-sections are done when there are problems. The moment there are problems, they are now less risky compared to a baby's heart rate dropping and creating oxygen deprivation.

Any time there is cutting there is risk. However, it is about risk management which is RARELY if ever black and white. Anyone who sees the world as black or white is a fool.

I will never say I agree with schedule c-sections for convenience.

 

[Texashiker]

Once again, it is called risk management.

In my daughter-in-laws case, the babies head just would not fit through the birth canal. This was her third, the first 2 went through ok, but for some reason the third one just would not go. The doctor made a call the do an emergency c-section.

But instead of everything being ok, the staph infection almost killed her a week later.

Should there be as many c-sections as occur today? I argue that many are to lower the risk to the baby. Simple as that.

I think a lot of todays c-sections are convince. Give the mom an epidural so that there is no pain, baby not coming along like what it should, lets prep for a c-section.

Some of it might be liability reasons with the doctor.

Some of it might be the parents wanting the baby to have a certain birthday, like 10-10-10.

Some of it might be that women today weigh more then they did 20 years ago.

One thing is for sure, the c-section rate in America is too high.

 

[Codewiz]

In my daughter-in-laws case, the babies head just would not fit through the birth canal. This was her third, the first 2 went through ok, but for some reason the third one just would not go. The doctor made a call the do an emergency c-section.

But instead of everything being ok, the staph infection almost killed her a week later.





I think a lot of todays c-sections are convince. Give the mom an epidural so that there is no pain, baby not coming along like what it should, lets prep for a c-section.

Some of it might be liability reasons with the doctor.

Some of it might be the parents wanting the baby to have a certain birthday, like 10-10-10.

Some of it might be that women today weigh more then they did 20 years ago.

One thing is for sure, the c-section rate in America is too high.

So what would you have the doctor do in your daughter in laws case? Shit happens.

As for the rest of your post, before you can make ANY type of state that you are making, you need to bring the facts with you.

I don't see anything there to support your vague and general statements. Here is a great article on this issue of picking the "right" amount of c-sections

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2507

 

[Redfraggle]

Once again, it is called risk management. If you have a baby going through distress during labor, and you ignore it to give birth naturally you could end up with all sorts of damage.

What has bigger odds of long term damage? Oxygen deprivation or staph?

The other issue is that you are talking about ifs, ands instead of what is ACTUALLY happening. During labor, if the baby is struggling, you KNOW what is going on. We have the benefit of great sensors and information that lets us know what is happening. When a baby is distressed, you can either ignore it and hope for the best or worry about the low risk dangers that could happen.

Look, my wife went through a series of rare things happening. But at each stage, we picked the lowest risk options.

C-section in many many scenarios is the LOWER risk option for the baby and mother. You seem to be falling on the side of the nutjobs that want things like home water births because it is more natural for the baby.

Should there be as many c-sections as occur today? I argue that many are to lower the risk to the baby. Simple as that.

You are possibly the most ignorant poster in this thread.

It is not "nutjobs" that want home waterbirths. That you think this shows how completely ignorant of the actual process of labor and delivery, and what happens to a woman's body during that time.

The US has medicalized birth to an extremely unhealthy degree. OBs are not trained in natural births, they are trained **surgeons**. They push for making birth a medical event as opposed to a natural event because that is what they are trained to do.

Really, do some research.

 

[Codewiz]

You are possibly the most ignorant poster in this thread.

It is not "nutjobs" that want home waterbirths. That you think this shows how completely ignorant of the actual process of labor and delivery, and what happens to a woman's body during that time.

The US has medicalized birth to an extremely unhealthy degree. OBs are not trained in natural births, they are trained **surgeons**. They push for making birth a medical event as opposed to a natural event because that is what they are trained to do.

Really, do some research.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6274

How about you back up your outrageous claims of how the US medical community has made it so unhealthy. I would say that infant and mother mortality is a good start. We aren't the best but we are doing pretty good.

And how about instead of useless attacks on me, how about you point out what I have said that is wrong. How about you bring some facts to an argument instead of BS.

 

[Redfraggle]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6274

How about you back up your outrageous claims of how the US medical community has made it so unhealthy. I would say that infant and mother mortality is a good start. We aren't the best but we are doing pretty good.

And how about instead of useless attacks on me, how about you point out what I have said that is wrong. How about you bring some facts to an argument instead of BS.

Because I have already educated myself. Also, I did not say that the US medical community made it "unhealthy." I said it has medicalized birth.

Certified Professional Midwives train specifically in women's health and in natural delivery. Obstetricians do not. They approach birth from completely different angles and have hugely different results.

I find it a bit silly for you to complain about attacks when you are flinging around the label "nutjob" for people who want birth in a natural, normal, comfortable, calm manner.

The next time you are having severe intestinal issues, you let me know if you think you'd really like upwards of 10 people to put their hands on and INSIDE you while you go through this, and have constant interruptions for something your body can take care of on its own (in most cases....again, surgical intervention where needed I don't mind, particularly as it saved me and my son). Since the hormonal process doesn't accompany the anal expulsion of your last trip to Mickey Ds, you still won't get how a woman feels during labor. However, you might want to think twice about calling anyone a nutjob for not wanting the hands of several strangers up her genitals while having the most intense physical experience of her life.

Also, you demand facts from me, but have provided none of your own. But you wonder why I won't just blitz you with some.

 

[Codewiz]

Because I have already educated myself. Also, I did not say that the US medical community made it "unhealthy." I said it has medicalized birth.

Certified Professional Midwives train specifically in women's health and in natural delivery. Obstetricians do not. They approach birth from completely different angles and have hugely different results.

I find it a bit silly for you to complain about attacks when you are flinging around the label "nutjob" for people who want birth in a natural, normal, comfortable, calm manner.

The next time you are having severe intestinal issues, you let me know if you think you'd really like upwards of 10 people to put their hands on and INSIDE you while you go through this, and have constant interruptions for something your body can take care of on its own (in most cases....again, surgical intervention where needed I don't mind, particularly as it saved me and my son). Since the hormonal process doesn't accompany the anal expulsion of your last trip to Mickey Ds, you still won't get how a woman feels during labor. However, you might want to think twice about calling anyone a nutjob for not wanting the hands of several strangers up her genitals while having the most intense physical experience of her life.

Also, you demand facts from me, but have provided none of your own. But you wonder why I won't just blitz you with some.

Let me spell this out for you.

What is the goal of child birth? I hope you can agree that the end goal is a healthy child and healthy mother.

-Home births have a rough chance between 9% - 35% of ending up at the hospital.
-Very little monitoring for home births(see the above stat)
-Home births are twice as likely to result in neonatal death.

That last number is a pretty clear indication it violates the goal of birth.

I love how you turn it into an emotion plea with this 10 people putting their hands on you. There were THREE people that touched my wife during her labor. Our midwife(also a RN), the anesthesiologist, and her actual OBGYN who performed the c-section.

Oh did you know that many OBGYNs use midwives. OMG, amazing.

So yeah, your post represents to me that you are a zealot with very little actual factual information backing up their claim. You prefer emotional BS in place of real facts.

 

[Texashiker]

So what would you have the doctor do in your daughter in laws case? Shit happens.

I would have her done just as she did. The baby was not going to come out on its on.

As for the rest of your post, before you can make ANY type of state that you are making, you need to bring the facts with you.

I don't see anything there to support your vague and general statements. Here is a great article on this issue of picking the "right" amount of c-sections

Facts? How about reading news articles for the past 20+ years on child birth? Do you want me to go back and find every article that cities what I referred to?

Just ask a doctor what their liability insurance cost.

 

[Codewiz]

I would have her done just as she did. The baby was not going to come out on its on.




Facts? How about reading news articles for the past 20+ years on child birth? Do you want me to go back and find every article that cities what I referred to?

Just ask a doctor what their liability insurance cost.

Did you read the article I posted? What is the "right" percentage of c-sections? It is easy to say you think we are performing too many but it is hard to then tell us what is the right number. And I would like to see something to back up your number.

 

[Fayd]

While it's probably true today that women exert pressure on other women to live up to a certain and mostly unrealistic ideal, to assert that women were the first cause of that ideal is incorrect. Women want to be thin because men want them thin. Strippers get implants because strippers with implants make more money. If natural boobs, which are all anyone on the internet claim to want, were actually preferred then strippers would not all have fakies.

Men can say whatever they want, but the true measure and expression of the majority of male desire as evidenced by what men spend money on indicates preference for that unrealistic barbie type. Women recognize that and then respond accordingly. There used to be a cycle of full figure to waify and back again every 30-40 years or so. With the advent of plastic surgery and other technology, that cycle has been broken. Big boobs have been in since the 80s and show no signs of going anywhere.

As to breastfeeding, it's natural and preferred in my book.

funny... i like little boobs. A-B cups preferred.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

It amazes me that people in general have such bad attitudes towards breastfeeding.

In the 1940s when women had to go to work in the factories, and through the 1960s bottle feeding gained a lot of popularity. But it seems to me that breastfeeding should be common sense, why hate on a mother that is trying to give her child the best start she can? We should be able to undue 20 - 30 years of social programming with some simple education. So what is the problem?

Parenting.com - Study Shows Breastfeeding Moms Viewed as Less Competent

When I was married to my first wife, and we had our first child, I wanted my wife to breastfeed. She was a stay at home mom, so there should not have been an issue. But my mother-in-law had the opinion that breastfeeding was "nasty" and talked my wife out of even trying.

Were you breastfed as a child - yes, no.
What are your opinions on breastfeeding.

Puritanism.

 

[Texashiker]

Did you read the article I posted? What is the "right" percentage of c-sections?

Yes, I read through the article. I did not see information that justified the current high c-section rates.

When compared to other developed nations, the USA has the highest c-section rates,

c-section rates reach 32%

The ideal rate is around 15%. So why is the USA running at more then double the suggested rate?

One reason might be that so many obgyns are being sued


Infant mortality rate has been stable for the past 10 years, despite c-sections increasing.

So you can try to say that c-sections improve infant mortality rates, but its simple not proven in the numbers.

In the past 10 - 15 years, c-sections have sky rocketed, while infant mortality rates have stayed about the same.

~~~ EDIT ~~~

If you look at the link I posted "Infant mortality rate has been stable for the past 10 years", infant mortality had been dropping for 30 years. But as c-sections started to increase, infant mortality leveled off.

 

[OutHouse]

Breastfeeding is the superior method to feed newborns: The child receives antibodies and proteins from the mother which are available from no other source.

Not necessarily something to be done in public. Though it's really only annoying if/when the mother doesn't bring a small blanket or towel to cover herself.

Or milk themselves and bottle it for public use?

 

[Codewiz]

Yes, I read through the article. I did not see information that justified the current high c-section rates.

When compared to other developed nations, the USA has the highest c-section rates,

c-section rates reach 32%

The ideal rate is around 15%. So why is the USA running at more then double the suggested rate?

One reason might be that so many obgyns are being sued


Infant mortality rate has been stable for the past 10 years, despite c-sections increasing.

So you can try to say that c-sections improve infant mortality rates, but its simple not proven in the numbers.

In the past 10 - 15 years, c-sections have sky rocketed, while infant mortality rates have stayed about the same

You obviously didn't read the article if you are saying that 15% is the ideal rate. The whole point of the article was that 15% is a number pulled out of someone's ass with ZERO evidence to support it.

Seriously go back and read it.

And to post a snip from it.

"The data themselves are quite clear. There are only 2 countries in the world that have C-section rates of less than 15% AND low rates of maternal and neonatal mortality. Those countries are Croatia (14%) and Kuwait (12%). Neither country is noted for the accuracy of its health statistics. In contrast, EVERY other country in the world with a C-section rate of less than 15% has higher than acceptable levels of maternal and neonatal mortality. There nothing ambiguous about that.

The authors claim:

Although below 15% higher CS rates are unambiguously
correlated with lower maternal mortality; above this range, higher CS rates are predominantly correlated with higher maternal mortality.

No, that’s not what it shows at all. It shows that only countries with high C-section rates have low levels of maternal and neonatal mortality. A high C-section rate does not guarantee low maternal and neonatal mortality because C-section rate is not the only factor. For example, Latin America (represented on the chart by open diamonds) has a high rate of C-sections performed for social reasons, but does not have a low level of maternal mortality.

The bottom line is this: The only countries with low rates of maternal and neonatal mortality have HIGH C-section rates (except Croatia and Kuwait). The average C-section rate for countries with low maternal and neonatal mortality is 22%, although rates as high as 36% are consistent with low rates of maternal and neonatal mortality."

 

[HumblePie]

Nik, you are ignorant of the realities of breastfeeding, and that's why you think just pumping a bottle of milk for a baby isn't a big deal. So, let me help out a bit, your view is not really that uncommon. Babies who breastfeed have to work harder to get milk. Bottles are easy to suck from. Pumping takes a lot of time for most women, and the milk starts losing nutrient content as soon as it's pumped. So, if you start just giving a bottle, the baby may start refusing the breast, because it's harder to get milk from. Pumping does not stimulate milk production in the same way that a nursing baby does, and supply drops and is much harder to maintain. Pumping is REALLY uncomfortable for many. Also, nursing is a supply/demand system. There is interaction between nipple and baby that signals what is needed in the milk (more/less fat, variants in nutrients, etc) that does not happen with pumping. Since bottle feeding is easier and faster for baby to fill up, they can get confused about learning when they feel satiated and become more likely to overeat in infancy and the rest of their lives. Additionally, sometimes babies just need to comfort nurse. Going out in public can be very overwhelming for an infant, so they just want a quick snuggle and some comfort nursing and then are happy again (nobody wants to hear a screaming baby while shopping).

All good points except the bolded part. Exactly how does your tit know to change the content type of the milk because baby lips are there? I haven't heard, read, or been informed of any such psychic interaction that happens like this. From what I know, content type of the milk depends solely upon what the mother is ingesting. Flow rate may change, but not content type that I'm aware of.