>> I suspect there are simply too many about here who revel in >> the "in-your-face" approach to breastfeeding. It's a pity too, >> because there really isn't any doubt breastfeeding is superior >> for the first few months.
>Glad you are so sure of that. Presonally I believe there is certainly >is doubt that breastfeeding is "superior". I sure don't think of it >as "superior" just plain old NORMAL.
>It's NOT some magical substance it's only MILK! It's not superior it's >NORMAL - Formula is *inferior* and we need to get our heads around the >fact that our language is totally screwed up in relation to >breastfeeding. Breastmilk is normal and it the intended and >appropriate food for a child for the first YEAR and beyond (I assume >by "few" you meant "at least 12")
Superior is the counter to inferior. English lesson over. As for your other points:
1) Breastmilk is not "just" milk. It has a very complex collection of chemicals and antibodies that formula makers have not yet been able to reproduce. If it were just milk (lactose, lactase, and related the related enzymes, milkfats, and minerals), it would have no advantage over modern formula.
2) As a child develops, the benefits of breastmilk lessen. Nursing past the first year yields practically no benefit compared to weaning after the first year. Even at six months there isn't much benefit to the child from a health/nutrition standpoint.
I think I'm getting out of the discussions on breastfeeding. Nothing new has been said in quite a while.
Galen
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
|
