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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
Yesterday at my bf'ing support group (which is actually barely about bf'ing
anymore since the babies are 4-8 mths old) the leader, who is an LC, said that in the US 16% of women bf exclusively for 6 mths and around 2% (she couldn't remember the exact figure) do it for one year. Although my brain new that it was this low, I felt that it was higher since (a) I hang out here and (b) many of my friends were met at The Pump Station, a store that offers classes (like the support group) dedicated to bf'ing. OTOH, 16% means that more than 1 in 10 babies gets a relatively good start in terms of breastmilk. -- Melissa (in Los Angeles) Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
Yesterday at my bf'ing support group (which is actually barely about bf'ing
anymore since the babies are 4-8 mths old) the leader, who is an LC, said that in the US 16% of women bf exclusively for 6 mths and around 2% (she couldn't remember the exact figure) do it for one year. Actually, I think this is a slightly old statistic. I can't quote precise numbers, they are actually a bit higher now (esp. the one year figure) since the AAP began recommended bfing for a minimum of one year back in 1997. IIRC, somewhere around 10% of women maybe are still bfing at one year? (Though the 6 month figure hasn't changed much. Basically, most women are still not bfing at all, or stopping quite early, but if she stick it out to 4 or 6 months, they are fairly likely to stick it out for a full year.) Naomi Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail reply.) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
(Akuvikate) wrote in message . com...
OSPAM (Naomi Pardue) wrote in message ... Couple years ago I did a paper on the history of breast & bottle feeding in the US over the past 150 years. When you look at it from that perspective, it's actually pretty encouraging. 100 years ago non-breastfed babies had 5-8 *times* the infant mortality of breastfed babies, and still 20% of women never breastfed. And the formulas then were horribly complex mixtures of various things. Though, keep in mind that, 100 years ago, a significant percentage (though of course not all...) of the women who didn't bf did so for very real physical reasons. MANY mothers had significant physical problems (consumption, heart problems, prolonged recovery from difficult births that would hav made it difficult or impossible to establish a milk supply), so had no real choice. Other mothers had work situations that made bfing impossible. (If you had to go back to your 12 hour day in the factory or in the fields when baby was 2 weeks old, leaving the child to the care of an older sibling, or grandma, bfing wasn't really a possibility either. And, lets not forget the mothers who died in childbirth. Unless father could find a lacating friend or relative to take over, or afford to pay a wetnurse (and by the turn of the century, wetnursing wasn't seen much anymore), artificial feeding was the only option. (And while formulas were often 'complex'... at least if the mother was wealthy enough to afford them with percentages of ingredients calculated, supposedly, to meet the precise nutritional need of each baby... -- most mothers I'm sure just gave the babies sweetened, diluted cows milk, or just ordinary milk -- they didn't really contain "various things" -- milk, sugar, water, and sometimes lime. (They actually got MORE complex later in the 20th century, as different types of milk became available, and different types of sugars (corn syrup, for example), and doctors began spending many weeks and months working with desperate mothers fiddling with the formula trying to find a mixture that the colicky/sick/poorly gaining/whatever baby would tolerate and thrive on.) Naomi Kate and the Bug |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
"Naomi" wrote in message om... (Akuvikate) wrote in message . com... OSPAM (Naomi Pardue) wrote in message ... Couple years ago I did a paper on the history of breast & bottle feeding in the US over the past 150 years. When you look at it from that perspective, it's actually pretty encouraging. 100 years ago non-breastfed babies had 5-8 *times* the infant mortality of breastfed babies, and still 20% of women never breastfed. And the formulas then were horribly complex mixtures of various things. Though, keep in mind that, 100 years ago, a significant percentage (though of course not all...) of the women who didn't bf did so for very real physical reasons. MANY mothers had significant physical problems (consumption, heart problems, prolonged recovery from difficult births that would hav made it difficult or impossible to establish a milk supply), so had no real choice. Other mothers had work situations that made bfing impossible. (If you had to go back to your 12 hour day in the factory or in the fields when baby was 2 weeks old, leaving the child to the care of an older sibling, or grandma, bfing wasn't really a possibility either. And, lets not forget the mothers who died in childbirth. Unless father could find a lacating friend or relative to take over, or afford to pay a wetnurse (and by the turn of the century, wetnursing wasn't seen much anymore), artificial feeding was the only option. (And while formulas were often 'complex'... at least if the mother was wealthy enough to afford them with percentages of ingredients calculated, supposedly, to meet the precise nutritional need of each baby... -- most mothers I'm sure just gave the babies sweetened, diluted cows milk, or just ordinary milk -- they didn't really contain "various things" -- milk, sugar, water, and sometimes lime. (They actually got MORE complex later in the 20th century, as different types of milk became available, and different types of sugars (corn syrup, for example), and doctors began spending many weeks and months working with desperate mothers fiddling with the formula trying to find a mixture that the colicky/sick/poorly gaining/whatever baby would tolerate and thrive on.) Naomi I think I was given diluted cows milk with sugar - and I'm only 45! Tine, Denmark |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
I think I was given diluted cows milk with sugar - and I'm only 45!
Yup. While commerial formulas were around as early as the 1920's (and even earlier, though the earlier ones weren't what we'd think of as 'formulas' in that they weren't designed to replicate human milk), as near as I can determine from my reading, in the U.S. at least, most women continued to make 'home-brew' formula well into the 1970's. (Spock gave instructions for making formula from scratch -- mentioned commercial formula only as a convenient, but expensive alternative -- into the 1970's. Even the 1985 edition gives instructions for making evaporated milk formula, and I can't find any indication that he considered it inferior, nutritionally, to the commercial varieties.) Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail reply.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
I think I was given diluted cows milk with sugar - and I'm only 45!
my aunt (47) was given (as far as I know) straight cows milk, my grandma thought this was ok as they kept one cow specially for her (interesting concept of a wet nurse! have a cow instead!), she's turned out very tall ane very thin, wonder if this has anything to do with it |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
Anne Rogers wrote in message ...
I think I was given diluted cows milk with sugar - and I'm only 45! my aunt (47) was given (as far as I know) straight cows milk, my grandma thought this was ok as they kept one cow specially for her (interesting concept of a wet nurse! have a cow instead!), she's turned out very tall ane very thin, wonder if this has anything to do with it Speaking of cows... if you've ever worked on a dairy farm or lived on one, you know that calves are generally allowed to nurse from their moms for day or so but then they TOO are fed formula. ("milk replacement," it's called). I've had to bottle feed calves and it's not easy. Anyway, regarding the original posting. I don't know what the actual numbers are today but I think they are still on the low side. However, there is shift in attitudes. When one of my friends became pregnant she said she wouldn't even consider breastfeeding. As her pregnancy moved along and she read more about it, she decided to try it and now (at six months) she's a true believer. Another friend formula fed her first two. She told me nursing didn't appeal to her at all but pumping would be OK so for her last two babies she pumped and bottle fed. The point is that people change. The more educated people become about breastfeeding, the better. Like that post about that wicked bridesmaid. I'd be willing to bet that when SHE has a child, her tune will change. Heather |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting (and sad) statistic
my aunt (47) was given (as far as I know) straight cows milk, my grandma
thought this was ok as they kept one cow specially for her (interesting concept of a wet nurse! have a cow instead!), she's turned out very tall ane very thin, wonder if this has anything to do with it Speaking of cows... if you've ever worked on a dairy farm or lived on one, you know that calves are generally allowed to nurse from their moms for day or so but then they TOO are fed formula. ("milk replacement," it's called). I've had to bottle feed calves and it's not easy. didn't know that, my grandparents were dairy farmers, hence my aunt getting her own cow! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|