BFing moms should not drink

Community Leader
Registered: 10-01-2010
BFing moms should not drink
50
Tue, 09-06-2011 - 2:53pm

Some say it is better that moms continue to BFand only drink in moderation - some wonder if mom should be drinking at all while she is BFing?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
Mon, 09-12-2011 - 4:12pm
<>

Actually, I've know a few people who drink about that much and don't fit the definition of an alcoholic, as they had no problem going for weeks drinking little or nothing when they desired. Alcoholism is defined as an addiction to or dependency upon drinking excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages. Merely drinking more per week then others might think is healthy or best does not automatically make one an alcoholic. You can argue that drinking 10 drinks a week every week is not in one's best interest healthwise but that does automatically not make it alcoholism.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
Mon, 09-12-2011 - 4:27pm
<>
ITA. It's like the way you would evaluate the risk of BF'ing on a certain medications vs switching to formula (assuming not taking that particular med is not an option). In the case of the med you would consider whether the risks of the med for the nursing baby would greater then the risks of formula. If the answer is formula is likely to be the riskier choice then it's better to stick with the BF'ing on the med. The same sort of thinking applies BF'ing and drinking IMO. If the risks of a a glass or two of an alcoholic beverage is less then the risk of formula then it's better to drink if not drinking is not an option your willing to consider. Even if I was willing to agree that a drink or two does significant enough harm to the nursing baby to recommend obtaining from all alcohol as the ideal way to go, I still think it's better healthwise to BF and have a drink or two then to use formula so one can continue to drink. This argument is very much like the argument about whether to BF or use formula if one is a smker. The evidence seems pretty clearly to support that even though nicotine and other stuff gets into the breastmilk of the smoking mother, BM has beneficial properties that counteract the negative effects for the baby such that it's less harmful then the second had smoke the baby would still be exposed to if she was FF'd.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-13-2008
Mon, 09-12-2011 - 4:37pm
charleen2008 wrote:
<>
ITA. It's like the way you would evaluate the risk of BF'ing on a certain medications vs switching to formula (assuming not taking that particular med is not an option). In the case of the med you would consider whether the risks of the med for the nursing baby would greater then the risks of formula. If the answer is formula is likely to be the riskier choice then it's better to stick with the BF'ing on the med. The same sort of thinking applies BF'ing and drinking IMO. If the risks of a a glass or two of an alcoholic beverage is less then the risk of formula then it's better to drink if not drinking is not an option your willing to consider. Even if I was willing to agree that a drink or two does significant enough harm to the nursing baby to recommend obtaining from all alcohol as the ideal way to go, I still think it's better healthwise to BF and have a drink or two then to use formula so one can continue to drink. This argument is very much like the argument about whether to BF or use formula if one is a smker. The evidence seems pretty clearly to support that even though nicotine and other stuff gets into the breastmilk of the smoking mother, BM has beneficial properties that counteract the negative effects for the baby such that it's less harmful then the second had smoke the baby would still be exposed to if she was FF'd.

Unfortunately, articles like the one we were looking at, which have a blanket kind of an idea that any breastfeeding mother who drinks is doing a relly bad thing do not allow for this kind of balanced decision, where all of the options are weighted up and the best option is chosen.

Teresa

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Tue, 09-13-2011 - 1:47pm
You are free to disagree, Charleen. That's why I said "I" have a word to describe such behavior. You are more than free to believe that nursing mothers who drinks ten drinks per week every week aren't overdoing it, but I do.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
Wed, 09-14-2011 - 2:20am
<>

You said they where alcoholics, not merely that they where overdoing it. I never said that it would be a good idea for a nursing mother to drink that much per week every week, I just said that I wouldn't automatically classify someone who did consume 10 drinks a week every week as an as an alcoholic.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 09-14-2011 - 12:04pm

Holly & Charleen,

When I did that little bit of checking to see what the cut of for moderate drinking was, I discovered that at least one drink every day is considered to be a "risk" for becoming a problem drinker.

So I think my opinion falls somewhere between each of yours, neither "fine" nor "alcoholic". For some people that much alcohol could already be a problem and for others it might lead to more.

Nisu

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Wed, 09-14-2011 - 4:30pm

<>

Actually, I believe I've said exactly the same thing. Do you have a better word to describe someone who overconsumes alcohol day in, day out, week in, week out? As I said, I've made exception for people who go on vacation and drink too much on the trip or who have a wild party night once in awhile.

<>

And you are more than welcome to have that opinion. I never said it wasn't okay. I'm well aware that I'm a bit of a prude in these matters, considering I rarely drink and see absolutely no need or desire whatsoever to drink that much.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Wed, 09-14-2011 - 4:34pm

So in your opinion, Nisu, would it be better that I classify drinking 10 drinks per week as "problem drinking" rather than alcoholism? Or is that just another spin on the same classification?




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Wed, 09-14-2011 - 7:12pm

Generally, I stear away from the term "alcoholic". I do not see it as a black and white term. There definitely are people for whom a single drink can bring about a slippery slope into rapid, very problematic drinking. But, I think, for most people problem drinking is less obvious and more insidious. 7 or 10 drinks per week could be problematic for some. OTOH, for some people 7-10 drinks per week is the higher end of "moderate". They will definitely drink that much for decades with no dramatic changes and no serious consequences. I guess I would call it "a lot", so I don't object to you saying people who drink that much are alcoholics.

I don't think that are many people who drink that amount and don't go on to do one of two things: start drinking less, or start drinking more. I truly believe that rather than being the cut off point for being an "alcoholic", it is the range of alcohol that sends up a red flag, ie "risky".

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Wed, 09-14-2011 - 11:53pm
That makes sense. I certainly would call that range of drinking problematic. And although I agree that some people can keep a high-moderate level of drinking (whatever that means to different people) and not drink less or more over time, I don't think alcoholism requires that you drink more over time.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks