ChiefsPlanet - Misc Uh, WTF Time Magazine

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Uh, WTF Time Magazine (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=259399)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8611908)

Nope. This isnt creepy. At all.

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/debate/a...ter-what-think

And here I thought you didn't care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief (Post 8611918)

Actually no she doesn't. Garbage articles like that mischaracterize what she says.

Here are some things she actually says...

She NEVER says that it is the norm everywhere but here in the US. She correctly states that it is the norm in SOME other societies.

I'd love for someone to tell me WHAT countries this is the norm in? It's certainly not the norm in most(if not all) European countries. Nor is it the case in Russia. Nor in China. Nor India. Nor the middle east. Not the case in Australia. Definitely not the case in any North American countries. Hell, I SERIOUSLY doubt it is the case in South America. That leaves a few cultures in Asia, Pacific Islands and Africa... MAYBE.

I have no problem with anyone's take on the actual issue.. argue whatever you guys want... but throw out a bullshit FACT or FIGURE and I will jump all over that shit. And the line about "most cultures around the world breastfeed until 5 years old" is complete garbage. End of story.

You're right, I assumed that an idea attributed to her was from her. I did find some very interesting things she has said, though:

Quote:

The human primate data suggest that human children are designed to receive all of the benefits of breast milk and breastfeeding for an absolute minimum of two and a half years, and an apparent upper limit of around 7 years.

Quote:

Health care professionals, parents, and the general public should be made aware that somewhere between three and seven years may be a reasonable and appropriate age of weaning for humans, however uncommon it may be in the United States to nurse an infant through toddlerhood and beyond.

Someone should probably tell her that it's too yucky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 8612007)

You're right, I assumed that an idea attributed to her was from her. I did find some very interesting things she has said, though:

Someone should probably tell her that it's too yucky.

Now THAT side of the argument may or may not be valid (we really need to do some hard research on it) but there are plenty of solid arguments there to support "extended" breastfeeding in that context. I personally think the "optimal" age to wean is somewhere between 2 and 3 years. I doubt there is any substantial benefits past 3 years old. (but again, no one has any hard evidence on this so my opinion is complete guesswork)

And no problem on assuming she thought/said the other thing... there are plenty of articles out there that take her and others out of context all the time. It's exactly how these bogus "facts" become so readily accepted... crap journalism. Only reason I knew better was because I had already read a number of her actual quotes meant to debunk what she is "supposed" to have said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief (Post 8612048)

Considering that that the immune system is not fully developed and that the brain is still growing rapidly at 3, I would be stunned if there were no benefits to nursing beyond 3.

Dettwyler says:

Quote:

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 had 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 sixmonths of breastfeeding are clearly much more important in terms of the baby's nutrition and immunological development than the sixmonths 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?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 8612056)

Considering that that the immune system is not fully developed and that the brain is still growing rapidly at 3, I would be stunned if there were no benefits to nursing beyond 3.

Dettwyler says:

I'll bet Frankie still breastfeeds. That's how he got to be so smart.

If the kid can actually form the sentence, "I want milk", it's too old.

If the kid can actually walk--not baby-walk, but actually walk--it's too old.

It's got very little to do with nutrition and everything to do with the mothers. Discussing the values of birth milk vs. formula is moot: we're not talking babies here, we're talking toddlers and preschoolers. None of us sucked the tit until we were 5, and most of us didn't have rickets or scoliosis or any other problem. And how do we know tit-milk is so good for them? Considering the crap most of us eat or breathe? I would like to see the U.S. statistics for "percentage of nursing mothers now vs. 1970" as well as "average age of breastfeeding children now vs. 1970". I bet both are much higher now. And I also notice that we have a rampant epidemic of autism and allergy (peanut, soy, wheat, etc.,.). Now, I'm not saying tit-milk is the reason, but it certainly doesn't seem to be making any difference, does it? I'm sure most mothers can reasonably provide their 2-year-old with nutrition that doesn't involve your tit (and doesn't involve cow milk, which some people say isn't as good for kids as people think).

As far as public breastfeeding... if you want to whip your tit out in public, good for you. Personally I think both the tit-whipper and the general public would feel more comfortable if mom took the initiative to move that ten ****ing feet to a private corner, instead of whipping out the tit in full view of the public as if to say, "Look at me!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 8612093)

If the kid can actually form the sentence, "I want milk", it's too old.

If the kid can actually walk--not baby-walk, but actually walk--it's too old.

Why? Show some scientific evidence, don't just spout nonsense.

Quote:

It's got very little to do with nutrition and everything to do with the mothers. Discussing the values of birth milk vs. formula is moot: we're not talking babies here, we're talking toddlers and preschoolers. None of us sucked the tit until we were 5, and most of us didn't have rickets or scoliosis or any other problem. And how do we know tit-milk is so good for them? Considering the crap most of us eat or breathe? I would like to see the U.S. statistics for "percentage of nursing mothers now vs. 1970" as well as "average age of breastfeeding children now vs. 1970". I bet both are much higher now. And I also notice that we have a rampant epidemic of autism and allergy (peanut, soy, wheat, etc.,.). Now, I'm not saying tit-milk is the reason, but it certainly doesn't seem to be making any difference, does it? I'm sure most mothers can reasonably provide their 2-year-old with nutrition that doesn't involve your tit (and doesn't involve cow milk, which some people say isn't as good for kids as people think).

As far as public breastfeeding... if you want to whip your tit out in public, good for you. Personally I think both the tit-whipper and the general public would feel more comfortable if mom took the initiative to move that ten ****ing feet to a private corner, instead of whipping out the tit in full view of the public as if to say, "Look at me!!"

We know because it's been studied. A lot. I would suggest you actually look into it. A good place to start might just be my last post.

"No one is going to whip my kid"
Well, I hope when the Chinese take over they use your kid's A-hole as a flag stand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okie_Apparition (Post 8612298)

"No one is going to whip my kid"
Well, I hope when the Chinese take over they use your kid's A-hole as a flag stand

Was this intended for this thread, or a different one? It doesn't really make sense in the context. Also, I thought speaking about family members in this fashion was a bannable offense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 8612302)

Was this intended for this thread, or a different one? It doesn't really make sense in the context. Also, I thought speaking about family members in this fashion was a bannable offense.

Yeah bro because he specifically said the child's name and directed it at said child's parent. Nice try ****wit.

Time mom is still hot, she's got a thicker Gwyneth Paltrow thing going on.

But alas, it would never last between us... the first time her 13 year old busted into the bedroom for some boobie, i would have to end it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow (Post 8659781)

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/...g?w=500&h=2516

ROFLROFL:LOL:

Eventually white people are going to lose patience with this sick publication and go all Charlie Hebdo on their offices. Let's hope not

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7IerKFW4AEsc8V.jpg