Tony, no, I was not assuming that you had not read Hoefer and Hardy.  I
replied with more info on their research in response to someone else who
posted about how the formula from 1929 was probably not as good as modern
day formula -- a point with which I fully agree.  Since the person didn't
seem familiar with the 1929 research, I elaborated.  It had nothing to do
with you.

If you are interested in how I came up with the 2.5 to 7.0 years, I suggest
you read my research.  You will find it as Chapter Two of my second book.
The book is "Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives," published in 1995,
and coedited by Patricia Stuart-Macadam and myself.  Chapter Two is also
summarized at the beginning of "Evolutionary Medicine and Breastfeeding:
Implications for Research and Pediatric Advice" which was published as the
1998-99 David Skomp Distinguished Lecture in Anthropology, Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405.  Anyone who would
like to can write to that address and request a copy.

I have presented this research at many anthropology and lactation
conferences, discussed it extensively here on LactNet, and the book itself
is recommended reading for the IBCLE exam.  Currently, I am analyzing the
data from my survey of 1,280 children in the US who nursed longer than 3
years -- some nursed up to the age of 9 years.  I think that other people on
LactNet have nursed children to 3 years or longer, and would not consider 5
years to be odd.

So far, all of the research that has been done on duration of breastfeeding
vs. outcome ends at 2 years post-partum.  However, that research all shows
that the longer you breastfeed up to 2 years, the better the outcome (or, to
put it more accurately, the shorter the time you breastfeed below 2 years,
the worse the outcome, with the worst outcomes being for those never
breastfed at all, of course).  In the coming years, I will be looking at
health and cognitive outcomes in my sample of children who nursed for a
minimum of 3 years.

Tony, you write:

"I foresee some problems in persuading people to keep going for so
long [over 3 months is often hard to support] and wonder if some might feel
that if you need to feed for so long to get benefits they might not bother
at all. This would require very sensitive and persuasive linguistic
expertise."

First, over three months is not difficult to support.  The American Academy
of Pediatrics statement recommends a minimum of one year and is heavily
referenced.  The World Health Organization's recommendations of a minimum of
two years is heavily referenced.  If you mean the other type of support, La
Leche League and other mothers' groups are quite well-versed at providing
support for mothers who nurse toddlers and beyond, and there are several
books on this topic as well.

No one to my knowledge has ever suggested that you need to feed "for so long
to get benefits."  My 'oil well' analogy about how the benefits of
breastfeeding accrue is well-known to LactNetters, so I won't repeat it
here.  If you are interested, it can be found in the archives.

Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html