I've been wondering about a couple of things related to exclusive breastfeeding, and I'm not doing very well searching the net for the answers.

1) Are all of the health benefits of breastfeeding (or should I say risks of formula?) related to the properties of breastmilk, or could some be related to where the milk comes from i.e. breasts as opposed to bottles? I was thinking about ear infections and stomach upsets and wondering if they are more common in formula fed babies at least in part because of the bottles rather than the formula, if you see what I mean?

2) Is there any really good research to show that it makes a significant difference if babies (in developed countries) have nothing except breastmilk in the first 6 months? I understand the evidence about allergies is mixed, is that right? I looked at the Cochrane review which said that babies have a lower risk of gastrointestinal infection if exclusively breastfed for 6 months, but that seemed to be about it for benefits for the baby, which I found quite surprising.

I've been pondering these things during middle of the night breastfeeds, no idea why!

Hi thursdaynext read this website which I found really interesting.

http://www.promom.org/101/

I can't help you, but hunkermunker's blog, howbreastfeedingworks.com, might be a good source of info.

kellymom.com, too

I know nowt

Trouble with stuff like kellymom and the site you linked to, grouphug, is that it is from a particular standpoint i.e. breastfeeding promotion, so only positive studies tend to be included.

Most of the risks from formula are to do with unhygenic preparation in the home/ from the production line. However, this is why you prepare feeds with boiling water not tap water. This will kill bugs. Sterilising bottles correctly to the guidelines will also prevent bugs in the bottles.
I don't know about the other claims such as higher intelligence- I'm no dunce myself and was completely formula fed. My dd1 was ff from 6wks and is approx 1yr ahead by HV assessment at 2yrs
There is apparently research for all the claims if you trawl the bf threads .
From different mothers I have spoken to I have found that the ff babies sleep longer at an earlier age compared to bf babies. Obviously this is just observation/word of friends.
My dd1 slept 2230-7 at 8wks after 2wks ff but it could just be lucky coincidence.
dd2 is ex bf and is 7wks and no sign of giving up night feeds (2 per night).

Hello Thursdaynext

There are around 200 executive summaries of various reports, including good, unbiased research into benefits of breastfeeding here for you to have a look at!

Thanks hoppy, that's a really good site. I was vaguely hoping someone might have done all the reading for me and could give me a nice short summary! (Lazy, I know)
Tori, I am happy breastfeeding, just wanted a bit more science really. I think you were very lucky with your dd1, that's very early to be sleeping so long whether ff or bf. Good luck with breastfeeding dd2

tori, you say "Most of the risks from formula are to do with unhygenic preparation in the home/ from the production line." Of course risks increase if formula is prepared unhygeinically, but the risk of infection is related to the lack of antibodies in formula. This shows up very clearly in the UK, where we don't have an issue with unhygienic preparation (or dirty water), and where formula fed babies are at greater risk.

Thursday, your question (1) is a reasonable one - breasts deliver the milk in a more physiological way, and this may have a bearing, especially regarding ear infections (because of the links between ears and throats and the way milk can pool in the tubes. There is also the fact that breastfeeding is 'baby led' ie the baby takes what he needs and this is good for appetite responsiveness (maybe one of the reasons ff babies are more at risk of obesity). I don't know if any studies have been done on this, though (comparing bf babies with bf-by-bottle babies).

There are several good studies to support exclusive bf to 6 mths for more reasons than gastro, linked to already on this thread.

tiktok, I phrased my second question badly, what I really meant was bf exclusively to 6 months as opposed to 4 months. Am I right in thinking the evidence about allergies is mixed?
I have a 4 month old DD, and I thought I might not use bottles at all (wheras DS had expressed breastmilk in bottles sometimes). I guess I was just wondering if I'm being rational!

How about this summary and this report about how breastfeeding (and not using bottles, either EBM or formula) allows the mouth to develop properly and ensures teeth grow straight. There's some interesting links to pics on the full report, showing the difference between the prehistoric and modern day palate.

I was obsessed with bottles to around 5 years old, and have quite an overbite, and have had molars removed to avoid over-crowding.

Thursday, I understand...you're right, the evidence for a significant diff between 4 mths and 6 mths is not that great, and yes, it's mainly on gastro (allergies is more difficult to be sure about). But the point is that babies do not need (on the whole) anything but breastmilk until that age, and there are no nutritional benefits of giving other foods earlier...and some risks.

gastro and respiratory risks / increased hospitalisations

HTH

hoppybird and carrot, thanks, very interesting links. I hadn't thought about teeth at all.

tiktok, I know babies don't need anything except breastmilk prior to 6 months, and breastfeeding seems loads easier to me than faffing about with little bits of sloppy food, or using bottles for that matter. I was just interested in whether there's much evidence for the difference between exclusive breastfeeding for 4 or 6 months.