How Breastfeeding Works

When did mothers stop mattering?

As I ponder the opening heading I’ve given this post, I wonder – did they ever matter?  And yes, I rather think they did.  There are ancient symbols of fertile womanhood across the world, bellies and breasts heavily in evidence.

Mother Earth, Mother Nature, mother goddesses – all significant throughout the ages.  But now?  Mothers are a nuisance.  Either they want to stay at home (unproductive, drain on the economy, selfish) or they return to work (maternity leave/pay, cost of employing replacement cover, part time working, family-friendly, flexible hours, selfish) – either way, someone will criticise them for their “choice” (despite it often not being a choice – either the cost of childcare is prohibitive, so women stay at home, or the cost of living is too high, so women use grandparent care and return to their jobs for more hours than they may ideally want to work).

It has been said that a mother’s place is in the wrong…

When does this start?  Surely the people who are doing the sneering at mothers have their own experience of being mothered to draw from?  Why don’t mothers matter more to our society?  It starts around birth, the very time that a woman becomes a mother.  How many times have we heard, “Nothing else matters, so long as the baby’s healthy”?  Really?  Nothing?  NOTHING?  What about the person who is going to look after that healthy baby?  Does she not matter a jot?  Her feelings, her thoughts, her wants, hopes, needs, desires – they don’t matter at all, so long as the baby is in full working order?

Are we quite sure about that?

Of course, everybody wants the baby to be healthy – to say otherwise would be crazy.  But for how long is the baby going to maintain that optimum health if the mother’s broken by her birth experience, or overwhelmed by becoming solely responsible for a newborn, left to cope alone, told that how she feels doesn’t matter, because she “has a healthy baby and that’s ALL that matters”.

Throughout pregnancy, women are told to breastfeed.  It is, after all, “best”.  But try asking for help once you’ve had your baby and there’s a fair chance you’ll be told that you’ve given it your best shot, not many women manage to breastfeed and that formula “isn’t poison” so don’t worry about it.  The underlying message is “breastfeeding is great if you’re lucky and it works, but generally it’s too difficult, so stop making a fuss and crack open the formula”.  So not only do you not matter, because your baby’s healthy, but you’re not lucky either, because breastfeeding didn’t work for you.

But don’t worry, because someone will be along to squeak “happy mum = happy baby” at you any moment now.  And, yeah, given that you don’t matter and you’re not lucky, now you must be “happy” because otherwise your baby won’t be.  No pressure, then.  Just the current and future wellbeing of your baby’s mental health.  At the expense of your own, quite possibly.  I’d like to spend a bit of time unpicking that one, because I think that whilst it sounds supportive and comforting, it is actually a disempowering, negative phrase which should be stomped upon until it smashes to pieces.  Ahem.

Why do you think that?  It sounds reasonable enough!  Don’t we want mums to be happy now?

Well, therein lies the crux of it.  To disagree with the statement makes it seem like breastfeeding is more important than a mother’s happiness.  And I absolutely don’t believe that at all.  However, what I do believe is that the answer to breastfeeding not working out is not necessarily to stop breastfeeding.  Yes, of course, for some women, stopping breastfeeding will be right.  That is absolutely their choice and I am absolutely not arguing with that or going to reel off list upon list of facts and statistics to make them change their mind, because all that does is make them hate me.  Hardly the way to keep the dialogue going!

But for the woman who wants to continue to breastfeed?

Is stopping and giving formula and telling her not to feel guilty going to be the best thing for her?  She’s spent her pregnancy imagining mothering includes breastfeeding.  She visualised holding her baby close and nursing.  She’s bought breastpads, dammit, and she wants her breasts to see active nutritional service!  She has perhaps learnt the facts and statistics off by heart, she is desperate to breastfeed.  And yet it is Just Not Working, for whatever reason.  And she is sad about it – grieving, perhaps.

Is the best thing to tell her that she should stop doing what she wants to do, what she’s imagined herself doing, give formula and – above all – be happy about it?  Really?

Or should we help her to fix breastfeeding or, possibly, if for whatever reason that isn’t possible (and it isn’t always) to come to terms with not breastfeeding, gently and sensitively and, above all, kindly?  I think you know what my preference is…

And how do we make mothers matter more?

We could start by not attacking each other, by not criticising each other’s choices (because they’re often far from freely made and there’s often a lot of soul-destroying guilt bound up in them), by being more supportive – but not in a passive, patronising way.  Because trilling “happy mum = happy baby” at each other, when inside we’re sad, we’re desperate for someone to listen non-judgementally, to help us in practical, useful ways – well, at best, it’s thoughtless.

So, how do we help each other proactively?

Support the women who want to breastfeed (and most do) by finding them useful, relevant information about breastfeeding – and encourage them to breastfeed.  Don’t just say, “Aw, you gave it your best shot, hun, formula isn’t poison” – because then the woman who is desperate to breastfeed is also going to have to be thinking of non-upsetting ways to scream, “I know it isn’t poison, but I don’t want to give it to my baby, because I want – I NEED – to breastfeed!” at someone who means well, but who isn’t helping.

And challenge people when they say that all that matters is that the baby’s healthy.  It’s a meaningless, trite, pointless statement and it undermines the importance of having a healthy, happy mother in that baby’s life.  Of course we all want all babies to be healthy – who wouldn’t?  But the standard for good maternity care for mothers isn’t “You’re not dead”.  Mothers matter.  Let’s shout about it.

Because happy mum = better society.  And then we all benefit, babies included.

Filed under: breastfeeding promotion, Discussion, Feelings about breastfeeding | 13 Comments »

I’ve written before about how important it is to be careful whose advice you trust with regard to all things baby related and nowhere is that more important than with breastfeeding, where the experts range from the hugely experienced and (and this is the important bit) up-to-date and qualified, to those who seemingly simply have a good agent.  I’ll leave it to you to decide where the people I’m about to talk about fit into that spectrum.

Last Friday, I went with Mars Lord, doula extraordinaire, to The Baby Show.  When you go anywhere with Mars, not only are you guaranteed to have a wonderful day, you are also very likely to have the privilege of hearing her talking to some of the many women who have had the pleasure of having her as their doula.  Some of them have just had their babies, some have older babies or toddlers – but all rely on Mars to be the voice of reason.  Always she offers non-judgemental wisdom, always she keeps the feelings and instincts of the mother and the baby/babies at the heart of what she says.  She leaves these women feeling empowered, capable, confident, happy with their decisions and reassured that their instincts are sound.

She said something during the course of the day that I think is absolutely key to this baby-rearing malarkey.  When talking about when a baby “should” sleep through, she said that all babies reach the same point eventually.  You can either scream them there or love them there.

I’d like you to keep that in mind as you read the rest of this piece (actually, I’d like you to keep it in mind forever).

What was The Baby Show like?

I find it difficult to be wholly positive about events such as The Baby Show.  On the one hand, there are some really very good exhibitors there who make products that are excellent and are happy to take on board constructive feedback (for instance, regarding idealising bottlefeeding by using bottles and teats in the promotion of their unrelated products, particularly changing bags).  On the other hand, people are paying a not inconsiderable sum to see exhibitors who have paid for the privilege of putting their products on display – and to have one-to-one pitches from sales people who know that they can say pretty much whatever they like, unmonitored and unreported, to parents-to-be who are looking for information.

For instance, we overheard a well-known bottle and teat manufacturer rep saying that their breast pump wouldn’t “tear your nipple to shreds” (the implication being “like a baby will”).  And a woman selling her changing bags there told us that the two insulated pockets for bottles were “essential”.  When asked why we’d need them, she said, “Well, how else are you going to feed your baby?”.  How indeed…

There were some excellent exhibitors.  Special mention for Lollipop nappies, Baby Blooms, Miracle and Sugarjack who were among the best (and I admit to being utterly biased where Baby Blooms are concerned, having received one of their gorgeous bouquets after I had my younger son!  How lovely to meet them in person and find out they are just as divine in the flesh!).

Anyway, after that rather nice digression, Mars and I found ourselves in the front row of chairs in front of The Baby Show stage.  We were not expecting to hear much that impressed us and we weren’t disappointed…

Who was speaking?

Clare Byam-Cook.  I’d seen her on television a few times (notably recently on the Vanessa show on Five – for a transcript, see the discussion page of Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths on Facebook), read various things about her, skimmed her books in book shops and, to be frank, I was expecting myths with just enough substance to be plausible to those who weren’t already pretty well informed.

Were you disappointed?

No.  And yes.  Not disappointed because what I expected was what I got.  And yes because, really, is this level of “information” the best that we can offer to pregnant women at a nationally advertised and attended baby event?  Really?  Sheesh!

What do you mean?

Clare Byam-Cook’s “no-nonsense” style has won her fans across the celebrity sphere.  Lucy Piper, the little blonde poppet who was presenting these segments on stage (an earlier one from Plum Baby talked about weaning from 17 weeks – did I already “sheesh”?  I may need to again before the end of this piece, just to warn you…) looked harmless enough, but dig a bit deeper and you’ll find her promoting Nestle-made Kitkats and, as the presentation went on, it transpired that she was an ex client of CBC.  CBC was introduced as having helped “many celebrities”, including Autumn Phillips most recently, with the implication that if slebs and <gasp> ROYALTY trust her, us mere mortals would do well to listen up and listen well.  So I did and…

I took notes throughout, though I confess to being slack-jawed in amazed horror at times, so I may not have taken down every single point – but here are some of the “high”lights:

1. (when talking about a woman who has large breasts with flatter nipples) “You would have to have given birth to a baby alligator to latch her on.”
2. “Shove her on.”
3. “If that feed lasts her three or four hours, she’s getting enough milk.”
4. “The pump will show that she’s not got enough milk.”
5. “Babies are like small toddlers.  If you give her a good feed, she should go three to four hours.”
6. “In the early days, time feeds.” (then ensued a convoluted explanation of timing how long to feed for, based upon how long the baby will sleep between feeds – Reader, I’m afraid she lost me!)
7. “Every breastfeeding mothers should use…sorry, should have a breast pump.”
8. “There are loads of pumps available here.”
9. “I discuss all the brands and which is best in my books.”
10. “I love Medela breast shields.”
11. If I could line up 20 breastfeeding mothers and have them hooked up to breast pumps, one would fill a bottle in no time, another would take an hour to produce the same volume and another would never produce more than a few drops.  That mother will never produce enough milk. (this is a precis of what CBC said, not a direct quote)

Two things that she got ticks for, from Mars and me.  Lucy Piper asked if you should continue to breastfeed if you have mastitis and CBC said yes.  And when asked about growth spurts, CBC said you should give yourself a chance to rest and feed.

But as to the other things she said?  Did she mention the importance of skin-to-skin?  No.  Of being close to your baby, learning her feeding cues, that crying was a late indicator of hunger?  No.  How about that breastfeeding is about more than milk transfer, it’s about bonding, love, security?  No.  Instead, there was a lot about the importance of the baby being “in her own bed” and how she would be happy to be there, if she’d had a good feed and the mother was producing enough milk.  The separation of mother and baby was emphasised both explicitly and implicitly with references to sleeping separately throughout, the absolute necessity of using a breast pump, getting someone else to give a bottle and even the use of breast shields.

Let’s examine some of the things she said in more detail:

1. This is pretty much what she said on Vanessa: ”if you have huge breasts and you’ve given birth to a mini alligator, breastfeeding is quite easy, but if you have a normal little baby it can be quite tricky.”  I didn’t agree with it then, I don’t now.  Why not?  Alligators have long, snouty noses, wholly inappropriate for latching onto a breast of any dimension.  The image of a baby biting their way onto the breast leaps out of this sentence.  Alligators are also REPTILES and hatch out of eggs, just like human babies don’t, so obviously a natural choice to use as an image of good breastfeeders…
2. She talks about “shoving” babies on rather a lot – a great deal of her language is violent and distant – and babies who are “shoved” onto the breast, perhaps especially those who have been forceps deliveries, are often not keen at all to breastfeed.  Biological nurturing positions and breast crawl weren’t mentioned; indeed, CBC said something about the baby never going to latch on by themselves.
3. Some babies do indeed go three or four hours between feeds, though it is likely to be between SOME feeds, not all, especially in the early days.  They may fall into a regular pattern very quickly.  This is normal for them.  Other babies feed far more frequently and erratically – this is normal for them.  BOTH patterns are fine, as is everything in between, so long as the baby is latching well and taking milk at each feed.  There is a wonderful diagram of Baby Connie’s feeding patterns on the Breastfeeding Network site, which is incredibly reassuring for anyone concerned that their baby isn’t automatically in some Truby King style routine (NB other strident, routine-based self-proclaimed baby gurus are available).
4. No, the pump will show that the breast pump isn’t necessarily as effective as getting milk from a breast as a well-latched baby.  I’ve known women who never could express a drop successfully breastfeed twins.  And why a pump, anyway?  No mention of hand expressing in the entire talk.  But I guess you already own your hands and they can’t sponsor anybody, so…
5. Babies aren’t like small toddlers.  They are like babies.  You can tell, because they’re called “babies”.  They grow into toddlers, true, but this comparison is like calling toddlers small adults.  Anyway, anyone who’s owned a toddler themselves will know that a comparison with a puppy is probably a more accurate one!
6. Time feeds.  Or, you know…don’t.  Breastfeeding infuriates people of a certain type because the exact nature of the relationship that develops is so woman/baby-specific.  Books and health visitors that talk about strict routines don’t like that, because you can’t tell them (and they can’t, therefore, tell you) how many ounces your baby should be having.  Hence the timing feeds thing, I reckon.  Don’t you?
7. Freudian slip though it may have been, I think it very telling that CBC laid it on so thick about having a breast pump.  She recommended buying one before the baby was born, so that you have it in the middle of the night and can get used to assembling it (but then said if you keep the receipt, they’ll take it back if you don’t use it – really?  After it’s been unpacked and test assembled?  Really, really?).  Also, I think that shops are likely to still exist once you’ve had your baby, so wait and see how you go.
8. Yes, there are loads of pumps available at The Baby Show.  Feel free to mention it several times in the course of half an hour…
9. Perhaps the reason for Clare Byam-Cook’s nickname of “Clare Buy-my-Book”?  It felt like a chat show appearance by an eager Z-list sleb (oh, hang on…).
10. Medela.  The WHO Code-breakers. Of course.
11. I’m not sure there are words to discuss some sort of Britain’s Got Talent style demonstration of milking women on stage.  Suffice to say, “What the frell?!”.  Oh, and perhaps I’d better throw in a “Sheesh!” for good measure.  What purpose would this serve?  Yes, perhaps you’d demonstrate that some women express more milk than others – big whoop.  As I’ve already said, it’s perfectly possible for a woman to produce plenty of milk without being able to express a drop.

She also talked about how nipple confusion doesn’t exist (when a baby finds it hard to swap between breast and bottle).  I wonder whether this is why so many of the bottle manufacturers lay it on thick about their teats making it so easy to switch between bottle and breast?  Hmm?

And she also made much of shaping your breast to fit it into your baby’s mouth, something that can cause a baby with a small mouth to slide down and suck on and then damage the nipple.  Better is the flipple technique (something I did with the boys, quite without knowing it was called the “flipple”, I must say!).

I was interested to see that CBC often uses the phrase, “Breast is best” – something that has fallen way out of favour with many, many others (including myself) who care about good breastfeeding support.  As I said in my last piece, it sets a standard and doesn’t help anyone to attain it.  It is a meaningless phrase.  Breast is normal, the default way to feed a baby – there’s nothing “best” about it, it is simply ordinary.

What were your conclusions?

Women who’d sat through this would believe that if their baby wanted to feed more often than three or four hourly, there was something wrong with their breastfeeding - probably lack of milk.  CBC spent a lot of her time talking about how many women she sees who don’t have enough milk; the effect of feeding three or four hourly from the off?  I couldn’t possibly say, having not seen the women in question, but it seems very likely.  Babies need feeding frequently in the early weeks, to ensure that the cells that make milk realise that that’s what they need to be doing and don’t go, “Er, right, chaps, no call for us, we’ll be off then” – which is what they often do when you supplement with formula or try to over-space feeds by use of a dummy or similar.

Clare Byam-Cook referenced her books at least three times during the course of the presentation and said that she discusses all the brands “and which is best” in them.  It is at this point that I could link to her books on Amazon, but I can’t bring myself to (even though if you clicked through and bought them from Amazon, you’d be tossing a few coppers in the HBFW coffers!) – instead, I will link to several books that you’d be FAR better reading for insight, information and, above all, a knowledgeable perspective on all things breastfeeding and attachment.

If anybody’s looking to book a breastfeeding expert for an event, please look beyond, “Who’s that woman Vanessa used?  Book her, then we’ll go for a coffee” – there are people with actual up-to-date qualifications who know about breastfeeding out there.  Loads of them.  Please use a bit of creativity and find some of them.  In fact, have a look here.

And a breast pump isn’t a necessary part of breastfeeding.  Use one by all means if it makes your life easier, but don’t imagine for one moment that it’s an essential piece of baby kit.  And remember who needs shoving – I’ll give you a clue, it’s not your alligator.

Filed under: Breastfeeding celebrities, Breastfeeding in the media, breastfeeding promotion, Discussion, Feelings about breastfeeding | 13 Comments »

Whenever there is a story in the media about breastfeeding, the facts are reported, along with a rather unhealthy dose of myth and misinformation.

Soon after, opinion pieces spring up, occasionally positive, like the previously referenced one by Joanna Moorhead, but more often than not, ones like this by Barbara Ellen.  Off the top of my head, I can think of several and I know there are squillions more. For instance, this one from India Knight, this by Helen Rumbelow and this by Daisy Goodwin.

They all share a common theme.  They are all ANGRY.  Really very angry.  That anger manifests in various ways – sarcasm, outright attack, name-calling…  And it is this anger and the name-calling to which it leads that I would like to focus upon.  Because there is a tendency for it to get rather out of hand.

Let’s consider this: the topic of the debate is “getting milk into babies”.  That’s it – simples, as the meerkat would say.  But, whilst meerkats would likely just get on with it, we have to contend with decades of marketing, misinformation and myth, which have all had an impact on how we go about this nutrition transfer.

So, why the anger?  And to what names am I referring?

I believe this anger has several causes.  To begin with, we are told “breast is best” (or, at least,we think we have been – though that slogan hasn’t been used officially much lately, if at all, largely because it is unhelpful and patronising).  And then we are often not supported very well to breastfeed once we’ve had our babies.  Meanwhile, we are subject to very heavy marketing and societal expectation that breastfeeding is hard to do, that breastmilk isn’t that much different from formula, that you necessarily “move on” from breastfeeding when your baby is still relatively young and that successful breastfeeding is the preserve of the hairy-legged lentil-weaving hippy, who also happens to be smug and judgemental to boot.  So we are set up to fail, but if we manage to breastfeed and dare to talk about it, we are sneered at.  Anyone enjoying themselves yet?!

What is so upsetting to those who promote, educate, inform, but above all support women to breastfeed is that the opinion pieces are so often hefty digs at people who are doing that same job.  So you’ll hear of a rogue breastfeeding counsellor who was judgemental, called formula “poison” or somesuch – but dig a bit deeper and generally it wasn’t a breastfeeding counsellor as trained by the NCT, BfN, LLL or ABM, it was a healthcare assistant on the ward, a GP, or the milkman.  Occasionally it was a fully-trained counsellor – in which case, complain to the organisation who provided them and they can have some retraining (or a boot up the backside, or both).  Or complain to the hospital – bad breastfeeding advice won’t get better without intervention, after all.

Now to the names that women (and it usually is women, though the inimitable Mike Brady and the divine Dr Jack Newman are men who do amazing work) who support breastfeeding are called…  Some that I have heard (and I am sure that you will have others) are:

• Breastapo
• breastfeeding mafia
• breastfeeding Nazi
• nipple police

and, of course, smug, judgemental, holier-than-thou, snooty, etc, etc, etc.

Reasonable?

When we think about feeding milk to babies, is it appropriate to use language from the Holocaust, or from mob warfare?  Really?  And, if so (it’s not, by the way, but bear with me…), why don’t we talk about the formula mafia – the people who:

• bang on about getting your baby to take a bottle
• tell you you are making a rod for your back by pandering to that baby
• say it’s “child abuse” to breastfeed past whatever age they think is the right one at which to stop (this can range from three weeks to three years)
• talk about how “women like that” (ie breastfeeding mothers) just “enjoy flashing their boobs”
• tell you that you’re only doing it for you (the implication being that you breastfeed for the sexual thrill)
• pronounce that your child will be clingy, decayed of tooth, slow to talk, never sleep through, etc, etc – dreadful, doom-laden prophecies that come not from experience, but from prejudice

Because that’s it, isn’t it?  It’s prejudice.  It’s not great swathes of experience, because there simply aren’t enough women in the UK who have breastfed for any length of time, certainly not a generation older than the one currently having babies.  Don’t get me wrong, there are many, many wonderful supporters of breastfeeding out there, working in or alongside the health service, or as grandparents, aunts, etc – but the general level of knowledge about breastfeeding in society is pretty sketchy (and when there are so many newspapers and magazines publishing dreadfully ill-informed articles and cathartic (for the author) opinion pieces about how terrible breastfeeding is, is that any wonder?).

So why don’t we talk about the formula police, the formula mafia, the bottle Nazis?  Perhaps people do – I haven’t come across it, but that’s not to say it hasn’t happened (and I have heard smug, judgy unkindnesses from people who breastfeed too – but I simply assume that they’d be smug, judgy and unkind whether their breasts had seen active service or not; I don’t take them seriously, except to say, “Oi, judgy-smugger, NO!”).  But I don’t know – I’d be interested to hear what you think, actually.  And please don’t think I’m suggesting we start calling women who feed their babies formula vile names either!

Doesn’t promoting breastfeeding put pressure on women?

Well, I suppose that depends.  If you say “breast is best” – yes, it does.  Because that sets a standard, but doesn’t help individual women to attain it.  Promotion without support is the worst of all worlds – you tell women they must breastfeed and set them up to fail by not helping them to do it; yes, that’s neat, I’m sure that won’t cause heartache, grief, that lurching, nauseous feeling you get when you know you should be doing something but…just…can’t…!

And, anyway, doesn’t the pressure often come from inside?  So you know you should be breastfeeding because you’ve been told you should, but many, many women also want to, desperately, instinctively?  And being told that that instinct is wrong, that you should be squashing down feelings of guilt and upset and grief at not breastfeeding – is that not putting pressure on women, actually?  Pressure to conform to society’s expectation that only women of a certain “type” breastfeed?  Pressure to not be too “attached” to your child, to not make rods for your back, to not pander or comfort?  Because, of course, feeding for comfort – oh, dear, are you really?  No, sorry, we don’t comfort our babies, that’s wrong and bad (seriously – where’s society at if comforting our babies is bad?!)…

What do we do then?

It occurs to me that we ought to challenge the name-calling, wherever we see it – I choose to do it humorously, because I feel that humour helps in emotionally-charged situations (and because someone who is levelling an accusation of “Nazi” at another person for talking about feeding babies milk is quite likely not in a great place themselves – although they may never admit it).

But do try not to be a judgy-smugger when it comes to feeding babies milk.  It’s not big, it’s not clever and it really, really doesn’t help anyone to breastfeed.  And that’s what we want – don’t we?

Filed under: breastfeeding promotion, Discussion, Feelings about breastfeeding | 6 Comments »

OK, first of all, I make no bones about this post not being remotely breastfeeding-related.

However…it is something that has quite literally changed my life in the last fortnight (and don’t worry, I am aware how entirely evangelical and cheese-tastic that sounds, but bear with me…!), so I thought I’d share it and see what you thought.  After all, if someone had told me about this DVD when I’d just had my babies, I would’ve been fitter a lot sooner!

Just after Christmas, I bought a copy of a fitness DVD called the 30 Day Shred by Jillian Michaels.  £4.99 on Amazon. Let’s just say that this is rather unlike me.  However, I have just spent the last almost eight years being pregnant, breastfeeding and/or doing a very sedentary job, so I was somewhat sturdier than I wanted to be.  And at not quite a fiver, surely I had nothing to lose (except hopefully some muffin top and a bit of heft from thigh and buttock).

I started doing it on 2nd January, 18 days ago.  I have missed two days since then and haven’t yet done today’s workout, so that’s 16 days of “shredding”.  I haven’t given up, I haven’t got bored, I haven’t wanted to stop (well, I have, mid-workout, but I have carried on!).  That, in itself, is pretty miraculous!  I have a theory as to why that is, but first of all, what is this workout and what has been the result of those 16 days of shredding?

The DVD consists of three different 20-minutes workouts, levels 1, 2 and, unsurprisingly, 3.  Each workout includes a warm-up routine and some cool-down stretches, together with much “good job!” from Jillian Michaels (who you may know from Biggest Loser).  I freely confess that I have stuck, apart from twice, to doing level 1 – but this absolutely doesn’t matter.  You move on when you feel ready.

So, what’s in the workout?

Three minutes of strength, two minutes of cardio, one minute of abs, repeated three times, with different exercises in each section, bookended with a warm-up and a cool-down.  And that is IT.  It really does take 20 minutes.  And you don’t need anything but hand weights of some description.  Jillian introduces each exercise, then you watch Natalie (red shorts) do the full-on, low as you can go version of it and Anita-with-the-glorious-abs does the lite version.  Throughout, Jillian tells us we can do it, talks about sticking your tush out and explains that we are kidding ourselves if we think that just taking the stairs instead of the lift will make us lose weight.  That, apparently, is “a false message of lethargy” (I may have learnt the soundtrack to the level 1 workout…!).

And?  20 minutes a day won’t lose me much weight!

You would be surprised.  I have been!  I haven’t modified my diet at all, I have literally leapt about to Jillian’s instructions for 20 minutes once a day since the start of 2011.  I have lost 8lbs since the 2nd January.  My clothes fit better, I have muscles in my arms where there were none and every bit of me is tighter, more toned.  I have unearthed my collar bones, for heavens sake!  I only really needed to lose a stone and a bit, so I’m well on the way!

You said you had a theory about why you’ve stuck at it – care to share?

Yes!  Towards the end of last year, one of my Facebook friends started talking about “shredding”.  I assumed she was referring to paperwork and thought little more about it.  But as it went on, it was clear she was talking about something exercise-related – and she was rather loving the results.  And since then, there are no fewer than ten other of my Facebook friends who are all shredding away, ALL with rather similar results to me!  And some friends of friends, too, since I’ve mentioned it in comments on the predictable post Christmas bulge statuses that my friends have posted, and Interest Has Been Piqued among their friend lists.

Some comments from those who have also joined in the Facebook Shredding in January phenomenon:

“DEFINITELY fitter, feel really good, lots of energy, feeling happy and positive.”

“DH says bum definitely firmer”

“Right, I noticed, after 6 days of shred MUCH LESS muffin top – really quite a difference in jeans from just the previous week.
Today I really noticed a difference in my shape around middle.

Also deffo getting definition in upper arms, definition on torso, smaller tummy, slight difference in legs.”

The sharing of tips, different ideas for hand weights (bottles of Cobra/wine(!), tins of tomatoes, cannellini or kidney beans, etc!), plus questions about when it gets easier, whether to move to level 2/3 and, frankly, the “hmm, they’ve all shredded today, I ought to get off my admittedly now more trim behind and do the same” element of competition/camaraderie has definitely motivated me to keep it up.

Plus it is 20 minutes a day – JUST 20 minutes.  And you can do it in your underwear, nobody need ever know.  And, before the month is out, that underwear will be fitting better and you will be rather a lot fitter.  Go on, whilst it’s still £4.99. Make your Facebook friends think you’re doing dull ol’ paperwork too – and then wow them with the collar bones you dug out of the lard that is your current upper chest.  You know you want to.

Filed under: Other stuff, Personal stories | 4 Comments »

In the press today, various headlines trumpeted the “news” that breast may NOT be best, after all.

The Times said, “Babies need ‘solid food – not just breast milk’”  (though The Times is subscription only, so I can’t link the article).

The Guardian said, “Six months of breastfeeding alone is too long and could harm babies, scientists now say” (but, for balance, they also published this rather nice article by Joanna Moorhead, called, “It’s time to stop knocking breastfeeding”).

But the Express hadn’t read Joanna Moorhead’s piece when it decided to go with the breathtakingly ignorant “Mother’s Milk May Do More Harm Than Good”.

However, as is often the case, scratch the surface of the headlines and you’ll find old studies being rehashed by researchers with dubious connections. Today’s surface-scratching revealed not a winning Lotto combination, but a potential £££ win for the baby food/infant formula industry, because of the water-muddying that this announcement has caused. Mothers and health professionals are confused about what to do for the best regarding weaning their babies. Parenting forums are awash with (justifiable) fretting, in no small part because of this thoughtless statement:

The authors add that it is unlikely that current government advice will have harmed any children because so few mothers breastfeed exclusively for six months anyway.

I did (for almost seven months with my younger son), mine are fine, yes, I know, it’s anecdotal and not to be scientifically relied upon, but there it is anyway – and it may provide a crumb of comfort to a parent searching for information and reassurance about weaning age.

So, what was said?

This is the link to the original BMJ article.

And this is the response to the article from UNICEF.

And the response from Baby Milk Action.

And the NHS.

The most brilliant Analytical Armadillo has dissected the research and posted an incredibly thorough and well-worth-a-read article on her blog, upon which I cannot improve, analytically or, indeed, armadillo-ly. I urge you to read it.

A few things, though, about all this today.

Firstly, foremostly, whatever the headlines may seem to say, breastfeeding isn’t bad or harmful for babies. The researchers themselves were keen to point that out (somewhat disingenuously, it has to be said, but still…). It wasn’t breastfeeding that was being attacked, it was the age at which solid foods are introduced to a baby’s diet in the UK. And the UK is a country that has a multimillion pound baby food industry. And three of the four researchers on this study have been funded by that very same industry, something that hasn’t gone unnoticed by those challenging the research.

Janet Fyle, professional policy adviser at the Royal College of Midwives, said: “I believe this is a retrograde step and plays into the hands of the baby food industry.”

And that’s at the crux of all of this, really, isn’t it? Because we live in a capitalist society, so we accumulate “things”. We value things that are expensive, because they – well, because they are expensive. And almost nowhere is this as evident as the baby industry – my own personal favourite in the unnecessary product stakes is the wet wipe warmer
- which baffles me to this day. But if we eschew gadgets, or we go a step further and we refrain from using anything but our breasts to nourish our babies till they are half a year old and able to go straight onto solid food, bypassing the need for purees, a la the baby led weaning approach – well, what then, for the baby food industry? To whom will they sell little jars?

But you know what really gets to me about the sort of reporting we’ve seen today?

It is the absolute glee and relish with which anything that will remotely cast aspersions upon breastfeeding is written about or broadcast. Doesn’t matter whether the article is factually accurate or not (generally It Is Not), just that the “Haha, all you breastfeeders, you were wasting your time, hahahaha, LOSERS!” tone comes across loud and clear. Which is interesting, really, given the care with which I know I and many other of my fellow bloggers (get me, I’ve only been back doing this for a week!) use when writing about issues surrounding infant feeding.

So, if I could do my next bit of urging (last time for today, promise), it would be to sign the petition to the Press Complaints Commission that was drafted by Anne (Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths on Facebook).

Because it isn’t right or helpful that parents have been left feeling like they don’t know what to do for the best when weaning their babies and it most definitely isn’t good that journalists with their own reasons for bashing breastfeeding can do so at every opportunity.

(Oh, yes, and don’t worry about your baby going into orbit if you breastfeed exclusively for six months. It’s not true. I was seeing what it felt like to make up a sensationalised negative breastfeeding headline. When in Rome, etc…)

Filed under: Government Policy, Infant feeding issues, News stories, Research | 3 Comments »

Today, P&O changed wording on their website regarding breastfeeding in public areas of their cruise ships. Why? Because a number of people who cared about what P&O had written initially contacted them to tell them they had got it Very Wrong and asked them to reconsider.

So, what was the initial wording?

“Although we do not have any rules on this this, we would prefer that actions such as these are done in the privacy of your stateroom…”

“Actions such as these” – hmm… It makes breastfeeding sound slightly sordid, something ‘naice’ people wouldn’t like to see, doesn’t it?

But, following a really pretty low-key response from some of the lactivists who read this earlier this morning, P&O amended their wording (once to include the request that breastfeeding in public be done “discreetly” – something that really doesn’t need saying, for all sorts of reasons – that topic for another post, that, I think!) and the most recent, and likely final, update.

You can find it here and it now says:

As a family friendly organisation, the company recognises the benefits of breast feeding to mothers and infants, and breast feeding is welcome in all areas where infants are allowed.

Brilliant result! Instead of women feeling like they need to hide, to retire to their rooms, to be discreet, now they can do exactly as a mother who is bottlefeeding her baby and feed anywhere they allow babies (though the word “infants” – hmm, how would they be if an 18mo or a 3yo were to be breastfed in public?).

An earlier update said that they don’t have a policy on breastfeeding – which I think is an oversight. Why? Because putting a policy in place demonstrates a clear respect for breastfeeding and it means that the sensibilities of individual employees are overridden. We can all remember instances of women breastfeeding being told to take it elsewhere by staff members but, when challenged (or written about in the press!), the establishment employing them has backtracked hastily and said it’s fine to breastfeed anywhere. A policy, clearly written and communicated to all staff (like this one from the bus company FirstGroup), would stop this sort of negative publicity (and move us towards a society where policies are no longer needed, because it would be like having a policy on breathing being allowed in public).

The rather wonderful Anne, who writes Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths spoke to a lawyer about this and has also pointed out that, whilst they don’t have a specific policy:

..in practice the wording we have been reacting to serves the same function as a policy. You could just as easily claim not to discriminate on the grounds of colour, but ‘suggest’ that persons of colour eat in their rooms. It’s still discrimination. In addition ‘advising discretion’ is the same as having a policy that advises nursing mothers to cover up or remain out of sight. Really hoping for a positive response here P&O – and assure you that we’ll be just as pro-active in sharing a pro-breastfeeding stance as what seems to be an ‘anti’ breastfeeding one!

So, it will be interesting to see whether anything further develops. But I think we can safely say that this is a brilliant example of where public pressure, even the relatively very minor amount that occurred this morning, has had a rather good result.

By contrast, as is also discussed by Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths further down the same post linked earlier, Facebook’s response to the public outcry over them deleting pages, individuals and photos has been pretty pathetic. Actually, no, it’s been totally pathetic. Because there hasn’t been one, well, not this time around, anyway.

This was the response from Facebook the first time this became an issue, in 2008, as reported in the Washington Post:

“We agree that breastfeeding is natural and beautiful and we’re very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook,” writes Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt in response to queries about the site’s policy on breastfeeding photos. “We take no action on the vast majority of breastfeeding photos because they follow the site’s Terms of Use. Photos containing a fully exposed breast (as defined by showing the nipple or areola) do violate those Terms and may be removed. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children (over the age of 13) who use the site. The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain.”

We wait to hear what the response to the various groups, protests, nurse-ins and petitions is from Facebook this time around… Don’t hold your breath though – but please don’t take that as HBFW’s policy on breathing in public…!

What I have been wondering, since I saw this about P&O today, is what is the most effective way to change minds and win hearts? The brief FAQ response that provoked the furore is highly unlikely to have been written to consciously discriminate against breastfeeding. Most people barely give a moment’s thought to breastfeeding in the general course of their day. And it can be somewhat overwhelming to receive a sudden influx of furious and outraged responses about something to which a response is needed, instantly.

Where does the information for that response come from for people who haven’t thought about it much in the past? Society in general. And where society contains images of bottles as shorthand for baby from greetings cards to baby change facilities, where breastfeeding can be considered “obscene”, as per Facebook, where soap operas seldom, if ever, mention breastfeeding positively, where magazines and newspapers are as ill-informed and ludicrous about breastfeeding as this from Heat magazine:

Fact: Natalie Cassidy’s boobs have dried up. Really? Yes. Eeeeeeww….!

Far, far too much information, isn’t it? But the former Eastenders actress has been as candid as ever, letting everyone know of her most intimate of issues. This time, she’s been speaking about how gutted she is to be forced into feeding her baby daughter, Eliza, from the bottle instead of by bitty because her breasts aren’t producing enough milk.

..well, is it any wonder that women are being asked to hide away? After all, we wouldn’t want to make anyone feel all, like, eeeeew or, as it says further down that article, icky, or anything, would we?!

So, what is the best way to get the message across? Letters to MPs/companies/newspapers/individuals? Petitions? Facebook pages? Nurse-ins at breastfeeding-unfriendly establishments? Conversation with pregnant women/new mums? I don’t think there’s any single right activity, because situations vary enormously – but first and foremost, what we must remember when we are talking to people about why it is important to support the often fragile decision that is breastfeeding is that most people don’t care as much as we do. Indeed, many people see breastfeeding as a fleeting thing that you do if you can, if they even give it a thought. So, whilst it can be very tempting to get your best angry red capital letters out when you write to complain about something, perhaps save it until they have responded negatively and make sure your first approach is a courteous one, to give them the opportunity to change their mind quickly and gracefully – as P&O have just done. That way, everyone wins.

Filed under: Breastfeeding in the media, breastfeeding promotion, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

I have spent today fixing links, making new links (to Facebook, mainly) and generally tidying up the blog. Please, if you come across anything that’s broken, a video that doesn’t work (I know about the Salma Hayek one – there is a link in the comments section of that post that has a clip on it, albeit with weirdy commentary from ill-informed newscasters), a link that’s skewy, a support group that no longer exists or a phone number that’s wrong, let me know and I will do my best to fix it.

Also, if you’ve got anything you’d like to see on the blog, please let me know.

Thank you!

Filed under: Other stuff | No Comments »

So, poor, neglected blog, I must apologise for not tending to you lately (and, please, nobody mention that by “lately”, I mean “since May 2009″). I have been busy, and will post more about what I have been doing shortly, but this post is a catch-up, a “how far have we come?” meander.

When I began this blog, there were, of course, other people out there who were passionate about breastfeeding and working hard to support and inform and encourage women and health professionals alike. Loads of them. Some of them blogged about it, many more didn’t. But what has changed in the almost two years since I last wrote here is the massive explosion in social networking that has connected those people with each other and also with people who hadn’t thought much about breastfeeding.

Facebook had only been open to the general public for eight months when I last posted on here, Twitter for a month. Now, it is hard to imagine what it was like before you could “like” and “follow”. And “like” and “follow” I do. I thought I would share some of the pages I like on the blog here, then edit and add to them as and when I find others that I think readers may be interested in.

So, as the favoured reality TV voting results announcement saying goes: In no particular order…!

Dispelling Breastfeeding Myths

Breastfeeding Matters

Breastfeeding USA

Historic Photos & Prints of Breastfeeding

The Leaky B@@b

The Analytical Armadillo

milk matters

Christie Haskell on The Stir (CafeMom is partnered with Nestlé, which is Not Good, but Christie writes intelligently)

Midwifery Today

Best for Babes Foundation

Best Beginnings

Breastfeeding Matters in the Capital Region

Developing Doulas

The Politics of Breastfeeding

So, how far have we come? When I began blogging, the standard breastfeeding/bottlefeeding/breastmilk/formula debate went something like this:

A: Breast is best!
B: Don’t talk about breastfeeding and breastfeeding support, because you will make women who couldn’t feel guilty.
A: Ah…
B: Yeah.

Of course, that is a sweeping generalisation precis (and there were more references to Nazi Germany than I care to think about), but it’s pretty much where it was at. And now? We’ll see – but I find the tone more like this:

A: Here’s some really good information about breastfeeding.
B: Don’t talk about breastfeeding and breastfeeding support, because you will make women who couldn’t feel guilty.
A: I know, I understand, but if we never talk about it, nothing will change, more women who could have breastfed will be let down and the guilt cycle will continue.
B: Hmm, OK. Talk about it. But woe betide you if you call formula poison.

And, of course, nobody who is sensible about infant nutrition debate would ever call formula poison, so hurrah, we can talk about it. Let’s!

Filed under: Discussion, Other stuff | No Comments »

This is the book everybody should read. It cuts through the marketing hype of formula companies and demonstrates very well why breasts are bad – if you’re in the baby milk business.

Product Description
Every day more than 3,000 babies die from infections due to a lack of breastfeeding and the use of bottles, artificial milks and other risky products. In her powerful and provocative book Gabrielle Palmer describes the pressures on women, health workers and governments who are enmeshed in collusion with the sellers of infant feeding products. These companies invest in marketing strategies and clever promotion which help maintain practices that contribute to the suffering, illness and death of children in both poor and rich nations. Gabrielle Palmer vividly describes the far-reaching consequences for health and well-being that the actions of large corporations have on global politics and the environment. With an engaging blend of facts, insight and anecdotes, she puts infant feeding fashions into their historic and economic contexts. An essential and inspirational eye-opener, “The Politics of Breastfeeding” challenges our complacency about how we feed our children and radically reappraises a subject which concerns not only mothers, but everyone: man or woman, parent or childless, old or young. This is the 3rd fully revised and updated edition.

About the Author
Gabrielle Palmer is a nutritionist and a campaigner. She was a breastfeeding counsellor in the 1970s and helped establish the UK pressure group Baby Milk Action. In the early 1980s she lived and worked as a volunteer in Mozambique. She has written, taught and campaigned on infant feeding issues, particularly the unethical marketing of baby foods. In the 1990s she co-directed the International Breastfeeding: Practice and Policy course at The Institute of Child Health in London until she went to live in China for two years. She has worked independently for various health and development agencies, including serving as HIV and Infant Feeding Officer for UNICEF New York. She recently worked at The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine where she had originally studied nutrition. She is a mother and a grandmother.

Filed under: Infant feeding issues | 1 Comment »

See footage here:

Really lovely footage – she clearly loves breastfeeding and was very natural about it all.

EDITED: the link has since been taken down, because it violated YouTube’s TOS. Hmm… Yet the one with “Uh-oh” as she begins to breastfeed the baby, that I posted on the comments, remains. How bizarre.

Filed under: Breastfeeding celebrities | 5 Comments »