Again, this article is written from a very neolithic perspective:

"Though breast feeding is thought to be good for cardiovascular health, a
previous study found men born earlier this century who were still being
breast fed at one year old, had higher than expected rates of heart disease
when they were 60 or 70."

'Still being breastfed at one year old?' From paleo perspective, the
question is did they wean before age 3-4? One year is NOT very long, perhaps
this early weaning is part of the heart disease issue. One year is NOT
"extended breastfeeding". One year is absolute minimum to assure proper
nutrition in infancy. Even the AAP is acknowledging this now.

I also point out that there are innumerable advantages with breastfeeding
(as opposed to formula or breastmilk feeding from a bottle), some of which
cannot be understood let alone proven by medical science. One example,
breastfeeding opens the third and fourth chakras, deepening the emotional
and intuitive bond between mother and child. Try achieving *that* when your
baby is propped up in an "infant carrier" car seat with a pacifier or Daddy
or Grandma (or even Mama) standing by propping a bottle into baby's mouth,
just so Mama can "get a break".

Articles like these make me crazy. There are thousands of people out there
who think that choosing breast or bottle is like choosing Pepsi or Coke,
they are pretty much the same and it's really just a matter of your personal
preference, maybe one will afford a little more health benefit but it really
doesn't make much difference in the end. Articles like these do nothing to
remedy this thinking.

Stacie
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com