A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Breastfeeding
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 12th 03, 11:12 AM
Clisby Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!



Banty wrote:

In article ,
says...


For me ff was simpler because bf was:
1) Sit down
2) Plop out breast(s)?
3) switch breast
4) switch breast
5) switch breast
etc. alot for hours on end. Both my babies wanted to constantly for
hours on end be on the nipple because of supply issues. I gave up on
bf with my first and persevered with the help of domperidone with my
second.

while ff was:

1) pour water in bottle
2) put formula in bottle
3) shake
4) feed baby for max 15 min

Which required no refrigeration, microwave, pitcher, or measuring
cups. It did require a store :-)



Yep.

I did both, and I think the perception varies on what the mother does and
considers relaxing. Also the milk supply and let down.

If it's feet up watching TV or sitting outside taking in the air and scenery and
yammering on the phone to friends that mom loves, sitting and switching breasts
is just the ticket.

If more active pursuits are what's satisfying and relaxing to mom, sitting and
switching breasts for 1/2 hour or so can be really reaaally sloooooow. And
what's hard is what *else* has to be done with the time left over after
siiiiittting and leetting dooown and relllaaaaxxxing for a loooooong time. (And
no - don't say "oh -doncha know you can let the housework go" - I got REAL TIRED
OF the clutter and feeling allergic to boot in a dirty, cat-hair filled house.)

I did nurse, but my experience of it was more like that latter. My temprament
isn't one to sit day in day out and look at baby and TV and trees and grass
hours and yammer with whoever's hanging out hours in hours out day in day out.
And I'm too heavy breasted to set up, hold baby in one arm, hold a paperback in
the other.

Banty




Yep. And some of us don't get the side benefit of that supposed flow of
relaxing hormones during
nursing. I've nursed my son for 17 months, and the only hormonal side
effects I've felt have
been unpleasant (uterine contractions, and letdown.) Even once the
bad part was past, I've
seldom nursed him without thinking, "OK, honey, aren't you about through
now?"

Clisby

  #12  
Old July 12th 03, 02:24 PM
Corinne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!

FANTASTIC REPLY!!!!

Corinne

--
"Since AP parents are accused of "spoiling" their children with
responsiveness, love, understanding, patience, positive interaction,
intimacy and closeness, respect, and value - I have decided that spoiling
ROCKS! Teaching my child that she ALWAYS deserves all of the above is the
right thing to do, and I plan to own my spoiling ways. Baby Spoilers Unite!"
--Jessica, iVillage AP board

"Jan Andrea H." wrote in message
...
Here's the reply I sent:

Dear folks,

As a potential subscriber, I have to say, the "20 rules to break now"
article in the August issue has just made me a forever non-subscriber.

The
Ob-Gyn who is quoted in the article is way, way off. The worst things

that
could happen to a baby who is not breastfed are myriad and serious -- not
every baby will have an adverse reaction, but try talking to parents whose
babies could not tolerate any of the formulas currently on the market and
ask them if it was simpler not to breastfeed! It's not just a matter of
missing out on bonding. They miss out on all the immune benefits of
breastmilk. They are more likely to have digestive disturbances as

infants,
ranging from constipation, to milk protein allergies, to diarrhea. Babies
who are not fed breastmilk are more likely to suffer from diabetes,

obesity,
Crohn's disease, and a number of other conditions later in life. All of

this
is very well documented in medical literature... which your "expert" has
apparently not read. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends

nursing
for at least a year... but since your "expert" is not, in fact, an expert

on
babies, I suppose we shouldn't expect him to realize this.

Bottle-feeding takes up far more time than breastfeeding -- when I was
breastfeeding my son, if he got hungry, all I had to do was put him to my
breast. Period. There was no preparation of formula, worrying about
sterilizing or cleaning bottles, wondering if I'd brought enough formula
with me on an errand, worrying about the staggering costs of formula
feeding... and I could rest assured knowing I was providing the most
appropriate and safest possible food for my child. I knew he was eating
enough because he had enough wet and dirty diapers. My husband could

still
feed him when I went out, using pumped and frozen breastmilk... which I
pumped while my son was nursing, so no extra time spent there. Middle of
the night feedings were not an issue; my son (simply) slept beside me, and
when he wanted to eat, I'd latch him on and go back to sleep. No having

to
reheat formula or keep a cooler beside the bed. No getting Dad up, and no
lost sleep for me.

I sincerely hope you will print just a few of the letters you will
undoubtedly receive on this topic from other parents who are as appalled

as
I am at this terrible "advice". And I hope you will consider printing an
opposing viewpoint... like the viewpoint of the entire children's medical
field!

Sincerely,
Jan A. Heirtzler
happy to have breastfed her son, and looking forward to breastfeeding her
daughter -- because it's simple, and because it's the best.




  #13  
Old July 12th 03, 03:44 PM
Donna Metler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!


"Kara H" wrote in message
...

"toto" wrote:

I think this is a scam to harvest email addies. I gave it a spam trap
addy and will be interested to see what happens.


It might be. But I'm not so sure.

I saw no reference to breastfeeding in the article about 20 rules you
can break either.


There definitely was a reference to breastfeeding- see below:

"don't breast-feed your child?

most likely: "In the long run, nothing," says Boris Petrikovsky, chairman

of
the department of obstetrics-gynecology at Nassau University Medical

Center,
in East Meadow, New York. When you're bottle-feeding, you know exactly how
much food the baby is eating, and Mom may be less tired because Dad has no
excuse to sleep through 3 a.m. feedings. "There is also absolutely no
conclusive data on breast milk's effects on brain development," adds
Petrikovsky.

worst case: "The biggest downside of not breast-feeding is that the mother
misses out on some of the bonding," says Petrikovsky. And since breast

milk
is specially designed to meet the nutritional needs of infants and

contains
antibodies that help protect them from a variety of illnesses, "babies who
are breast-fed are more likely to have a stronger immune system and be

sick
less than formula-fed infants.""

I have to say that this is a load of sh*t and I can't believe that anyone
would even think of calling breastfeeding a "time waster". IMHO, it saves
time! No bottle prep time, you can feed the child ANYWHERE and not have to
wait for a place to warm the formula, etc. I'm glad that they included

the
last statement. But I think that if they absolutely had to use this, they
could have AT LEAST worded it in a different way to make BF'ing mothers

not
feel like what they are doing is unimportant. I think "some of the

bonding"
is an understatement as BF is a *huge* bonding oportunity.

-Kara
(who hasn't even BF a child yet but is still a little peeved by this!)


Besides, if you really want your husband to get up and feed the baby at
night, you can always pump and let him give a bottle





Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits






  #14  
Old July 12th 03, 05:27 PM
Sara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!

Elana Kehoe wrote:

This is what I got back from them...and I think the response was written
by a mom who is "saddled by guilt"...

...There are women who are forced go back to work after 8 weeks
of unpaid maternity leave and don't have private offices or convenient,
discreet stations for pumping...


Yeah, especially if they work for Time, Inc, the publishers of Real
Simple. Grrr.

--
Sara, who used to work there
  #15  
Old July 12th 03, 06:10 PM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!

In article ,
"Donna Metler" wrote:

"Kara H" wrote in message
...

"toto" wrote:

I think this is a scam to harvest email addies. I gave it a spam trap
addy and will be interested to see what happens.


It might be. But I'm not so sure.

I saw no reference to breastfeeding in the article about 20 rules you
can break either.


There definitely was a reference to breastfeeding- see below:

"don't breast-feed your child?

most likely: "In the long run, nothing," says Boris Petrikovsky, chairman

of
the department of obstetrics-gynecology at Nassau University Medical

Center,
in East Meadow, New York. When you're bottle-feeding, you know exactly how
much food the baby is eating, and Mom may be less tired because Dad has no
excuse to sleep through 3 a.m. feedings. "There is also absolutely no
conclusive data on breast milk's effects on brain development," adds
Petrikovsky.

worst case: "The biggest downside of not breast-feeding is that the mother
misses out on some of the bonding," says Petrikovsky. And since breast

milk
is specially designed to meet the nutritional needs of infants and

contains
antibodies that help protect them from a variety of illnesses, "babies who
are breast-fed are more likely to have a stronger immune system and be

sick
less than formula-fed infants.""

I have to say that this is a load of sh*t and I can't believe that anyone
would even think of calling breastfeeding a "time waster". IMHO, it saves
time! No bottle prep time, you can feed the child ANYWHERE and not have to
wait for a place to warm the formula, etc. I'm glad that they included

the
last statement. But I think that if they absolutely had to use this, they
could have AT LEAST worded it in a different way to make BF'ing mothers

not
feel like what they are doing is unimportant. I think "some of the

bonding"
is an understatement as BF is a *huge* bonding oportunity.

-Kara
(who hasn't even BF a child yet but is still a little peeved by this!)


Besides, if you really want your husband to get up and feed the baby at
night, you can always pump and let him give a bottle


Or even just have him get up and bring the baby to you in bed. Since DH
can get up and do things and fall back asleep easily, but I cannot fall
back asleep if I've gotten vertical, he routinely brought babies to me
to nurse, then returned them to bed -- I barely woke up, we both got
plenty of sleep.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

  #16  
Old July 12th 03, 06:13 PM
dragonlady
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!

In article ,
Clisby Williams wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article ymHPa.38200$H17.11890@sccrnsc02, "Corinne"
wrote:



I was alerted to this article on an email group I'm part of....I was AMAZED
and greatly disappointed to read the following:

"The August 2003 issue of Real Simple magazine, currently on newstands,
contains an article titled "20 Time Wasting Rules to Break Now."
(page 136)

What's one of the rules to break? Breastfeeding. The article states
that with bottle-feeding, "you know exactly how much food the baby is
eating, and Mom may be less tired because Dad has no excuse to sleep
through 3 a.m. feedings."



Aside from everything else that's wrong with this, I can't, personally,
imagine that bottle feeding is LESS time consuming that breast feeding
-- assuming you aren't "propping" your baby, which is a bad idea anyway.
I know I visited households with twins the same age as mine who were
being bottle fed, and the amount of time devoted to mixing formula,
cleaning bottles, buying stuff, and, in one case, keeping the two
formulas seperate -- it just looked like a real time consuming effort
compared to plopping a breast (or two) out.

meh



Actually, that's the one thing I agree with. My first child was
formula-fed, and my second
breastfed. The formula-feeding was definitely simpler for me. But
then, it might have
made my life "simpler" to plop the babies in a playpen in a soundproofed
room and close
the door. What's simplest is not always what's preferable.

Clisby


I don't want to dispute you -- I believe you -- but I can't figure out
how formula and bottles could be simpler than breastfeeding, especially
if you spend much time out of the house, but even if you are home all
the time.

Can you explain how it was simpler?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

  #17  
Old July 12th 03, 07:22 PM
Jenn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!

In article , The Ranger
writes

I remember feeding taking a maximum of 15 minutes for each child. (Spawn was
a little more difficult because she was a lazy feeder and tended to try to
nap.)

The Ranger


We had a friend visit the other day, who has a FF son the same age as my
youngest. Her son started fussing, and even though she was quick off
the mark, my son had let me know he wanted to feed, and finished long
before she and her son had, even though my child 'asked' second.
--
Jenn
UK
  #18  
Old July 12th 03, 08:35 PM
The Ranger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!

dragonlady asked:
OK -- but how was that simpler than:

1) Sit down
2) Plop out breast(s)?

Which requires no refrigeration, microwave, store, pitcher,
or measuring cups?


Storage is internal, which takes care of minimal nuking and containment
requirements but does not provide measured-out doses. None of my three lost
weight at any point during their formula daze. shrug

If you're espressing I'm not sure if that's the right term now, you're
still faced with the same issues of storage, nuking, and measuring but you
also have added equipment (the pump) and mandatory refrigeration.

(And, yes, I understand that for many people bottle
feeding is necessary/desirable for reasons that have
nothing to do with simplicity.)


Understood and I don't think we're arguing that point here. You were asking
about ease and I provided the reasoning behind our choice of formula.

The Ranger


  #19  
Old July 12th 03, 10:24 PM
KC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!

For me ff was simpler because bf was:
1) Sit down
2) Plop out breast(s)?
3) switch breast
4) switch breast
5) switch breast
etc. alot for hours on end. Both my babies wanted to constantly for
hours on end be on the nipple because of supply issues. I gave up on
bf with my first and persevered with the help of domperidone with my
second.

while ff was:

1) pour water in bottle
2) put formula in bottle
3) shake
4) feed baby for max 15 min

Which required no refrigeration, microwave, pitcher, or measuring
cups. It did require a store :-)

I think it is my supply issues and inability to move while bf because
of large breasts which make it hard for my dd to keep her latch that
make me think bf is hard.

What I think it comes down to is YMMV. For someone who has a baby
that nurses every 2 hours for 10 minutes and can walk around during
that, and sleeps fine on their side at night and doesn't get mastitis
or have a bad latch, or a baby with a small mouth, bf the easier. For
people who don't worry about sterilizing bottles, give kids room temp
formula made with powder on the spot with a fast flow nipple, formula
feeding is a breeze. It is just different for different people in
different circumstances.

KC

dragonlady wrote in message news:mehouck- OK -- but how was that simpler than:

1) Sit down
2) Plop out breast(s)?

Which requires no refrigeration, microwave, store, pitcher, or measuring
cups?

(Again, I really am NOT trying to be difficult; I've heard people say
that bottles were simpler than breasts. Since my first was
bottle/formula fed after a few months, and my twins breastfed, I have
the comparison, and considered breast SO much simpler -- I'm just trying
to understand why, for some folks, the bottle is simpler.)

(And, yes, I understand that for many people bottle feeding is
necessary/desirable for reasons that have nothing to do with simplicity.)

meh

  #20  
Old July 12th 03, 11:45 PM
Clisby Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD!



dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
Barbara Bomberger wrote:



On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:30:47 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:



Aside from everything else that's wrong with this, I can't, personally,
imagine that bottle feeding is LESS time consuming that breast feeding
-- assuming you aren't "propping" your baby, which is a bad idea anyway.
I know I visited households with twins the same age as mine who were
being bottle fed, and the amount of time devoted to mixing formula,
cleaning bottles, buying stuff, and, in one case, keeping the two
formulas seperate -- it just looked like a real time consuming effort
compared to plopping a breast (or two) out.


Well first of all, I didnt clean bottles. I used the replaceable bags
and had enough nipples to lst a long time.

Secondly (and this is a benefit, having done both), my younger
children could be held and fed by their dad, by me, by their ten year
old sister ..you get the drift.

I got much more sleep as a formula feeding parent, and much more free
time.

This is not a statement about the value of one kind of feeding over
the other, just a statement on my experience with the "time" factor.

Barb




I can definately see how formula and bottles would be a time saver and
simpler for the mother in a household with more adults (or older kids)
than babies; I know how much I enjoyed feeding my younger brother and
sister -- and if mom had nursed, I would not have had that particular
pleasure. I guess I was just thinking in terms of "person hours" --
the total time spent -- not just "mother hours".

meh



Yes. It's just like hiring a cleaning service makes life simpler for
me. Of course somebody
else is putting in the time cleaning - but the important factor is that
it ain't always me.

Clisby

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
| Most families *at risk* w CPS' assessment tools broad, vague Kane General 13 February 20th 04 07:02 PM
At 3:22 am mom & son nancy Pregnancy 1 December 20th 03 07:57 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
"Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD! Corinne General 138 July 25th 03 09:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.