What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Breastfeeding (2 Viewers)

Who would have thought offering an opinion would cause such a stir.
Not trying to go after you, as I respect your postings on the FFA. Got to call you on this, though.The stir followed from the implicit value judgment, not from the mere expression of your opinion.

 
I generally agree with moops, that babies should be breastfed if possible. My wife worked hard to breastfeed both of our boys almost exclusively. I think breastmilk is probably better for the baby than formula given that it has been evolutionarily optimized as infant feed, but I can certainly understand why people would choose to go with formula instead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another thing new age parents obsess over is the percentile heights and weights the doctors give. Especially parents with boys. OMG Little Johnny is in the 95th percentile for 3 month olds!! Then their reaction is either...He's gonna be a lineman in the NFL!!! Or...OMG we gotta get Little Johnny and Mom (if she's breastfeeding) on an organic no carb diet ASAP!! Our daughter is tiny for her age weightwise. 5-10th percentile. So when new age parents with 9-10 month olds see her out in public, think she's that age and see her running all over the place and talking, they are in awe and want to be close to greatness. When I tell them she is 15 months and small for her age, they then ask what's wrong with her. :loco:
:lmao: :lmao: Dead on. I dont care what percentile Little Johnny is in! If all the men in the family are 5'7 and known for the phrase "big things come in little packages", dont get hit by a bus day dreaming about your kid being the next Tom Brady. My neighbor is famous for this crap. "Hey Russ, look how close the boys are in height." Not for long Papa Smurf. :ptts:
 
I really hope that your wife doesn't have an issue keeping up her supply, because heaven forbid she has to go on formula and you are unsupportive.
Perhaps you should read my posts again.
I've read your post and you come off as condescending and self-righteous.
Do you always play the battered housewife and mom or have I just never noticed? My goodness, he has a new infant and is proud of his wife for using traditional feeding methods and you turn this into "I was victimized" on a mostly male dominated site...I bet you wear the pants.
:confused: I give a female POV and always have, I've never said I speak for all females but I will post about my experience. If you take that as being a battered housewife, that's fine. There is a very different vibe saying "I'm so happy that she is able to to do this" vs what he wrote.

Heaven forbid a female makes an opinionated post on an all male board dealing with female issues. I must be a ball buster.
I'll agree with that. You have yours, I have mine, no problem. Ball buster vs wearing the pants, pretty good IAMS.
 
I generally agree with moops, that babies should be breastfed if possible. My wife worked hard to breastfeed both of our boys almost exclusively. I think breastmilk is probably better for the baby than formula given that it has been evolutionarily optimized as infant feed, but I can certainly understand why people would choose to go with formula instead.
So you are Pro Choice!While you would never give a baby some man made formula that could never be better than mother nature, you sure aren't about to stop anyone that wants to go thru with it themselves.
 
Do you always play the battered housewife and mom or have I just never noticed? My goodness, he has a new infant and is proud of his wife for using traditional feeding methods and you turn this into "I was victimized" on a mostly male dominated site...I bet you wear the pants.
You should take a break from being a doochebag every so often. I imagine keeping it up all the time wears you down.
 
I'm already trying to slip another past the goalie; my wife is guarding cautiously.
She should guard cautiously. Getting pregnant two months after giving birth is a bad idea.
Will you please stop being such a #######ed nerd about all this. You made a baby. Congratulations on doing what people all over the world have been doing for millenia.
Settle down O.There are some risks for baby and mother if a woman gets pregnant too soon after birth.
Yes I know that, and my wife has mentioned that to me. But stop fretting about all the details here.There are some risks in just about everything in life. Too many parents are too concerned about optimizing everything. Let's all just be dirty and enjoy this life thing a bit, can we???

If you'll excuse me, I need to get out of here to get home and try and knock my wife up again. The upshot for me here is that we got her knocked up with a single try the first time around, and she says that post-pregnancy women are supposedly even more fertile.

Who has two thumbs and only hits home runs? This guy.
<---3 kids under 5. #2 and #3 were both unexpected. #2 was planned, just happened sooner than said plan. #3 was a complete shot in the dark. Be careful what you wish for. :shock:
 
Breastfeeding also provides a necessary bond between child and mother in the first few months.
my wife and kids bonded just fine. as did i with my kids.wife tried for 2 months with the first. pain, time and the irregularity of how much comes out, how often the baby needs to eat and having to work all played a part. it's just not possible in the modern day for every woman to breastfeed. :shrug:

eta: wife pumped til it dried up
You basically buy into everything the media puts out. Furley, you are losing your edge buddy. Why bother trying right?
you're right. i should have had my mother in law pop in to my wife's office 4-5 times a day with the kids to breastfeed.
 
Got a bottle fed boy and a titty fed girl... When my son was two he could recite the Alphabet, count to 20, and was fully potty trained. My daughter is two now... I caught her trying to bite her own reflection in the mirror last night. :shrug:
I can't stop laughing at this.
 
you have NO IDEA how much a new mom has to deal with in terms of hearing about this stuff. You get push back from everyone thinking that their opinion is the right one. When it comes down to it, (most) everyone does what they think is best for their children. There is nothing worse than dealing with holier than thou parents who judge other parents.
/threadgive it a few weeks/months. everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks theirs is right. have fun.
 
No way in hell im reading through this in detail.. but skimming the thread I see nothing to back moops' assertion that breastfeeding is in any way better than formula?

 
Do you always play the battered housewife and mom or have I just never noticed? My goodness, he has a new infant and is proud of his wife for using traditional feeding methods and you turn this into "I was victimized" on a mostly male dominated site...I bet you wear the pants.
You should take a break from being a doochebag every so often. I imagine keeping it up all the time wears you down.
The fact my posts make you think Im a DBag, what does that say about you? You love to make yourself feel good about being above the self defined "dooche" which by the way women should never ever do...(its in my current textbook) Maybe instead of name calling you should try being a little smarter and insightful not one of those things you called me. Must be a tough life you got there in NoCal.I sure thought blatant name callng was not allowed on the boards...I push it sometimes by saying you sound like a such and such but you really like to play the name game. I could just call you a blankety blank but the providers of this site prohibit it. So why should you be allowed to break the board rules? What was the point of your post Jones? Oh yeah you wanted to call me a device/instrument used to clean out female temples or scoop up the deposits whichever suits you. Since only an uninformed female or overbearing male are the ones buying these things I don't really feel the sting of the name like you wish it had.Let's all say Doochebag one last time on here and get it out of our systems. I think the board deserves a little better don't you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Got a bottle fed boy and a titty fed girl... When my son was two he could recite the Alphabet, count to 20, and was fully potty trained. My daughter is two now... I caught her trying to bite her own reflection in the mirror last night. :shrug:
I can't stop laughing at this.
Man, it's true. She's a dumbbell. When I caught her she turned back with the glare of the devil (eyebrows scrunched, lip curled) and said "Melmo's Wed (Elmo's Red)" then she scurried off into another room to do god knows what. WTF??
 
Got a bottle fed boy and a titty fed girl... When my son was two he could recite the Alphabet, count to 20, and was fully potty trained. My daughter is two now... I caught her trying to bite her own reflection in the mirror last night. :shrug:
I can't stop laughing at this.
Man, it's true. She's a dumbbell. When I caught her she turned back with the glare of the devil (eyebrows scrunched, lip curled) and said "Melmo's Wed (Elmo's Red)" then she scurried off into another room to do god knows what. WTF??
:lmao: :bow:
 
MOP really dooshing it up in here
Really, everyting was fine until I posted at IAMS a bit...we have some soft serve males in here that feel bad for the wimmens no matter what. That's a shame because she did a fine job of standing up for herself and didn't need any men especially Jones to come in on a white horse screaming doosh at the top of his lungs as he races over the moat via the drawbridge. I think we are all just having a little fun with word play... I think people don't even read anyting in here anymore, just a few quck words and then its off to the races. If he would have read what IAMS posted back then maybe he would have waited with the comment. If he did read our exchange and still wanted to post what he did...I think he clearly is projectng at that point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you always play the battered housewife and mom or have I just never noticed? My goodness, he has a new infant and is proud of his wife for using traditional feeding methods and you turn this into "I was victimized" on a mostly male dominated site...I bet you wear the pants.
You should take a break from being a doochebag every so often. I imagine keeping it up all the time wears you down.
The fact my posts make you think Im a DBag, what does that say about you? You love to make yourself feel good about being above the self defined "dooche" which by the way women should never ever do...(its in my current textbook) Maybe instead of name calling you should try being a little smarter and insightful not one of those things you called me. Must be a tough life you got there in NoCal.I sure thought blatant name callng was not allowed on the boards...I push it sometimes by saying you sound like a such and such but you really like to play the name game. I could just call you a blankety blank but the providers of this site prohibit it. So why should you be allowed to break the board rules? What was the point of your post Jones? Oh yeah you wanted to call me a device/instrument used to clean out female temples or scoop up the deposits whichever suits you. Since only an uninformed female or overbearing male are the ones buying these things I don't really feel the sting of the name like you wish it had.Let's all say Doochebag one last time on here and get it out of our systems. I think the board deserves a little better don't you?
:lmao:
 
Do you always play the battered housewife and mom or have I just never noticed? My goodness, he has a new infant and is proud of his wife for using traditional feeding methods and you turn this into "I was victimized" on a mostly male dominated site...I bet you wear the pants.
You should take a break from being a doochebag every so often. I imagine keeping it up all the time wears you down.
The fact my posts make you think Im a DBag, what does that say about you? You love to make yourself feel good about being above the self defined "dooche" which by the way women should never ever do...(its in my current textbook) Maybe instead of name calling you should try being a little smarter and insightful not one of those things you called me. Must be a tough life you got there in NoCal.I sure thought blatant name callng was not allowed on the boards...I push it sometimes by saying you sound like a such and such but you really like to play the name game. I could just call you a blankety blank but the providers of this site prohibit it. So why should you be allowed to break the board rules? What was the point of your post Jones? Oh yeah you wanted to call me a device/instrument used to clean out female temples or scoop up the deposits whichever suits you. Since only an uninformed female or overbearing male are the ones buying these things I don't really feel the sting of the name like you wish it had.Let's all say Doochebag one last time on here and get it out of our systems. I think the board deserves a little better don't you?
:lmao:
:thumbup: See, all is good. Im still a whatever and Jones has been entertained for the afternoon.
 
Do you always play the battered housewife and mom or have I just never noticed? My goodness, he has a new infant and is proud of his wife for using traditional feeding methods and you turn this into "I was victimized" on a mostly male dominated site...I bet you wear the pants.
You should take a break from being a doochebag every so often. I imagine keeping it up all the time wears you down.
The fact my posts make you think Im a DBag, what does that say about you? You love to make yourself feel good about being above the self defined "dooche" which by the way women should never ever do...(its in my current textbook) Maybe instead of name calling you should try being a little smarter and insightful not one of those things you called me. Must be a tough life you got there in NoCal.I sure thought blatant name callng was not allowed on the boards...I push it sometimes by saying you sound like a such and such but you really like to play the name game. I could just call you a blankety blank but the providers of this site prohibit it. So why should you be allowed to break the board rules?

What was the point of your post Jones? Oh yeah you wanted to call me a device/instrument used to clean out female temples or scoop up the deposits whichever suits you. Since only an uninformed female or overbearing male are the ones buying these things I don't really feel the sting of the name like you wish it had.

Let's all say Doochebag one last time on here and get it out of our systems. I think the board deserves a little better don't you?
:lmao:
:thumbup:

See, all is good. Im still a whatever and Jones has been entertained for the afternoon.
I do like that word. It sounds better than calling someone a "Richard", but has the same generally meaning.You have the habit of flying off the handle at times and treating people poorly. Most of us do it, but you seem to have a unique zest and propensity for it.

Next time I will try and use a different word and see if that is more to your liking. My goal is to offend, but, of course, I don't want to over offend.

 
I'm not sure how much of the studies etc. I buy into, but I'm happy to side with modern science and engineered formulas.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a couple might choose a formula over breast-feeding. But I don't think siding with modern science or engineering is one of them.Dialysis machines are amazing examples of technological achievement, but are inferior to real kidneys. Synthetic hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are likewise a godsend, but are inferior to real blood. Artificial hearts may be the pinnacle of modern medicine, but they are far inferior to real hearts.There's no reason to think that any artificially synthesized breast-milk substitute — however impressive it may be — will be superior to the real thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure how much of the studies etc. I buy into, but I'm happy to side with modern science and engineered formulas.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a couple might choose a formula over breast-feeding. But I don't think siding with modern science or engineering is one of them.Dialysis machines are amazing examples of technological achievement, but are inferior to real kidneys. Synthetic hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are likewise a godsend, but are inferior to real blood. Artificial hearts may be the pinnacle of modern medicine, but they are far inferior to real hearts.There's no reason to think that any artificially synthesized breast-milk substitute — however impressive it may be — will be superior to the real thing.
The comparison is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
 
Got a bottle fed boy and a titty fed girl... When my son was two he could recite the Alphabet, count to 20, and was fully potty trained. My daughter is two now... I caught her trying to bite her own reflection in the mirror last night. :shrug:
I can't stop laughing at this.
Man, it's true. She's a dumbbell. When I caught her she turned back with the glare of the devil (eyebrows scrunched, lip curled) and said "Melmo's Wed (Elmo's Red)" then she scurried off into another room to do god knows what. WTF??
My 3-year old little girl is an absolute genius. My 10-month old boy though, well, let's just say he's on the "bit your own reflection in the mirror" study plan.
 
I'm not sure how much of the studies etc. I buy into, but I'm happy to side with modern science and engineered formulas.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a couple might choose a formula over breast-feeding. But I don't think siding with modern science or engineering is one of them.Dialysis machines are amazing examples of technological achievement, but are inferior to real kidneys. Synthetic hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are likewise a godsend, but are inferior to real blood. Artificial hearts may be the pinnacle of modern medicine, but they are far inferior to real hearts.There's no reason to think that any artificially synthesized breast-milk substitute — however impressive it may be — will be superior to the real thing.
I wondered when the biggest raw milk drinker on the boards was going to chime in.
 
I'm not sure how much of the studies etc. I buy into, but I'm happy to side with modern science and engineered formulas.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a couple might choose a formula over breast-feeding. But I don't think siding with modern science or engineering is one of them.Dialysis machines are amazing examples of technological achievement, but are inferior to real kidneys. Synthetic hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are likewise a godsend, but are inferior to real blood. Artificial hearts may be the pinnacle of modern medicine, but they are far inferior to real hearts.There's no reason to think that any artificially synthesized breast-milk substitute — however impressive it may be — will be superior to the real thing.
So a team of baseball players who are not on performance enhancing drugs would beat a team that was? I see no reason to believe that evolution is just "done" fine tuning humans or their breast milk. I also don't think human breastmilk is necessarily "better" than cow's milk (the base for all of those formulas). I drink cow's milk, and so do you. I would not drink human breast milk.
 
I'm not sure how much of the studies etc. I buy into, but I'm happy to side with modern science and engineered formulas.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a couple might choose a formula over breast-feeding. But I don't think siding with modern science or engineering is one of them.Dialysis machines are amazing examples of technological achievement, but are inferior to real kidneys. Synthetic hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are likewise a godsend, but are inferior to real blood. Artificial hearts may be the pinnacle of modern medicine, but they are far inferior to real hearts.There's no reason to think that any artificially synthesized breast-milk substitute — however impressive it may be — will be superior to the real thing.
What reason do you have to think it's inferior? Turns out there are a lot of things modern science can do better than nature. There's no multivitamin tree, but it turns out those are pretty good for you.All of that ignores the fact that breast milk is influenced by a mother's diet. Lots of people in this world are awful eaters. Not all breast milk is created equal.
 
I'm not sure how much of the studies etc. I buy into, but I'm happy to side with modern science and engineered formulas.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a couple might choose a formula over breast-feeding. But I don't think siding with modern science or engineering is one of them.Dialysis machines are amazing examples of technological achievement, but are inferior to real kidneys. Synthetic hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are likewise a godsend, but are inferior to real blood. Artificial hearts may be the pinnacle of modern medicine, but they are far inferior to real hearts.There's no reason to think that any artificially synthesized breast-milk substitute — however impressive it may be — will be superior to the real thing.
So a team of baseball players who are not on performance enhancing drugs would beat a team that was?
Yes. That's exactly what I said.Steroids aren't for optimizing reproductive success by way of promoting overall long-term health. They're for optimizing athletic performance even if that means sacrificing overall long-term health. So you shouldn't generalize from infant formula to steroids the way I accidentally, invisibly, unknowingly, apparently did.
I see no reason to believe that evolution is just "done" fine tuning humans or their breast milk.
Humans and their breastmilk will continue to evolve together in the future as they have in the past. As with kidneys and blood and hearts, breastmilk in a million years will be optimized for humans in a million years. That doesn't mean that breastmilk in a million years would be better for current humans than current breastmilk. And it says nothing at all about infant formula.
I also don't think human breastmilk is necessarily "better" than cow's milk (the base for all of those formulas). I drink cow's milk, and so do you. I would not drink human breast milk.
Cows and humans have slightly different metabolic needs. Human infants need (relatively) more sugar and more Omega-3 fats than calves because of their (relatively) larger brains, for example. Human infants also need correspondingly less protein than calves. It's not an accident that human breastmilk is higher in sugar and Omega-3s and lower in protein than cow's milk.I'm not knocking high-quality cow's milk. It's similar enough to human breastmilk to allow for healthy development of human infants. But there are differences, and the differences aren't arbitrary. They reflect the species' different metabolic needs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'koby925 said:
'the moops said:
Wait, are you guys saying breast feeding is reserved for new age type parents? That sure is some backward ### reasoning there
No I think it's the extremists either way. Such as: - If you don't read War and Peace or play Beethoven's 9th to the unborn baby, you are a bad parent and the kid will have no shot at getting into Harvard - If you don't bank chord blood you are a horrible parent who is cheap and won't protect your child - If you don't breastfeed, you lose the mother child bond, feed baby unnatural milk, etc. - If you do breastfeed your baby isn't getting enough milk, etc. - If your kid isn't sitting up by 6mos, crawling by 9mos, walking by 1 year they may be slow and/or autistic - We can't take Little Johnny out of the house until he's 3 months or ever take him to Texas Roadhouse because he may be subjected to peanut dust.
:lmao: This is great.But I do have a major problem with women too selfish to even attempt to do the best thing for their baby. I understand trying and not being able to stick with it, but at least try when you know its better.
 
'Otis said:
What reason do you have to think it's inferior?
The theoretical reason is that the human immune system is just about as complicated as the human brain. (See Plague Time.) Colostrum plays a huge role in an infant's immune system. So I think the analogy to kidneys, blood, and hearts is apt. When evolution has spent millions of years fine-tuning a highly complex machine part, humans have had some success designing inferior-but-workable replacement parts. I know of no examples where humans have designed a superior or even equal replacement part.But the theoretical reasons are of little consequence compared to the empirical observations. I've seen descriptions of some observational studies that have been done, along with biologically realistic mechanisms explaining the results. But I don't have them bookmarked or anything; you can Google for them as well as I can.

Turns out there are a lot of things modern science can do better than nature.
Not when it comes to synthesizing food.
There's no multivitamin tree, but it turns out those are pretty good for you.
There's plenty of evidence that vitamins in pills are pretty useless compared to vitamins in real food.
All of that ignores the fact that breast milk is influenced by a mother's diet. Lots of people in this world are awful eaters. Not all breast milk is created equal.
Yes. Complete agreement here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'bostonfred said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
'Otis said:
I'm not sure how much of the studies etc. I buy into, but I'm happy to side with modern science and engineered formulas.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a couple might choose a formula over breast-feeding. But I don't think siding with modern science or engineering is one of them.Dialysis machines are amazing examples of technological achievement, but are inferior to real kidneys. Synthetic hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are likewise a godsend, but are inferior to real blood. Artificial hearts may be the pinnacle of modern medicine, but they are far inferior to real hearts.There's no reason to think that any artificially synthesized breast-milk substitute — however impressive it may be — will be superior to the real thing.
So a team of baseball players who are not on performance enhancing drugs would beat a team that was?
Yes. That's exactly what I said.Steroids aren't for optimizing reproductive success by way of overall long-term health. They're for optimizing athletic performance even if that means sacrificing overall long-term health. So you shouldn't generalize from infant formula to steroids the way I accidentally, invisibly, unknowingly, apparently did.
Why were you bringing up dialysis machines, synthetic hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers, and artificial hearts along with breast milk if it wasn't to make the point that artficial things aren't as good as natural ones? If you'd prefer to talk about something besides PEDs used for short term athletic performance, then we can do that. People's long term health can benefit from synthetically-provided, naturally-produced materials where their ability to produce them is inhibited. That's what hormone therapy is all about. And yes, I know you weren't claiming that everyone should go through life with exactly the amount of testoserone they generate for themselves and no more. I just disagree with the implication that all natural things are necessarily better than formulas.
 
I know of no examples where humans have designed a superior replacement part.
Replacement hips. Replacement teeth. At a minimum and without me even trying to think about this.
But the theoretical reasons are of little consequence compared to the empirical observations. I've seen descriptions of some observational studies that have been done, along with biologically realistic mechanisms explaining the results. But I don't have them bookmarked or anything; you can Google for them as well as I can.
Did you confirm that those studies control for things that actually are useful in today's society? Maybe breastmilk is awesome for deer hunting skills, but formula makes you a better wage earner in modern society? I suspect the answer is you have no idea, and neither do I. Or anyone else for that matter. But surely folks should judge other folks' parenting efforts on this basis.
Turns out there are a lot of things modern science can do better than nature.
Not when it comes to synthesizing food.
How do you know that?
 
I know of no examples where humans have designed a superior replacement part.
Replacement hips. Replacement teeth. At a minimum and without me even trying to think about this.
I'm not sure that teeth qualify as being highly complicated. I'm also not sure that artificial teeth are superior to real teeth.I'm fairly certain that artificial hips are not superior to real hips. But it's not exactly my area of expertise.
But the theoretical reasons are of little consequence compared to the empirical observations. I've seen descriptions of some observational studies that have been done, along with biologically realistic mechanisms explaining the results. But I don't have them bookmarked or anything; you can Google for them as well as I can.
Did you confirm that those studies control for things that actually are useful in today's society? Maybe breastmilk is awesome for deer hunting skills, but formula makes you a better wage earner in modern society?
I think that formula is associated with lower IQ, so if anything it'd probably be the reverse.
I suspect the answer is you have no idea, and neither do I. Or anyone else for that matter. But surely folks should judge other folks' parenting efforts on this basis.
I wasn't judging anybody's parenting efforts. I explicitly said that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to formula-feed. I was disagreeing only with your contention that modern science and engineering formulas might have a leg up, nutritionally, on breast milk.
Turns out there are a lot of things modern science can do better than nature.
Not when it comes to synthesizing food.
How do you know that?
I read it on the internet.
 
If you'd prefer to talk about something besides PEDs used for short term athletic performance, then we can do that. People's long term health can benefit from synthetically-provided, naturally-produced materials where their ability to produce them is inhibited. That's what hormone therapy is all about.
That in no way implies that synthetic hormones are superior to endogenous hormones. It just means that some people can underproduce certain hormones under certain conditions, and where natural hormones are lacking, artificial hormones may be indicated. Similarly, where natural breastmilk is lacking, artificial breastmilk may be indicated. I never argued otherwise. That has no relevance to situations where non-defective, natural hormones or breastmilk aren't lacking.
 
I'm fairly certain that artificial hips are not superior to real hips. But it's not exactly my area of expertise.
I think that formula is associated with lower IQ, so if anything it'd probably be the reverse.
I wasn't judging anybody's parenting efforts. I explicitly said that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to formula-feed. I was disagreeing only with your contention that modern science and engineering formulas might have a leg up, nutritionally, on breast milk.

/quote]

Turns out there are a lot of things modern science can do better than nature.
Not when it comes to synthesizing food.
How do you know that?
I read it on the internet.

Right. So we've established that you don't know which is better or whether any difference is consequential at all. That about right?I suspect the difference, if any, is nominal. And I have no idea which way it goes. But I'll take something made by modern science over what's in the boobs of one of moops' chicks every day of the week.

 
I read it on the internet.
Right. So we've established that you don't know which is better or whether any difference is consequential at all. That about right?
Are you seriously suggesting that the internet could be wrong?Wikipedia: "Though it now is almost universally prescribed, in some countries in the 1950s the practice of breastfeeding went through a period where it was out of vogue and the use of infant formula was considered superior to breast milk. However, it is now universally recognized that there is no commercial formula that can equal breast milk." And: "Use of infant formula is cited in numerous health risks. Studies have found infants in developed countries who consume formula are at increased risk for acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), eczema, necrotizing enterocolitis and autism when compared to infants who are breastfed. Although some early studies have found an association between infant formula and lower cognitive development, other studies have found no correlation. Recently, though, more questions have arisen. It has been discovered that iron supplementation in baby formula is linked to lowered I.Q. and other neurodevelopmental delays."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Otis said:
'the moops said:
Wait, are you guys saying breast feeding is reserved for new age type parents? That sure is some backward ### reasoning there
No, but obsessing about the details is.
And then judging others for following different methods sure as hell is.
 
'the moops said:
Seems I hit a sore spot big O. Sorry bout that.

We are hardly type A parents. Whatever that means. Our kid is three days old and we, like you, have already taken him to our favorite spot in Minneapolis for lunch. And no, the wife didnt have to whip out her boob in public (not that there should be any issue with that though).

To us, breast feeding is part of parenting. There is a reason mothers produce milk after birth. Unlike you, I would rather side with nature than engineered formulas.
fwiw, the wife started off breast-feeding with our son... latched on like a champ from day one, no pain for her. But it became clear she wasn't producing enough milk after about a month. Talked to the pediatrician and a boob milk consultant and both said the same thing- the baby needs to eat first and foremost. Pediatrician added that in all his years working (he's nearing retirement) in both San Francisco and NYC, he's never seen a difference in how a kid turns out based on whether they were breast or bottle fed. There are obvious advantages to tapping at the source and it's great to be informed about the pros and cons about each- which we do our best to be- but I lose immediate respect for anybody else that think they know the "right" way of raising my kid.

(and Moops I do see that you qualified this post above with "to us"- so this post is directed at earlier Moops, not recent Moops)

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top