thread: Article on the Natural Age of Weaning - interesting!

  1. #1

    Oct 2008
    2,880

    Article on the Natural Age of Weaning - interesting!

    A friend sent me this article after a bit of a debate on my facebook page on weaning.
    Just wanted to share.

    A Natural Age of Weaning

    by Katherine Dettwyler, PhD


    Department of Anthropology,
    Texas A and M University


    My research has looked at the various "life-history" variables (such as length of gestation, birth weight, growth rate, age at sexual maturity, age at eruption of teeth, life span, etc.) in non-human primates and then looked at how these variables correlate with age at weaning in these animals. These are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, especially gorillas and chimpanzees, who share more than 98% of their genes with humans. I came up with a number of predictions for when humans would "naturally" wean their children if they didn't have a lot of cultural rules about it. This interest stemmed from a reading of the cross-cultural literature on age at weaning, which shows that cultures have very different beliefs about when children should be weaned, from very early in the U.S. to very late in some places. One often hears that the worldwide average age of weaning is 4.2 years, but this figure is neither accurate nor meaningful. A survey of 64 "traditional" studies done prior to the 1940s showed a median duration of breastfeeding of about 2.8 years, but with some societies breastfeeding for much shorter, and some for much longer. It is meaningless, statistically, to speak of an average age of weaning worldwide, as so many children never nurse at all, or their mothers give up in the first few days, or at six weeks when they go back to work. It is true that there are still many societies in the world where children are routinely breastfed until the age of four or five years or older, and even in the United States, some children are nursed for this long and longer. In societies where children are allowed to nurse "as long as they want" they usually self-wean, with no arguments or emotional trauma, between 3 and 4 years of age. This interest also stemmed from the realization that other animals have "natural" ages of weaning, around 8 weeks for dogs, 8-12 months for horses, etc. Presumably these animals don't have cultural beliefs about when it would be appropriate.

    Some of the results are as follows:

    1. In a group of 21 species of non-human primates (monkeys and apes) studied by Holly Smith, she found that the offspring were weaned at the same time they were getting their first permanent molars. In humans, that would be: 5.5-6.0 years.

    2. It has been common for pediatricians to claim that length of gestation is approximately equal to length of nursing in many species, suggesting a weaning age of 9 months for humans. However, this relationship turns out to be affected by how large the adult animals are -- the larger the adults, the longer the length of breastfeeding relative to gestation. For chimpanzees and gorillas, the two primates closest in size to humans and also the most closely genetically related, the relationship is 6 to 1. That is to say, they nurse their offspring for SIX times the length of gestation (actually 6.1 for chimps and 6.4 for gorillas, with humans mid-way in size between these two). In humans, that would be: 4.5 years of nursing (six times the 9 months of gestation).

    3. It has been common for pediatricians to claim that most mammals wean their offspring when they have tripled their birth weight, suggesting a weaning age of 1 year in humans. Again though, this is affected by body weight, with larger mammals nursing their offspring until they have quadrupled their birth weight. In humans, quadrupling of birth weight occurs between 2.5 and 3.5 years, usually.

    4. One study of primates showed that the offspring were weaned when they had reached about 1/3 their adult weight. This happens in humans at about 5-7 years.

    5. A comparison of weaning age and sexual maturity in non-human primates suggests a weaning age of 6-7 for humans (about half-way to reproductive maturity).

    6. Studies have shown that a child's immune system doesn't completely mature until about 6 years of age, and it is well established that breast milk helps develop the immune system and augment it with maternal antibodies as long as breast milk is produced (up to two years, no studies have been done on breast milk composition after two years post partum).

    And on and on. The minimum predicted age for a natural age of weaning in humans is 2.5 years, with a maximum of 7.0 years.

    In terms of the benefits of extended breastfeeding, there have been a number of studies comparing breastfed and bottlefed babies in terms of the frequency of various diseases, and also IQ achievement. In every case, the breastfed babies had lower risk of disease and higher IQs than the bottle-fed babies. In those studies that divided breastfed babies into categories based on length of breastfeeding, the babies breastfed the longest did better in terms of both lower disease and higher IQ. In other words, if the categories were 0-6 months of breastfeeding, 6-12 months, 12-18 months and 18-24+ months, then the 18-24+ month babies did the best, and the 12-18 month babies did the next best, and the 6-12 months babies did the next best, and the 0-6 months babies did the worst of the breastfed groups, but still much better than the bottlefeeding group. This has been shown for gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, heart disease, and on and on and on. Likewise, the babies nursed the longest scored the highest on the IQ tests. One important point to notice is that none of these studies looked at children who had nursed longer than 2 years. Anyone 18-24 month or longer was lumped into big category. Presumably, the benefits continue to accrue, as your body doesn't *know* that the baby has bad a birth day and suddenly start producing nutritionally and immunologically worthless milk.

    However, no one has yet proved, either way, that the benefits of breastfeeding either continue or stop at two years of age, because the appropriate studies have not been done. The trend during the first two years is clearly for continuing benefits the longer you nurse. Clearly the phenomenon of dimishing returns is at work here -- the first six months of breastfeeding are clearly much more important in terms of the baby's nutrition and immunological development than the six months from 3.5 to 4.0 years. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue to provide breast milk if your baby wants and you don't mind. It would be like saying, "Well Mabel, we don't get very much income from that oil well anymore. Used to get $56 a month in royalties, now we're lucky if we get $25 a year. Guess we should tell that oil company just to keep their durn money." And Mabel says, in return "Good grief, Clyde, don't be ridiculous. That check still buys $25 worth of food. Where has your mind gone to now?"

    Clearly, babies born in the U.S. don't have to contend with all the diseases and parasites and contaminated water that babies in Third World countries do. We have more supplementary foods that we can generally trust to be safe and clean. We can get our children immunized, and get them antibiotics for infections when necessary. The fact that we *can* does not mean that breastfeeding is unimportant. Breastfed babies still have the "edge" over bottlefed babies, even in a squeaky clean environment with wonderful medical care. They get sick less often, they are smarter, they are happier. Another important consideration for the older child is that they are able to maintain their emotional attachment to a person, rather than being forced to switch to an inanimate object such as a teddy bear or blanket. I think this sets the stage for a life of people-orientation, rather than materialism, and I think that is a good thing. I also can't imagine living through the toddler years without that close loving connection to a child going through enormous changes, some of which are very frustrating to the child. I could go on forever, but will stop here.

    I hope this has been of help. These ideas are developed much more eloquently and in much greater detail in my chapter "A Time to Wean" in Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives, being published by Aldine de Gruyter.

    Prepared August 3, 1995. Edited February 10, 1997.
    It's interesting to me because one of my friends told me that she'd seen a program on breast feeding after one year old and there were some "experts" who were claiming that doing so was akin to giving your baby coke due to the high sugar content in breast milk after a year of breast feeding. To me this sounded absolute nonsense and I told her so - hence the debate and a few other friends got involved. Would love to hear what my BB friends have to say.
    Last edited by MummaSue; December 15th, 2010 at 05:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Apr 2009
    in the garden
    3,767

    It's a great article, thanks for sharing

    I particularly liked this
    Clearly the phenomenon of dimishing returns is at work here -- the first six months of breastfeeding are clearly much more important in terms of the baby's nutrition and immunological development than the six months from 3.5 to 4.0 years. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue to provide breast milk if your baby wants and you don't mind. It would be like saying, "Well Mabel, we don't get very much income from that oil well anymore. Used to get $56 a month in royalties, now we're lucky if we get $25 a year. Guess we should tell that oil company just to keep their durn money." And Mabel says, in return "Good grief, Clyde, don't be ridiculous. That check still buys $25 worth of food. Where has your mind gone to now?"
    I think sometimes people miss that, just because it's best for a minimum time doesn't mean it's no good at all after that.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    May 2008
    where the V8's roar
    1,855

    I love this article and have read it before. It certainly makes sense to me and was one of the reasons I was happy to continue to bf for as long as I did

  4. #4

    Oct 2008
    2,880

    Glad to share it. Whooo, you should see the debate it has sparked on my fb page.

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Jul 2008
    Melbourne
    3,244

    it makes for very interesting reading.

    it sure is a topic that gets people fired up though.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Nov 2008
    Melbourne
    2,008

    Great article! Thanks for sharing! I always thought we'd wean at 12 months, but then when the time came I didn't see the point and thought we'd keep going indefinately. Lately I've been thinking it might be nice (for me) to start weaning soon. This has just inspired me to keep going! A big thanks from me (and DS) for sharing

  7. #7
    Life Subscriber

    Jul 2006
    Brisbane
    6,683

    There are many good reasons why the World Health Organisation recommending bfing until at least 2 years of age. Unfortunately, no matter what research results and medical information you provide, many people do not want to know. I think it's great that you have started the discussion amongst your friends hun - raising awareness of what nature intended is a great thing. Unfortunately though it will take time for society's views to change. We are already seeing the consequences of such high rates of ffing - there are many studies which show how ffing is contributing to the increasing rates of all sorts of things from obesity to auto-immune diseases like coeliacs and diabetes. Hopefully over time this information will sink in and change behaviours. In the meantime, be prepared to moderate a heated fb discussion!!

  8. #8
    BellyBelly Member

    Oct 2007
    Ever so slowly going crazy...
    2,268

    Awesome article babe...

    I never tend to get too many heated debates about B/F, on FB, most of my family and friends know where I stand so dont bother!!!!

    The one thing I really DO NOT understand about the "debate" is WHY there is a debate?? Just because a mother chooses/doesnt want to B/F, doesnt change the facts, so exactly WHAT is there to argue about???

    I dont eat all the vegies I should, but i certainly wouldnt argue that they arent best for you.. just seems SO damn silly to me???

    Just because something isnt what you done personally, doesnt mean it shouldnt be talked about, publisied and talked about... tell your FB "freinds" to crawl back under their rock.. some people just dont wanna know, and thats fine, but to argue about it just makes them look very silly!!!

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Jul 2005
    Sydney
    7,896

    The one thing I really DO NOT understand about the "debate" is WHY there is a debate?? Just because a mother chooses/doesnt want to B/F, doesnt change the facts, so exactly WHAT is there to argue about???

    I dont eat all the vegies I should, but i certainly wouldnt argue that they arent best for you.. just seems SO damn silly to me???
    Great analogy Jodi - I might steal it in future!!

    I don't know about all the studies and stats, but anecdotally I can certainly testify to a few things that held true for our weaning/bfing experience.

    1. Left to her own choices, but with some encouragement from me (ie dropping certain bfs along the way), DD chose to self-wean a week or so before she turned four. The dentist says one of her permanent teeth is due to pop through very soon at last visit (a couple of months ago). Therefore, we were probably about 12 mths shy of the permanent teeth.

    2. She got sick only occasionally and mildly throughout our bfing time, even when down to one a day. Her first day off preschool was about three weeks after weaning completely. Her first need for ABs (for an ear infection, another first) was six months after weaning completely. The immunological benefits were immense in our case. Even the ear infection cleared up (with the ABs) after about a day, and she was back at pre-school.

    3. DD is a very light child, only about 16.5 kgs now. She would have been about a kilo lighter at weaning age. She was a small baby too, at 2.56 kgs at birth. She would have been almost exactly six times her birth weight when she weaned. (Quadrupling would have only got her just over 12 mths!!) Interestingly, her weight at weaning is just under 1/3 of my adult weight (I am also light). While I expect that she'll be a bit taller and heavier than me, it might not be far off.

    Thanks for sharing the article!

  10. #10

    Oct 2008
    2,880

    See, the argument is (from my "friend") that after a certain age, it no longer becomes the mother's choice. Now, I'm certainly not starting this up here, no way - it's gotten really nasty and we have fallen out as I just can't accept her views nor she mine, but unfortunately that is where she stands - and lots of her friends too apparently (she started it up on her own page) as b/f beyond a certain age is "sick" and mothers who do it are "needy and selfish". Don't get me started - I've already had my vent thread over in the platinum section.

    Anyway, you're right, PB that IS a great analogy!!

    Every other person who commented on the article on FB had something positive to say about it. It's all good.

    I think it's a really excellent article! I have my ABA b/f counsellor on my FB page and she always has some really excellent information which I then steal and share on my page!

  11. #11
    Registered User

    May 2007
    Warrnambool Vic
    1,476

    Is it ever about the mother's choice? What about the child's need? All mine weaned in the biologically normal age - 2.5-7!
    I agree - nothing to debate here.

    Barb

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Jul 2005
    Sydney
    7,896

    Yeah, I agree Barb.

    It's the same as I didn't change my DD's dirty nappies by choice! She stopped needing nappies when she was ready to use a toilet physically and mentally, not because I decided it was time. If you used the 'mother's choice' guide then I'd have preferred to stop changing nappies around the same time she started eating food.

    I forgot to include in my previous post that the other thing that held true for us was that DD has no particular preference for a teddy, doll, etc. Her source of comfort is me, usually a cuddle fixes everything. She just loves being close to me. I just love that!
    Last edited by Jennifer13; December 17th, 2010 at 06:57 AM.

  13. #13
    2012 BellyBelly RAK Recipient.
    Add AngelPants on Facebook

    Feb 2010
    Under the rock
    1,320

    Omg I could kiss u for posting this article! I was talking to my family (venting) about how a complete stranger at the shops came up and said oh ur STILL bf? Grr I coulda punched her, Mr c is only 6months old & yes I will bf as long as he wants it.
    U see kids right up to 3, 4 with bottles but its not ok to bf that long...

    Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Registered User

    May 2008
    where the V8's roar
    1,855

    U see kids right up to 3, 4 with bottles but its not ok to bf that long...
    I think this is the most frustrating part that it doesn't matter how old a child has a bottle but we shouldn't bf past 6 mnths... WT!!