Posted on 08/05/2004 10:53:05 PM PDT by neverdem
FINDINGS
Fourteen percent of American mothers exclusively breast-feed their babies for the recommended minimum of six months, according to government data released yesterday.
New state-by-state statistics show that Oregon has the highest rate of mothers meeting the minimum standard, but even there just 25 percent are able to give their babies breast milk and nothing else for six months, the report shows.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization and most other experts recommend that mothers give their babies breast milk only -- no formula, juice or solid food -- until they are 6 months old.
Studies have shown that when babies are exclusively breast-fed for the first six months of life they grow better without getting too fat, are less likely to develop infections and may keep those benefits through childhood.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
ping
What? No pictures?
Yeah, but boiling the nipples is a real drag...
I breast fed both my boys. The oldest was a big baby and I made the addition of ceral and such at 2.5 months with the approval of his doctor. He was breast fed until 10 months. The youngest got nothing but breast milk until 6 months at which time adult table food was added. He refused to eat baby food. I continued to breast feed him until about 1.5 years. Both boys are healthy and rarely sick. When they do get sick it is minor. I was lucky in that I didn't work at the time. It was very difficult financially. I think work is the main reason many women do not breast feed.
There is a HUGE stigma placed on breastfeeding in public spaces. A good question is where to breast feed outside of the home? Many changes in pediatrics since the '70's for sure. We need to support mothers who take the best choice for their babies! My wife breastfed our son for a year and he's QUITE healthy! (10lbs, 3oz - 3/15/03)
As a side note: The magazine Working Mother is a joke, more like CEO Woman With No Time For Being A Mom. Also, my wife just finished the book The Nanny Diaries, and it is sad to see inside track on how the rich "outsource" mothering.
And the reason for this is. . . ?
And the reason for this is. . . ?
My wife was unable to produce adequately to feed our twins. Since they were hospitalized for 12 weeks due to prematurity, we thought the decreased production may have been due to being forced to use a breastpump. We thought that if the boys were able to suckle directly, it might improve. Unfortunately, our next child proved this not to be the case. Even with the singleton, she was unable to produce a significant amount beyond the first week or so, once his demands started to increase.
You're telling me that you wouldn't entrust the lives of your children to the care of a flaky, potentially homicidal, British au pair?
Control freak.
Thanks for your thorough answer to my question.
It's friday and you said breast.
Yes. |
No. |
Gad! Doesn't that hurt?
But who are Stephen J. Fry and Leila supporting?(!)
Yes, but are the effects achieved because these mothers are willing to care just a little bit more and would be attentive in other areas of the child's life as they grow up, or are the results achieved because mother's milk is more healthy OR because of.....
But as soon as I get finished whipping Kirk's hinney,
I'm taking Fry to the woodshed...
BTW
all future scientists are voting for W. One, he is the best choice and two, we already know he won!
---------------------------------------
"Leela really kicked your ass, didn't she, Captain?"
"Shut up, you little Russian troll!"
Jonas Salk's head:
I agree. Though, it's kind of difficult to invent new vaccines when you're only a head. I may be a genius, but come on. INVENT ME A FRIGGIN' TORSO ALREADY!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.