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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 06:02 PM |
At 3:22 am mom & son | nancy | Pregnancy | 1 | December 20th 03 06:57 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
"Time Wasting Rules" - from Real Simple Magazine - NOT GOOD! | Corinne | General | 138 | July 25th 03 09:31 PM |