Breast Feeding woo???

[Dr. Imago]

Huh? The vast majority of germs (bacteria) that we pick up are harmless. A small number are quite helpful to our body. A slightly larger number than that are actually harmful.

Germs, as you put it, frankly mostly just don't care about us.

That's exactly my point.

Lately, there has been a huge push to "sanitize" our lives, with various products that disinfect, scrub the air we breathe, and use potent chemicals to destroy all microorganisms in our personal living spaces. We're repeatedly bombarded by advertisements for wipes and sprays and mouthwashes that purport to kill "99.9%" of bacteria in the offending area.

Breastfeeding vs. bottlefeeding is no different. Bottles and nipples that go on them are boiled or taken out of sterile packages. We're extra careful to wipe down everything babies touch with sanitizing chemicals. We're encouraged to disinfect their toys regularly.

Now, I'm not saying all germs are good. Clearly, there are ones that are contagious, infectious, and should be avoided (too numerous to name). And, immunization is important. But, I can't help but think that triclosan and chlorhexidine routinely and haphazardly used all the time will prevent our immune systems from being properly challenged, as well as threaten to create and breed superbugs. And, there is mounting evidence to suggest that this may already be occurring.

~Dr. Imago

 

[tesscaline]

Why couldn't she be breast fed?

Linda

You know, despite what breast feeding activists (la leche league?) like to tell us, not every mother is physically capable of breast feeding.

When I had my son (who was a bit of a miracle child, by the way), for example, I was dead set on breast feeding. I'd researched the benefits, and definitely wanted to give him those. The problem was, my milk never came in. In fact, my insisting on attempting to breast feed actually endangered my child, because he wasn't getting anything! He lost weight after a few days of being home, and we ended up making an emergency appointment with a pediatrician. It was there that we found out that things weren't working right, and sometimes it takes a few days (up to a week) for production to kick in. So I tried and I tried to force it (there are ways), with the help of a lactation counselor and a midwife and an "industrial" breast pump, (supplementing with formula all the while) but after 3 weeks of a horribly intensive regiment of being hooked up to a machine louder than my vacuum cleaner 8 to 10 times a day and still not being able to get enough to actually feed my child, I had to give up, and give in fully on formula.

Later visits with an ob/gyn explained that the same hormonal condition that caused my son to be the miracle baby he was (I wasn't really supposed to have been able to get pregnant in the first place) prevented me from being able to produce milk in any great amount -- something I wish I'd known in the first place.

Every time after that that I went to any new doctor, or talked to other mothers, I was initially berated for not breast feeding. The assumption being that I was just lazy and didn't want to be bothered with it. So, while the idea that "the breast is best" isn't mythical, the idea that a baby on formula is at a severe disadvantage is being promoted in remarkably woo-ish ways.

There are many other situations in which breast feeding is impossible (or at least, impossible without harm to the child). I really wish that the breast feeding activists would take those into account, and not make you feel like some sort of maternal failure just because you needed to use formula.

My son is 9 now, and just as healthy as any other child (if not more so).

 

[fls]

Can't speak for the original poster, but in our case, our baby just never took to the breast.

It sorta seemed to be the norm to breast feed among the mothers I know. I assumed that if a baby wasn't breast fed, it was because they couldn't (as per your example) for various reasons. I wonder if that's an unreasonable assumption, though.

Whilst I agree that breast is best (I did quite a lot of poking around at the time to see the science behind it), the constant, ceaseless pushing of it can, IMO, be counterproductive.

That was the way I felt about the LaLeche League. But I felt comfortable pretty much ignoring them and doing all the stuff they said I wasn't supposed to do anyway. But now that I think about it, there are a lot of parallels with how woo is presented when it comes to breast-feeding, even if the underlying idea is reasonably valid.

Pure anecdotal evidence: he's 5 months old now, and doing brilliantly

Congratulations!

Linda

 

[fls]

You know, despite what breast feeding activists (la leche league?) like to tell us, not every mother is physically capable of breast feeding.

When I had my son (who was a bit of a miracle child, by the way), for example, I was dead set on breast feeding. I'd researched the benefits, and definitely wanted to give him those. The problem was, my milk never came in. In fact, my insisting on attempting to breast feed actually endangered my child, because he wasn't getting anything! He lost weight after a few days of being home, and we ended up making an emergency appointment with a pediatrician. It was there that we found out that things weren't working right, and sometimes it takes a few days (up to a week) for production to kick in. So I tried and I tried to force it (there are ways), with the help of a lactation counselor and a midwife and an "industrial" breast pump, (supplementing with formula all the while) but after 3 weeks of a horribly intensive regiment of being hooked up to a machine louder than my vacuum cleaner 8 to 10 times a day and still not being able to get enough to actually feed my child, I had to give up, and give in fully on formula.

Later visits with an ob/gyn explained that the same hormonal condition that caused my son to be the miracle baby he was (I wasn't really supposed to have been able to get pregnant in the first place) prevented me from being able to produce milk in any great amount -- something I wish I'd known in the first place.

Every time after that that I went to any new doctor, or talked to other mothers, I was initially berated for not breast feeding. The assumption being that I was just lazy and didn't want to be bothered with it. So, while the idea that "the breast is best" isn't mythical, the idea that a baby on formula is at a severe disadvantage is being promoted in remarkably woo-ish ways.

There are many other situations in which breast feeding is impossible (or at least, impossible without harm to the child). I really wish that the breast feeding activists would take those into account, and not make you feel like some sort of maternal failure just because you needed to use formula.

Well said.

At first I found it a bit odd for the OP to even ask the question. I thought everyone was aware that the benefits were well-established. But I can see how it would appear to be suspect when you run into people that seem to treat it like a religion - as though your baby will grow horns and tail from the formula.

My son is 9 now, and just as healthy as any other child (if not more so).

Yeah, that must be really annoying - the least he could have done is be plagued by allergies.

Linda

 

[joobz]

That was the way I felt about the LaLeche League. But I felt comfortable pretty much ignoring them and doing all the stuff they said I wasn't supposed to do anyway. But now that I think about it, there are a lot of parallels with how woo is presented when it comes to breast-feeding, even if the underlying idea is reasonably valid.

This was exactly my point. I was not at all opposed to breastfeeding and my wife was planning on it for simply the savings on formula. But the laundry list of benefits touted by all of the nurses who came through our doors, all the fliers, all the posters.... it became creepy. When asked for a little more information regarding the mechanism, they would simply say "well, it has antibodies..." I couldn't help be reminded of the movie, idiocracy, "It's got electrolytes.'

Also, the attitude of the staff made me completely understand the guilt that familys, who didn't want to breastfeed or couldn't, felt. I know women who just didn't like the idea of breastfeeding and formula fed doesn't mean malnourished.


It's good to know that there is real science behind the breastfeeding, and it is quite interesting to think that the intestines are permeable(active or passive) to these large proteins. I should do a bit more reading. I wonder what mechanism deactivates this permeability. Perhaps it's related to the mechanism that makes it difficult for babies to breastfeed after being on bottle...

Contgrats to Rocko!

 

[tesscaline]

Well said.

At first I found it a bit odd for the OP to even ask the question. I thought everyone was aware that the benefits were well-established. But I can see how it would appear to be suspect when you run into people that seem to treat it like a religion - as though your baby will grow horns and tail from the formula.

Currently, I live in a large metropolitan area where most women work full time, if not two jobs, so breast-feeding isn't always an option (If you have to choose between formula and a roof over your head, its a pretty clear decision imo). That being the case, it really didn't seem like such an odd question to me, because people are trying to figure out if the benefits outweigh the financial consequences.

And while the benefits of breast feeding are well-established, the so-called "detriments" of using formula don't seem to be. I've heard so many stories about all the bad things that happen as a result of formula feeding (especially from La Leche League -- funny how they keep coming up) that I'm starting to believe that this nonsense is purposefully being perpetuated for some reason unknown to me. From lines saying formula fed babies grow up with more obesity problems, or allergies, or get overbites, or ADD, or any number of cancers, to accusations that not breast feeding makes you a bad parent and will cause your child to grow up to be a criminal or serial murderer or something... Who comes UP with this stuff??

Just from my own personal observation (which is nothing scientific mind you), there doesn't seem to be any huge difference between breast feeding and formula feeding. If there's anyone around who has access to credible information showing otherwise, I'd be quite interested to read it.

Yeah, that must be really annoying - the least he could have done is be plagued by allergies.

Linda

I know! Darn him for being so perfectly healthy!

 

[tesscaline]

It's good to know that there is real science behind the breastfeeding, and it is quite interesting to think that the intestines are permeable(active or passive) to these large proteins. I should do a bit more reading. I wonder what mechanism deactivates this permeability. Perhaps it's related to the mechanism that makes it difficult for babies to breastfeed after being on bottle...

Contgrats to Rocko!

From what I've been told by doctors: The thing that makes it difficult for a baby to breast feed after being on a bottle for a long period of time has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with the mechanics and psychology of the two processes.

Bottles are MUCH easier to suck from, requiring less effort on the part of the baby, as well as using slightly different facial muscles. After a while of being on a bottle, breast feeding becomes infinitely more difficult (due to lack of proper muscle tone), and the baby tires out after a shorter feeding time -- if they're even willing to exert the effort to try in the first place.

Also, the shape and feel of plastic/rubber/silicone nipples are different. Once a baby gets used to the idea that their food comes from one of these types of nipples, and you place a real nipple in their mouth, they don't make the connection that food can come from there as well, so spit it out or just mouth on it a bit trying to figure out what exactly it is.

Again -- this is what I was told by doctors (and nurses, and midwives), so it might not be an accurate representation of what actually goes on.

 

[dahduh]

The best advice I ever got on breastfeeding was from my maths teacher when I was in high-school. "Boys," he said - this was an all-boys school - "when you get married and have kids, _insist_ that you wife breast-feed." We looked at him wide-eyed, until there came the inevitable question, Why?

"Because," he explained, "if you do not then _you_ will be the one getting up at 2 o'clock in the morning."

Which is a good enough reason for me. So guys, shut up about all the woo already and work with us.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Currently, I live in a large metropolitan area where most women work full time, if not two jobs, so breast-feeding isn't always an option (If you have to choose between formula and a roof over your head, its a pretty clear decision imo). That being the case, it really didn't seem like such an odd question to me, because people are trying to figure out if the benefits outweigh the financial consequences.

In instances where breastfeeding cannot continue (for whatever reason), it's probably beneficial if the newborn gets the first few weeks of breast milk ("colostrum"), and is then switched to formula. I know you're not suggesting that most mothers have a baby then go back to work the next day. Most employers, required to comply with the FMLA (at least in the U.S.), don't expect this. A good compromise is breast then formula.

And while the benefits of breast feeding are well-established, the so-called "detriments" of using formula don't seem to be. I've heard so many stories about all the bad things that happen as a result of formula feeding (especially from La Leche League -- funny how they keep coming up) that I'm starting to believe that this nonsense is purposefully being perpetuated for some reason unknown to me. From lines saying formula fed babies grow up with more obesity problems, or allergies, or get overbites, or ADD, or any number of cancers, to accusations that not breast feeding makes you a bad parent and will cause your child to grow up to be a criminal or serial murderer or something... Who comes UP with this stuff??

Well, your reductio ad absurdum exagerrations aside, there are studies that show the tendency to "overfeed" infants when given formula. We've already discussed the benefits of getting IgA in colostrum. So, it's not nonsense, per se.

As far as "who comes up with this stuff", it is many researchers across multiple disciplines including dieticians, advanced practice nurses, pediatricians, and concerned parent groups. While "LaLeche" may be the PeTA of breastfeeding, don't miss the message for the messenger.

Just from my own personal observation (which is nothing scientific mind you), there doesn't seem to be any huge difference between breast feeding and formula feeding. If there's anyone around who has access to credible information showing otherwise, I'd be quite interested to read it.

I know! Darn him for being so perfectly healthy!

There are numerous longitudinal studies that have been done comparing exactly this. There are also copious review articles that cover the topic. As a primer, I suggest this:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/115/2/496

~Dr. Imago

 

[tesscaline]

In instances where breastfeeding cannot continue (for whatever reason), it's probably beneficial if the newborn gets the first few weeks of breast milk ("colostrum"), and is then switched to formula. I know you're not suggesting that most mothers have a baby then go back to work the next day. Most employers, required to comply with the FMLA (at least in the U.S.), don't expect this. A good compromise is breast then formula.



Well, your reductio ad absurdum exagerrations aside, there are studies that show the tendency to "overfeed" infants when given formula. We've already discussed the benefits of getting IgA in colostrum. So, it's not nonsense, per se.

As far as "who comes up with this stuff", it is many researchers across multiple disciplines including dieticians, advanced practice nurses, pediatricians, and concerned parent groups. While "LaLeche" may be the PeTA of breastfeeding, don't miss the message for the messenger.

There are numerous longitudinal studies that have been done comparing exactly this. There are also copious review articles that cover the topic. As a primer, I suggest this:

~Dr. Imago

While I appreciate your view on what a working mother goes through, decision wise, about breast feeding, I think that perhaps you aren't aware of the harsh realities of life for those in very low economic standing. While FMLA and employers are willing to let someone take time off, there are many who cannot afford to do it, and even those who are not covered by governmental programs due to immigration status (i.e. they are here illegally, working cash in hand jobs or other under the table types of situations). That subject, however, is markedly off topic, so I won't delve further into it.

I do appreciate your pointing at something with a scientific background in regards to the benefits of breast feeding.

I would, however, like to point out that the exaggerations were not mine, but were instead things that were actually told to me by breast feeding activists. I have not presented them much out of context here. These people believed, literally, that not breast feeding was the one and only direct cause of various ailments, from something as small as being allergic to cats to something as huge as becoming a serial killer.

I did not claim that formula is better than breast feeding. Nor did I claim that breast feeding is better than formula. I objected to the berating and abuse of mothers who cannot breast feed, especially when that berating and abuse is based on the aforementioned "reductio ad absurdum."

I do view the idea that breast feeding is the ONLY factor in any of these maladies to be complete and utter woo. There is far too much genetic and psychological research to contradict it.

 

[joobz]

I would, however, like to point out that the exaggerations were not mine, but were instead things that were actually told to me by breast feeding activists. I have not presented them much out of context here. These people believed, literally, that not breast feeding was the one and only direct cause of various ailments, from something as small as being allergic to cats to something as huge as becoming a serial killer.

I did not claim that formula is better than breast feeding. Nor did I claim that breast feeding is better than formula. I objected to the berating and abuse of mothers who cannot breast feed, especially when that berating and abuse is based on the aforementioned "reductio ad absurdum."

I simply want to back you up on this.

Having being (extremely recently) through our hospital's birthing system, I can say that the environment is as skeptichick describes. I agree we shouldn't let the message be ignored because of the messenger, but we should also be aware of the negative messages that are being sent to mothers who cannot breast feed.

 

[fls]

Currently, I live in a large metropolitan area where most women work full time, if not two jobs, so breast-feeding isn't always an option (If you have to choose between formula and a roof over your head, its a pretty clear decision imo). That being the case, it really didn't seem like such an odd question to me, because people are trying to figure out if the benefits outweigh the financial consequences.

Of course other factors may come in to play, but I just wanted to point out that working full time does not prevent you from feeding your baby breastmilk.

Linda

 

[tesscaline]

Of course other factors may come in to play, but I just wanted to point out that working full time does not prevent you from feeding your baby breastmilk.

Linda

No where did I say that working full time necessarily precluded feeding a baby breast milk. I merely pointed out that there are choices that need to be weighed in making a decision, especially for those living in less than ideal economic situations.

 

[fls]

No where did I say that working full time necessarily precluded feeding a baby breast milk. I merely pointed out that there are choices that need to be weighed in making a decision, especially for those living in less than ideal economic situations.

When you said this:

Currently, I live in a large metropolitan area where most women work full time, if not two jobs, so breast-feeding isn't always an option

it looked like you were saying breast-feeding isn't always an option because of full time work. I'm not sure what you intended, I just didn't want to leave the impression that working and breast-feeding were incompatible (or that breast-feeding is economically unfeasible?) for others considering the matter.

Linda

 

[devnull]

more effective uterine contraction

You aint kidding. My missus had what we were calling "retractions" (as opposed to contractions I guess ) with our recent 3rd child..... it was like a switch - as soon as she started breast feeding, her uterus would spasm...... very strange to watch

All my kids are breastfed (1st was breastfed for 2.5 years, 2nd was just over 2 years, 3rd is 5 weeks old) and Im very grateful for it.

 

[tesscaline]

When you said this:



it looked like you were saying breast-feeding isn't always an option because of full time work. I'm not sure what you intended, I just didn't want to leave the impression that working and breast-feeding were incompatible (or that breast-feeding is economically unfeasible?) for others considering the matter.

Linda

Except that sometimes, they aren't compatible.

For the person who works a desk job, where there's a staff lounge and a refrigerator, it may be perfectly feasible to pump during breaks and keep the milk for later. My step mother did this when she had my half brother.

For the person who works on a construction site, where there is no access to refrigeration, it may not be feasible without considerable investment in special storage options.

For the person who works two jobs, both of them in a setting with no access to refrigeration, it is more than likely not feasible at all.

I'm not saying that working full time necessarily precludes feeding with breast milk. I'm saying that when one works full time or more than full time, it isn't always something that can be done. Anyone who has read anything else into the statement I've made has either added in assumptions that I didn't put forth, or neglected to take into account the qualifiers I purposefully used in my statements to negate them being taken as a universal or over-generalization.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

At the risk of being considered a complete Square, I have to jump in and ask, If you need to work "more than full time" at two jobs, why are you having kids now? One of the reasons I only have one child is that I had to wait until my life was fiscally and emotionally stable enough for me to provide a good environment and reasonable maternal attention to my baby. And if you have the first one at 39, more are not happening--at least, not in my case.

This is not to say that situations don't sometimes occur where a woman becomes a mother and having to work crazy hours to make ends meet. But it is amazing to me to see people who literally are living paycheck to paycheck as a couple--no savings, minimal insurance, buying stuff on credit--decide that it's time to start a family.

It's hard for the audience of this Forum to relate, because we're generally more educated and more socially liberal than Middle America, but a lot of women in this country still think that formula is as good or better for the baby than breastmilk. I think the hospital campaign to push breastfeeding is trying to overcome the pressure from Mom and Grandma to "give the baby a better start" by feeding formula. Having said that, I have to also say that I think there is a certain amount of 'guilt-trip' imposed on educated middleclass women who choose to bottle-feed. But I'm not sure how you make the message loud enough, clear enough, and frequent enough to connect with the target audience, and not have it feel like attempted brainwashing by people educated and with-it enough to grasp the point the first or second time it is presented.

Also, not to put intentions in anyone's pamphlet or poster, but Breastfeeding Ain't Fun--at least, not initially--and there may be an attempt to use positive reinforcement from the lactation counselor and social guilt from the pamphlets as the carrot and stick to encourage the new Mom through the first two weeks of adjustment.

I had a premature, low birthweight infant (4 lb 7 oz at 36 weeks) and I was terrified she wouldn't be able to nurse. (The benefits of breastmilk for a preterm baby are especially nice, since the content of the milk works with their less-developed digestive system.) My fears were allayed when, on Day 3, the lactation counselor visited our room, watched a feeding and opined, "Well, you shouldn't have any trouble with that barracuda." Other than pumping so that we could use a syringe and tube to supplement so that we could prove how much she was getting for the first week, we went totally with nursed breastmilk for months, and I can attest that "let down" is a great aid to maternal sanity. (Heck, if they could bottle that hormone, we wouldn't need antidepressants.)

So, to echo what a number of posters have said: There will be some ignorant promoters of the benefits, but if you can reasonably breastfeed, do it. After all, there are people who are True Believers in any number of reasonable positions (global warming, benefits of recycling, vaccination) because they don't understand the reasons Why, they just have been told by people they trust that these are Good Things. That doesn't mean the ideas are bad--but it does mean that the person promoting them can't defend their opinion, because it's just a Belief.

congrats on the new one! Miss Kitt

 

[GreyICE]

This was exactly my point. I was not at all opposed to breastfeeding and my wife was planning on it for simply the savings on formula. But the laundry list of benefits touted by all of the nurses who came through our doors, all the fliers, all the posters.... it became creepy. When asked for a little more information regarding the mechanism, they would simply say "well, it has antibodies..." I couldn't help be reminded of the movie, idiocracy, "It's got electrolytes.'

Also, the attitude of the staff made me completely understand the guilt that familys, who didn't want to breastfeed or couldn't, felt. I know women who just didn't like the idea of breastfeeding and formula fed doesn't mean malnourished.


It's good to know that there is real science behind the breastfeeding, and it is quite interesting to think that the intestines are permeable(active or passive) to these large proteins. I should do a bit more reading. I wonder what mechanism deactivates this permeability. Perhaps it's related to the mechanism that makes it difficult for babies to breastfeed after being on bottle...

Contgrats to Rocko!

The sad fact of the matter is that frankly, the best answer we have is "well, it has antibodies." Doing a chemical analysis on breast milk is reasonably easy. You do a chemical analysis, make a formula that's identical, and it's formula.

It doesn't work as well.

No, we don't know why, yes, it's somewhat frustrating. I've seen no research that has any particular mechanism for this working.

The fact of the matter is, statistically, it has to be working. Best thoughts are basically the mother's body changes the milk as the baby is maturing to better suit the needs of the baby (chemically, this is going on). It appears there's some general feedback mechanism going on there (that or the body is just estimating things pretty well).

It's not surprising this feature of our body is reasonably well evolved, since obviously infant health is one of those characteristics that kicks evolution into high gear.

 

[tesscaline]

At the risk of being considered a complete Square, I have to jump in and ask, If you need to work "more than full time" at two jobs, why are you having kids now? One of the reasons I only have one child is that I had to wait until my life was fiscally and emotionally stable enough for me to provide a good environment and reasonable maternal attention to my baby. And if you have the first one at 39, more are not happening--at least, not in my case.

This is not to say that situations don't sometimes occur where a woman becomes a mother and having to work crazy hours to make ends meet. But it is amazing to me to see people who literally are living paycheck to paycheck as a couple--no savings, minimal insurance, buying stuff on credit--decide that it's time to start a family.

I really didn't delve too deeply into that particular subject because it's quite off topic for the thread, but, since it was brought up:

While I agree that it's not the smartest thing to do (starting a family, or even adding to an existing family) when one is in dire financial straits, the reality of life is that most people do not plan their children. I certainly didn't plan mine, nor did the majority of mothers I know. There are quite a few of us who were told by doctors that we couldn't get pregnant, and guess what? The doctor was wrong. There are also quite a few for whom birth control did not work as advertised. Then there are those who refrain from chemical or barrier forms of control due to religious beliefs -- those same religious beliefs also preclude denying their husbands, by the way -- or allergic reaction (latex allergies, for example). Then there are those who were the victim of sexual assault. And then, there are those who are young and stupid and think "oh, it couldn't happen to me."

All of the above is really pointless when it comes to the discussion in this thread: breast feeding and the woo that may or may not surround it.

It's hard for the audience of this Forum to relate, because we're generally more educated and more socially liberal than Middle America, but a lot of women in this country still think that formula is as good or better for the baby than breastmilk. I think the hospital campaign to push breastfeeding is trying to overcome the pressure from Mom and Grandma to "give the baby a better start" by feeding formula. Having said that, I have to also say that I think there is a certain amount of 'guilt-trip' imposed on educated middleclass women who choose to bottle-feed. But I'm not sure how you make the message loud enough, clear enough, and frequent enough to connect with the target audience, and not have it feel like attempted brainwashing by people educated and with-it enough to grasp the point the first or second time it is presented.

Also, not to put intentions in anyone's pamphlet or poster, but Breastfeeding Ain't Fun--at least, not initially--and there may be an attempt to use positive reinforcement from the lactation counselor and social guilt from the pamphlets as the carrot and stick to encourage the new Mom through the first two weeks of adjustment.

Encouragement is good. Brow-beating, berating, and abuse in the hopes of guilt-tripping someone into doing something, no matter how beneficial, is not. I strongly object to such a tactic as people don't seem to discriminate appropriately between those who are deserving of it (i.e. those who are just being lazy and don't care for the well-being of their child) and those who are not (those of us who have valid reasons to not breast feed, be it physiological or otherwise). Not to mention that beating someone over the head with how bad they are for not doing something doesn't actually encourage them to do it. It just alienates them and makes them avoid everything you have to say -- even the good things.

Using scare tactics is even worse, as all that does is promote more woo and rumor-mongering instead of actual education, and give the thing being promoted a bad name. And I really don't think anyone wants something as beneficial as breast feeding to be given a bad name, right?

 

[fls]

Except that sometimes, they aren't compatible.

For the person who works a desk job, where there's a staff lounge and a refrigerator, it may be perfectly feasible to pump during breaks and keep the milk for later. My step mother did this when she had my half brother.

For the person who works on a construction site, where there is no access to refrigeration, it may not be feasible without considerable investment in special storage options.

For the person who works two jobs, both of them in a setting with no access to refrigeration, it is more than likely not feasible at all.

I'm not saying that working full time necessarily precludes feeding with breast milk. I'm saying that when one works full time or more than full time, it isn't always something that can be done. Anyone who has read anything else into the statement I've made has either added in assumptions that I didn't put forth, or neglected to take into account the qualifiers I purposefully used in my statements to negate them being taken as a universal or over-generalization.

I thought that I had said in my posts that I understood there were other factors. If I did not make that clear, let me assure you that I got the point that not every mother who works will be able to continue providing breastmilk the first time you said it. As you point out above, whether or not someone is working and the length of time they work isn't really the issue. It's whether they have a place to stow their stuff and access to a reasonably clean and private area to express their milk (a cooler and ice packs substitute for refrigeration) - something that is available on many jobs.

Linda