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

dragonlady wrote:

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



Sure. The major thing, of course, is that if you formula-feed a child,
you don't have to do
it all. Until my daughter was about 7 months old, my husband did the
majority of the
feeding (he was the SAHP for most of that time.) How could BF possibly
have been simpler for me?

With my breastfed child: for the first 3 months, breastfeeding was
very difficult. YMMV,
but I can't consider something that caused that much pain to have made
my life simpler.
The second three months were much better, but still not easy, by any
measure. And again,
I had to do it all. That's the huge downside of breastfeeding. I
think it's easy now; but
I have a 17-month-old who only nurses 3-4 times in a 24-hour period, and
probably wouldn't
care if I cut it back to twice.

In my experience of reading these newsgroups, people who talk about the
inconvenience
of formula feeding typically are grossly exaggerating the amount of time
and bother it takes.
Here's the kind of thing I read:

1. You have to sterilize bottles. (No, you don't.)
2. You have to get up in the middle of the night and fix a bottle.
(Only if your definition
of "fixing a bottle" is: reach in the refrigerator, pull out a
bottle, stick it in the baby's
mouth. If you have a picky baby, maybe you microwave it for 10
seconds first.)
3. If you go out with the baby, you have to wait until you find
somewhere to warm up
the bottle. (No, you don't.)
4. You have to go to the trouble of buying the formula. (Oh, give me
a break.)
5. You might run out of formula. (Never happened. How much
trouble is it to remember
to buy the only food your baby eats?)



Clisby

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

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.

"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

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

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

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

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

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

dragonlady wrote:

Well, heck, if they're going to include pumping for women who have to go
back to work, or who for some other reason are unable to nurse
comfortably, it IS more time consuming!

It is? I used a double pumper and could whip out my 7-9 oz. in 8 minutes
flat. However, to keep baby interested in me, daddy brought baby in to
my work2-3 times a day. *That* was time consuming. Getting up half an
hour early to feed him first thing, that was tiring. The pumping, which
I did for the weeks I worked overnight, was the easy part. I'm glad I
did it, but without a homeDaddy, it would have been durn tough.
As for the article, what do you expect from a magazine that uses such an
ungrammatical phrase for a title.
blacksalt