liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (03/23/84)
Anyone else see the article on breast feeding and birth control in the April issue of Scientific American? It seems that breast feeding full time (on demand and around the clock...) is as effective (or more effective) as a birth control method as any of the modern contraceptives. The sucking stimulus evidently causes certain hormonal changes that cause a woman not to ovulate or menstruate or anything. A study of the !Kung tribe in Africa (?) shows that births there are spaced over 4 years apart since the women breast feed for something like 3.5 years. One of the things that really surprised me about the article (besides the fact that breast feeding is such a reliable contraceptive) was that so few women do breast feed full time, that the experts aren't sure when a baby who is breast fed full time should be started on solid foods! There aren't enough "normal" examples for them to know... I tend to think that there might be some women out there who might have some idea... This almost makes me mad because it seems like such a simple answer -- and we know so little about it! Of course nursing that full time could be a pain, but with so much emphasis (until very recently) on the "virtues" of bottle feeding when we know now (and really should have realized all along) that breast feeding is so much better for the baby... You would think this kind of thing would be more common knowledge... Emphasizing bottle feeding is especially bad in third world countries -- both because it tends to be unsanitary and much worse for the baby and because they lose that free birth control... Any comments? Anecdotes? -Liz -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
janr@orca.UUCP (03/24/84)
I haven't read the article in Scientific American, but I'm currently a nursing mother and I want to add a couple comments. One--as the discussion of this subject in net.kids has pointed out--you can find MANY MANY people for whom breastfeeding was not a reliable contra- ceptive. Two, "total breastfeeding," the way women in primitive cultures do it, involves having the baby with you, strapped to your body, at ALL TIMES and typically nursing him/her for brief periods (a minute or two) several times per hour, in addition to frequent nursings throughout the night. Nursing can be an extremely satisfying experience, but I don't think the "primitive culture" style of nursing will work for most American women. As for your concern that bottle feeding is pushed as being better, I'd say things in America (I won't get in to the Third World Nestle formula situation here) aren't as bad these days as you seem to think. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding as being nutritionally superior to formula, and hospitals are doing more to make it possible to help women who choose to nurse, like helping you nurse immediately (on the delivery table) giving you the option of 24-hour rooming in. I just read about a survey that found that 50% of American babies are breastfed (it didn't say for how long, tho). It's still the case that more educated women likelier to nurse than less educated women are.
ted@teldata.UUCP (Ted Becker) (03/27/84)
************ If you want to know more about breast feeding contact your local chapter of the LeLache League which is an organisation of experienced mothers who provide information, counseling and support for others interested in breast feeding and child care in general. In some cities they have a listing in the phone book. My wife breast fed all three of our sons and is a LeLache League leader. There is a lot of information about breast feeding that most doctors are not aware of or ignore and tend to treat all nursing problems by putting the baby on the bottle which eliminates the problem but does't solve it. I haven't read the SA article, but from some of the comments on the net there wasn't anything new in the article.
tll@druxu.UUCP (03/27/84)
I heard once that a potential problem with breast feeding is that a woman's milk may contain more poisons, such as DDT, that tend to accumulate in fatty tissues. According to this story, cow's milk has less of this, because the cow hasn't had as many years to accumulate it (shorter lifespan, and all that). Is this just an old husband's tale? Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll
cmgiuliani@watrose.UUCP (cmgiuliani) (03/27/84)
Take it from someone who speaks French, the name of the breastfeeding
support organization is
"La Leche" and not "Le Lache"
Carlo @ the U of Waterloosaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/27/84)
Yes, breast milk sometimes contains poisons such as you mentioned, but when
the levels are very high such as for developping countries' mothers who
work in a poisonned environment, the alternatives are usually not much better
since evrything else around them seems to also be poisonned.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleycdanderson@watarts.UUCP (04/02/84)
In reply to the request for anecdotes about breastfeeding, on
~Mar. 28'th, a woman in the S. Ontario city of Chatham was requested to
leave a shopping centre where she had been nursing her child.
Apparently, "Security" had first asked her to move into the
washroom and when she refused (after asking him if he eats there) they
gave her the boot. UGGH!!!!
Back to rec.nude
Cameron Anderson
{allegra,harpo,decvax}watmath!watarts!cdanderson