to ask if you would use donated breastmilk if it was available rather than formula?

[bubbleymummy]

Inspired by another thread.

I personally would rather use donated milk. If you wouldn't - why not?

Bubby i don't mean to contradict myself. Weefriend explains it better then i do.

"I think the point that people are trying to make is not that they think FF is as good as BF but rather that it is just one factor of many that can influence the future health of your children. You can't say that a FF child is doomed to a life of ill health because that won't be the only factor that matters in their life. It's impossible to tell even by reception age which kids were FF and which BF. Even if you assessed the health of all the children you still wouldn't be able to tell."

Whilst i do think mn is better then formula, and you don have to be a scientist to work out that, i just resent the way people are saying that by ff my children will be less healthy then bf ones. Long term good health is made up by ALL the choices you make, not just one. No one can determine the health choices i as a parent and them as an adult will. My children may go off and lead very healthy lives, a bf child may go off and lead a very unhealthy life. Only be when you add up all the factors can you determine how healthy someone is. Then you will never know, unless you make two of someone, whether or not that individual persons long term health would have been any different if they were bf. Even if there was a difference, it would be so small in the grand scheme of things, there really isn't any point in being smug about bf.

Bm is wonderful for baby yes and i don't doubt that aside from genetics, a bf BABY is slightly healthier in comparison. You cannot make the same comparison about older children and adults though because too many other factors come into the equation about how that person lives their lives.

I am also reporting missys nasty post. It was unnecessary and not supportive at all to anyone struggling.

Mila, it's not about liking the answers - it's about trying to understand them - the reasons behind them.

Mrssparkle- no one is saying that bm is a get out of jail free card for the rest of your life. Of course you can still be healthy if you were ff BUT it is very likely that you would have been more healthy if you were bf in addition to living a healthy lifestyle. I'm getting déjà vu from last night! :)

rollit - screening and concerns about its efficiency have come up on this thread quite a lot. I think I was going from the 'if you knew it was safe' angle just to gauge people's reaction to using human milk rather than cow's milk.

Wrt your argument about not getting diseases from other animals.... Bird flu, swine flu? Also, if that was the case then why bother screening and pasteurising cow's milk?

"Of course you can still be healthy if you were ff BUT it is very likely that you would have been more healthy if you were bf in addition to living a healthy lifestyle."

The point i am trying to make is without cloning people, there is no way you could ever know this for sure so it doesn't make the evidence fact, it makes it someones theory.

MrsSparkle, it is correct that you cannot know for certain if one persons outcomes would have been different, but we do know that it is likely that it would have been, given what we know from the population as a whole.

Mila, misinformation such as incorrect guidelines on how long to breastfeed for, for a start.

You could do that yes. It would be more accurate then the other theories out there. Not sure it would give the results people want to hear though if they tested me against my sister. She was bf and i was ff. She was a very buggy child and gets ill easily now where as i have a really strong immune system and don't get ill.

Even if you take two siblings though it still wouldn't be accurate because siblings don't acquire exactly the same genes from their parents. You would need identical twins and no variations in environment.

Yes but likely is not fact is it. It is someones theory.

People are talking about the bf facts but so far i have not come across any.

Roll you'd have to do it on identical twins.I have non identicals ie siblings who are completely different,my sister has identicals who are identical in every way.

I also think it would have to be on exclusive feeders.

Personally I think most of these studies aren't worth the paper they're written on,sorry,"likely"

For some things theory is all we can go on. It would be unethical to directly experiment on babies, so these studies can only be done by collecting information on what people do.

It is a fact that a bf baby is more likely to be healthy. Not necessarily will be, just that given what has been observed across the whole population, it is more likely.

"Of course you can still be healthy if you were ff BUT it is very likely that you would have been more healthy if you were bf in addition to living a healthy lifestyle."

No I don't think it works like that. You are applying population statistics to an individual. As a population there would be fewer instances of certain health problems if everyone was BF. As an individual, all else being equal, the probability of having certain health problems is increased if you are not BF. That is not the same as saying every individual who was BF is, all else being equal, healthier than every individual who was not.

My DS who was FF has food allergies and is more prone to illness than my DD who was mostly BF for the first 6 months. It could be that this is because he was FF (and believe me I've searched my soul about that) but for him as an individual it could just be the luck of the genetic draw or because he's a younger sibling he is exposed to more illness at a younger age. It's impossible to tell at an individual level.

Yes, absolutely we can say that the statistics show that BF is superior to FF. What we can't say is that at an individual level this person or that person has the state of health they do because of BF or FF.

Right and i agree it is more likely (again NOT a fact) that a bf baby (ie:under 12 months) would be more healthy then a ff one.

However, it is being stated at at FACT that adults who were bf are more likely going to be healthier then an adult who was ff. Again it is not a fact so people should stop stating it as one (which they are). It is one possible theory.

Rollit- I don't think it's a con because who would benefit from it? :) no one makes money out of bfing.

Benefits include (but are not limited to) the following: :)

Protection from obesity/heart disease/SIDS/leukaemia/meningitis/coeliac disase/ allergies/gastroenteritis/ear infections and more - if anyone else wants to fill on more please be my guest!

For the mother - reduced risk of arthritis/osteoporosis/Breast cancer

It doesn't mean that if you BF you will NEVER get any of the above and if you ff you will DEFINITELY get them - studies simply show that babies who are ff are at greater risk of the above,

Mrssparkle - we discussed this at length last night. The studies have controls that account for those variables so that they can compare bf and ff directly.

by supplying this information and replying to the previous posts I am in no way condemning or criticising those who ff.

I wouldn't even think it likely that a bf baby was more healthy than a ff one, because the two babies are not identical genetically and are not living in exactly the same environment.

Maybe the most you can say is that a poorly baby would be better off being bf, because it gains immunity from its mother, whereas a baby with no underlying health issues doesn't need it quite so much (although obviously it is better to have it, than not).

Bubble, again they are not facts, they are theories. Facts and someone theory is NOT the same.

If you want to believe the theories then i really don't care, that is up to you. But please please stop stating these likeys as facts.

Milamae - I asked you a questionast night that you didn't respond to and is relevant again. Why did you choose to feed your child organic food rather than non organic? Why do you limit tv time? Why are you prepared to accept the studies that show the benefits of those things at a population level but not those about bf?

"we discussed this at length last night. The studies have controls that account for those variables so that they can compare bf and ff directly."

Like what karmabeliever just said;

I wouldn't even think it likely that a bf baby was more healthy than a ff one, because the two babies are not identical genetically and are not living in exactly the same environment.

They can do all the tests they want but without cloning, the tests are never going to be accurate.

No karma, you would not be better off saying that - where are the studies that suggest that only sickly babies benefit from bm? How would you even know which babies would be sickly

No mrssparkle - they are not theories. They have been studied in great depth on many occasions and the conclusions have been drawn.

How do you know that a healthy diet has any effect on someone's health? Or if smoking will damage someone's health?

Even sibling studies are dodgy because there is no guarantee that two siblings will have the same genetic setup. My dd, who was breastfed for longer than her brother, is easily more cognitively advanced than him, but she is also far less healthy. I can see the individual relatives they take after. You wouldn't learn a lot about nurture from studying them because their genetic makeup is so obviously totally different.

bubbley - I didn't say only sickly babies would benefit. What I was saying is that the sickly baby might get more benefit, whereas it might not make much difference overall to a baby with no underlying illnesses, where everything in its environment is good (non smoker parents, not exposed to pollution etc).

Obviously, if you can, then you should give your baby every possible advantage, but if you can't for whatever reason ff will not significantly disadvantage your child or harm it, esp if all other factors are good.

Bubble a likely is not and never will be a fact no matter how much you want to believe. There is nothing wrong with having theories about things, but as your post states;

"It doesn't mean that if you BF you will NEVER get any of the above and if you ff you will DEFINITELY get them - studies simply show that babies who are ff are at greater risk of the above"

So someones theory is if you don't bf, you could be at a greater risk. Nothing in there that suggests you WILL get those illnesses is there? So it is not a fact, it is a likely, a theory.