Hope you don't mind a lot of questions on this, Tyler, as it's a subject I don't know much about beyond the observational reports on HGs, like those of Eaton et al.
I only mentioned what I might theoretically do because I was asked. Like I said, the 3 year figure was just a guesstimate I threw out based on Eaton and other scientists and I only meant it as supplementary breastfeeding, not exclusive. I have no firm commitment to any period beyond 6 months. This appears to be a somewhat emotional subject, probably because it involves children. I got taken to task for not using a 6-9 years figure and now it looks like I took a bit of heat for stating a guesstimate of 3 or more years instead of 2 or 2.9 (and I was thinking I would play it by ear and
maybe it would work out to around 3, maybe a little more up to 3.5 or 4 years and maybe less down to 6 months--as apparently with Gray-Hawk--all depending on how my theoretical infant actually responded and what the mother's needs were). It's all rather puzzling to me. Looks like I stepped into a minefield and it may be better to refuse to answer questions on the subject.
When I said 2 years, I meant around 2 years, not by their 2nd birthday.
OK, and by 3 years I didn't mean that 2.9 years was way too low, so it sounds like we basically agree that 2.9 years is a reasonable figure for at least some HGs. Like I said, beyond 6 months I view it as probably a supplementary food rather than necessarily an exclusive one, so my view may not be nearly as different from yours as you thought.
I think the most important thing is what replaces the breastmilk. If it's the SAD, then up to 7 years of supplemental breastfeeding might be theoretically beneficial. If it's raw meat and fat, then I think the 6 month weaning of Gray-Hawk looks reasonable, but I don't have a firm opinion either way.
As for claims for higher ages, I was suggesting that hunter-gatherer tribes only breastfed for longer for unnatural reasons(ie to delay further pregnancies in the meantime due to the contraceptive nature of breastfeeding), not because it was best for the child.
Not only do a baby's growing teeth cause problems re breastfeeding(as some mothers mention) but , as I pointed out re wildlife, weaning comes quite early in childhood among wild animals with cubs etc. quickly being fed on regurgitated food, being encouraged to eat prey caught by the mother etc.
I thought the baby's teeth problem was described as mainly a problem of discomfort for the mothers, rather than harm to the children? Do you have any evidence directly supporting contraception as the primary reason for HG breastfeeding beyond a certain age and at what age does it kick in? I know there is evidence supporting the partial contraceptive ability of breastfeeding, but is there evidence supporting it as substantially more important than all other reasons; that is, showing HGs engaged in breastfeeding past one or two years with the primary aim of contraception, rather than as a secondary benefit? Are there no other benefits to be obtained by breastfeeding beyond 2 years than contraception (which may be of benefit even to moderners, BTW)? My memory's not clear on this, but I think 2 years is the minimum age for the child to be able to walk and keep up with a nomadic tribe, so a mother is free to have another child, right? Are you saying the primary reason after that is contraception?
I'm not aware of any reported harm to the child from breastmilk up to the age of 7 (the high range I've seen, though Rawzi mentioned 9 years as the high range for trad. Inuits), other than the potential for social stigma and maybe psychological maternal dependence (and I don't know when if ever these kick in for HG children whose mothers are eating healthy diets). Have you seen any reports on this?
Whatever the case, I really don't want a situation where it becomes forum policy ...
As for forum policy, you'd have to take that up with GS, as I don't control that. Maybe you mean you don't want to see advocacy of breastfeeding beyond 2.9 years become part of the norm here?
to encourage breastfeeding up till the age of puberty or whatever age the extremists in LaLeche encourage(I've so far heard of the age of 9 being commonly mentioned).
All the La Leche League sources I've seen (to which the paleodiet.com website and someone here directed me--so all my initial sources were Paleo-related) so far mentioned 2 to 7 years, which is also what the observational studies of HGs by scientists indicate. So far I've only seen RawZi mention 9 years, but maybe she got that from LLL? I don't know much about LLL and didn't know they were considered extremists by some, though the WAPF apparently disagrees with them.
We have enough hasslefrom the general public over the raw-meat-issue, there's no need for us to just be anti-Establishment purely for its own sake, without reasonable cause.
Do you view any recent posts in this forum as "anti-Establishment purely for its own sake," or is that just a fear you have that might theoretically develop? I certainly don't write or do anything just to be anti-establishment. I go wherever the facts lead me and I don't care if the facts are not popular with the establishment and I also don't care if they ARE popular with the establishment. I'm not going to lie just to please the "establishment" and I'm not going to ignore the facts if they do line up with what the establishment wants. If you have evidence, present it. Evidence is much more likely to persuade me than your opinions and fears.
