> In article <8fqlfv$3d...@nnrp1.deja.com>, cathi...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
> >In article <02407a10.1ff68...@usw-ex0107-055.remarq.com>,
> >  atarigalen <kNOkS...@uia.net.invalid> wrote:

> >> 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.
> Galen