Breast Milk Provides NO Nourishment After Age 1? - DPO,AA

(No clue what thread you are referring to here.)

But MAYBE the gist was that it is not necessary nutritionally, because by age 1, most kids are getting adequate nutrition from a normal diet of table foods?
Before 1 year, the primary nutrition is formula or breast milk.

How could something that is perfectly digestible from birth suddenly be indigestible?
There's no switch that flips at 1 yr where breast milk suddenly provides no nutrition.
It might be that the child is eating other things but breast milk is still good as part of their diet.
EBF is fine for some and not so practical for others.
As long as the child is growing, developing and meeting milestones, who cares how they get fed?

My daughter was diagnosed with Celiac's at age 25. Her doctor asked her if she had been a breastfeed baby, she said yes she breast fed until almost 2 yrs old. He told her she basically has always had Celiac's but the fact that I breastfed her so long the symtoms didn't become extreme until now.

No one will ever convince me that breastfeeding loses it's nutrition at any point. Mother's in 3rd world countries breastfeed for as long as possible because it may be the only milk available to their children.

It's such a non-issue. As is proven by all the healthy humans whose babies are completely healthy without being breast-fed (like me, I'm adopted and never breastfed and have always been very healthy) it really doesn't matter. Sure. Breast milk is healthy. I nursed all three of my kids varying from 3 months to one year. Are any healthier than the others? No. They're all healthy. Do I bash extended breast feeders? No. Should you worry what anyone else thinks about it? No. In issues like co-sleeping, nursing, and the list goes on and on and on, there are MANY ways to raise healthy happy kids, as proven by the results thereof-as in opposite methods BOTH having same effects. No point arguing that fact really. Is Breast milk still nutritious after age one? Sure. Can a baby be perfectly healthy without it after age one. Yes. My three kids are.
Nutrition aside-the bonding thing from extended breast feeding? To me it's hoo ha. I don't know ANY extended breast feeders who are more bonded to their kids than non-nursers JUST because they nurse longer.

If I'm thinking of the same thread you are, the child was older and still BF on a schedule that at infant would be on. Breastmilk does still provide nutrition, but it should not be a child's only source of nutrition after a year. By that age, a nursing mother should be able to leave the house for the evening without the worry that their child will completely melt down and be traumatized because they won't take a bottle and mom's boobs aren't easily accessible.

I wish I could say I was surprised to see people still believing the very wrong assumptions that breast milk suddenly looses any nutritional value after a year. That they are using you for nothing but a pacifier, or worse yet, that the women is doing it for some sexual and selfish reason. That one makes me the angriest to hear people spout off! That you are "ruining" your child if you nurse them longer than that first birthday.
Why do you think it is so important that after that one year weaning they *must* have cows milk? Because they still need the fats and nutrients in milk. Why is cow milk better for a human baby than human milk??!! It isn't, plain and simple.
It wasn't until the Victorian era that these attitudes began to arise. A time when "parenting experts" (all males BTW) began stating that children could be spoiled. That you should not kiss or hug but rather shake their hand and send them to bed at night. That they should be in their own bed in their own room, never to leave until morning. To feed children on strict schedules, following the clock religiously. At the time of these "parenting experts" mothers found it went against every instinct they had. Many fought against it, but in the end "a doctor must know best" and they followed it. We started seeing failure to thrive, we started seeing more and more women believing that their body was broken and they could not make enough milk to feed their child and formula and other artificial infant feeding became more widespread and over used. You get to the 1950s where it was rare that a women breast fed at all, believing that formula was better for a human being than human milk.
World Health Organization recommends breast feeding until *at least* 2 years of age, longer if mutually desired by mother and child. American Academy of Pediatrics is changing it's recommendation of only 1 year, though it's doing it far too slowly in my opinion because they know there will be backlash from ill thinking Americans that have been given wrong, outdated, and very harmful information and refuse to let go of it.
This is one of my favorite pages with information about human breastfeeding and care http://www.kathydettwyler.org/dettwyler.html
Breast milk changes from day to day, hour to hour. You have glands in your breasts that respond to your child's saliva to produce exactly what your child needs at that very moment. It provides fats for the brain to develop, which happens rapidly in those first 5 years. It provides nutrients while the body continues to mature and learn to process them from other foods. It provides antibodies from the mother to the baby, preventing them from severe illness.
It is society, not human nature, that has made these "rules" and made breastfeeding a dirty, evil thing. If we weren't supposed to be feeding our offspring milk why do we make milk at all?

The WHO recommends babies that are malnourished and in impoverished areas of the world be breastfed until they're FIVE years old. Yeah. And not because it's not nutritious.

Of course it's still nutritious after a year old. A baby living in the United States that has access to nutritious foods and drinks doesn't HAVE to be exclusively breastfed, but it's recommended that a baby be breastfed in the U.S. for a minimum of a year and longer when possible. It doesn't have to be exclusive. As long as it's done. If it can't reach a year, then six months. If not six months, then as long as possible. Any breastfeeding is considered better than none.

I answered the question by the worried Dad...and I gave my advice after actually reading (gasp!) his post...where he clearly states that the child eats foods and drinks water and that he was NOT worried about her getting the proper nourishment by not being able to BF while his wife was away...and I agreed with him! At any age (but usually @ 1y/o) when the child starts eating solids, that child isn't getting the nourishment he *needs* by BF, they are getting it from the solid food they are eating.... and by practicing EBF, you are fostering *more* of your bond with that child and the child is using the mom *more* as a comfort, instead of as sole nourishment.

What baffles me is that so many EBF'ers feel the need to assume that those of us who choose not to EBF our children must be against it and jealous and angry b/c we couldn't do it...which couldn't be farther from the truth..we are not 'haters' we just have our own opinions...and when you post a question on this public site asking for advice, guess what? (Again, gasp!) You are going to get ALL sorts of opinions!

EBF is not anything to argue about. Like I said in my post we ALL have the right to parent as we see fit. Trying to educate others about the pros and cons of it all, while noble, comes across as 'my way or the highway' more often than not.

~I stand firm in my answer I gave to the 'worried dad'...they were treating that 2y/o child like an infant and IMHO, it is not condusive to raising a healthy and well adjusted child....and no amount of preaching by the EBF camp will change my mind. Sorry.

To add insult to injury (I am sure) just like there are those of you who LOVE EBF, there are some, like myself, that feel it is just GROSS to see a child of 3+ sucking on a boob. All 3 of my children were eating only solid 'real' food, drinking from a real cup, completely potty trained (night and day, pee & poop. Since there is also some debate about what 'potty trained' means on this site) and sleeping in their own beds at 2y/o...trying to imagine any one of them still coming up to me at 2+ and needing the boob is just SO FAR out of my comfort zone...I can not even imagine!

Not to be disrespectful of your post, it just has me thinking... I AM SO SICK OF THE WHOLE BREASTFEEDING DEBATE!!! I think Breastfeeding is healthy and promotes a close bond. I also think that formula feeding your baby is healthy and cradling your baby in your arms while gazing down at them while you feed them a bottle is promoting a close bond. If a women wants to breastfeed or bottle feed her baby past a year old then who's business is that? (However, I would draw the line at a school aged child on the breast or bottle) There are soooo many other things to worry about in this world. Again, I know this is not really what your post was about and I'm sorry for the hijack I just had to say it.

To be crystal clear, NO ONE suggested that breast Milk has no nutritional value after age 1. What was discussed was the idea that after a year, babies are not RELYING on breast milk for all their nutritional needs. Which is true in our culture, as we are not in Africa, and most of us have incorporated at least grain cereals and vegetable and fruit purees, not to mention some that have already gotten in to table foods. That's all, no other misinformation about the content of breast milk was shared. A lot of heat over nothing.

I think that people who only have the experience of breastfeeding a very young infant do not understand the changing relationship with an older baby/toddler. If you have a picture in your head of that early nursing, where baby is attached to your body what feels like 24-7 and mom can barely get a shower, it would be very difficult to understand how that would work with a two year old. I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine about "closet" extended breastfeeding- a lot more women breastfeed a lot longer than you might think, they just don't talk about it. Most toddlers who nurse are NOT pulling mom's shirt up at the grocery store, they only nurse at certain times and/or only at home. Most also understand the words "later" or "not now."

I personally chose to continue nursing because of the strong evidence that kids like mine with an "enhanced risk" of Type I diabetes have around an 80% reduced chance of actually developing Type I if they are nursed past one year. Knowing that, if I stopped before 1 and my kids developed Type I I PERSONALLY would feel like it was my fault. Rational brain would know different, but I would not be able to handle the self-imposed guilt. So I was/am absolutely committed to EBF. When people start saying that there is no benefit or even worse that I am doing something wrong or even damaging, it makes me very frustrated and even angry. But I try to remember that they likely have an inaccurate perception of how EBF works for families that choose it.

ETA: From the original post:
"She is getting NO nourishment (which is its primary function) at this point."
That is a factually incorrect statement.

Shrug,,,you should just do whatever you think is best for your child and your particular situation.

That being said, I would definitely raise an eyebrow to someone who was EBFing a 4-year old in public....

What Sara said.

Extended bf'ing has been scientifically shown to be beneficial. I like science.

That being said, there is something about parenting techniques after a certain age, which seem to emphasize the child never having to endure ANY discomfort, that can be a little off-putting. As is the label "attachment parenting," which implicitly and wrongly implies that other types of parenting result in a lack of attachment. There's just something about the term "attachment parenting" that makes me bristle a little, and envision spoiled little brats, even though that reaction is probably unfounded.

There is also something about a 2 year old who is so overindulged that she can't hear "no" or "not now" (it seems), that also invokes a bit of a negative reaction in me and some others, perhaps unfairly. After a certain age, it really isn't good for any member of a family for a child to be the center of the universe.

I'm more horrified that people think the mother is being unreasonable, or the father is a pushover, for letting the child bf this long. Breastfeeding is a RELATIONSHIP, it does more for the child than provide nutrition, it also provides a positive bonding experience. No one is saying that kids who don't bf into the toddler years are worse off, but that was their choice not to continue nursing, it doesn't negate the positive things about nursing past 2 or 3 years old. Nor does it mean the mother is harming the child by not weaning earlier than that.

But this argument has been going on for a very long time in this country, and I don't see it coming to an end anytime soon. I wish people would realize that those of us who do EBF are doing it because it's good for our kids, not because we can't say "no" or some other such nonsense. And I wish they would stop giving advice to those who are EBF, because they don't know anything about it, so they should keep their mouths shut and let those of us who DO understand give the advice.

I don't really think of 15 months as extended BF. 24 months? Yes, 15, no.

With that said, I encourage my kids to drink out of cups and begin offering them big girl or boy drinks at 12 months (milk from a cup). I also refuse to nurse at night past 12 months. I offer water. After getting no sleep for close to two years (pregnancy and 12 months), I deserve some sleep. I also don't like nursing toddlers with teeth. I find it uncomfortable, and figure that since they have teeth, they can eat like I do. My kids weaned around 12-13 months.

I could careless what you do with your kid. If you want to treat a 4 year old like a baby, go for it!

What a silly idea. How could it possibly be "nutritionally useless" after a certain point, when it's the MOST nutrititious thing FOR your child until then?

Here's the answer: http://www.askdrsears.com/content/breastmilk-nutritionall...

It just means that after 1 years old, a child has more varied types of intake per solids or liquids. Hence, they are not SOLELY dependent, on ONLY breastmilk, for their nutrition.
Breastmilk does not suddenly lose intrinsic nutrition, but it is by then, for a child of 1 and older, not the only way they get nutrition.

Then, Ditto Jessica Wessica, below.

I know Pediatricians that breastfed their children, past 1 years old and up to 2 years old. But that was not their child's ONLY intake.

It is up to the Mom how long they breastfeed.
I breastfed both my kids, until they self-weaned.
And for my daughter, this was past 1 year old. My son self-weaned at about 1 year old.

When a child is older and has intake from other food sources and other liquids, to me, this is not "exclusively" breastfeeding.

It is up to the Mom, what she chooses to do and how she breastfeeds. That is the bottom line.

I think it is awesome you are breastfeeding your 15 month old! :) Kudos to you! It really is annoying when people actually believe this myth. Breastmilk changes to meet your child's need based on how old they are and what they need period. I still can't believe people actually believe this.

Your baby is only a year and three months.....I think what some folks are thinking is when a two or three year old gets on your lap, opens your shirt, pulls out the food source, it MIGHT be time to start to wean.(i.e. "take nourishment other then suckling")? That's how it works in the whole animal kingdom...Just saying.

Although I would agree that breast milk doesn't suddenly lose all nutrients when a child hits one it is equally stupid to say it is constantly changing to meet the child's needs as well. If your boobs can't tell when a child is one it is doubtful they know he needs more of something either.

I don't understand how women who have never done EBF feel they can give so much advice about it. I EBFed and my daughter is not spoiled nor did I harm her in any way. It's a choice that is a very personal one for the mother. People need to get over it and quit bashing mothers who choose to EBF. Who cares? How I chose to nourish my child is no ones business but mine.

I'm with you! I was really surprised at how many mothers were so against breast feeding a two year old. It's sad really, I wish that it was easier to educate everyone on these type of issues! I mean the US probably has the youngest recommended breast feeding age, and its not one, its two!

Your body doesn't know how old your child is. I would say your SUPPLY adjusts to your child's needs. Your nutrients don't magically know a child is one and change formulation. Of course, breast milk is still good beyond one. However, breast milk does not have a mind of it's own. It neither suddenly loses nourishment, nor does it suddenly change to fir your child's age. Saying so, makes one look as foolish as those saying it's not nutritious any longer.

If we are speaking mostly about the 2 yr old where the dad posted a question, then that child can be offered something else other than nursing during the timeframe the mother is gone. It doesn't negate that there are benefits of EBF (my DD was 2.5 when she fully weaned), but it also IMO means that as they get older you have more options. You can tell them "not now" or distract them or hand them juice. Absolutely there is nutritional value in breastmilk and while it is not so common in the US, it is very common elsewhere for a child to nurse past 1 yr old. When my DD was about 18 months old, she had a stomach bug that took us all down like dominoes. I was able to nurse her, as it was considered "clear liquid" and it kept her hydrated. I realize EBF is not for everyone, but I am sad when I read such vehement arguments because that pits mother vs mother vs trying to get us to see a new POV.

Breast milk and formula are complete nutrition for a child up to the age of 1 year. After that their bodies are growing so much that they do need other nutrients to grow and develop. Even a hundred years ago babies were eating table food at a year and still nursing when possible.

I don't think you have to stop doing anything. Formula is expensive and can easily be stopped at 1 year. I do think that the holding and feeding the child, whether a bottle or a breast is wonderful and should be done as long as possible according to whom ever has the right to say when that is. Now if it's past 3 years old then I start to have some issues with it. But since it's not my child I would not interfere.

I am glad that you wrote this post. I did not know a mother's milk changed. I just thought it was milk and that what she ate is what the milk was garnered from.

AMEN! I find it so silly to say that a child does not gain any nutrition from breast milk after a certain age, is broccoli no longer nutritious after a certain age? It's just nonsense. In our well-fed lives it can be easy to forget that in less ideal circumstances early weaning (and by early I mean less than 3-4 years) spelled almost certain death for toddlers. I recommend reading “Mother Nature” by Sarah Balffer Hrdy, it is a fascinating anthropological look at mothers and infants that is not a parenting book or a book on breastfeeding per se, but it does contain interesting information on those and other topics.