To think breast fed babies are more intellegent

[thecatamongthepidgeons]

Because their parents tend to be more intellegent not because they were breast fed?
More intellegent parents are more likely to choose to breast feed regardless of any dificulties they face if they think it will benefit their children.

"I was only BF until 6 weeks. Is that why I have 10 GCSEs, 4 A levels, a degree and a DIP RSA?"

My grandad smoked till he was 90 and didn't get cancer. Therefore, smoking doesn't give you cancer.

'Of course the mums who cannot bf should not be judged'

Those who choose not to should be though? Even actually the action is exactly the same? Either ff is something to get your lentil weaving knickers in a twist about or it ain't. No sugaring your message with dividing out people who can or can't.

'Of course the mums who cannot bf should not be judged'

Judging is a complete and utter waste of time. Life is just too short.

There are "studies" for everything,I don't read and worry about every study to do with parenting otherwise I'd be in an early grave.

Why should I treat "studies" on bf any differently?Bf seems to be the only area in parenting we have to obsess over the results of every tin pot study published.

I mean the University of Essex-come on.

This subject has been discredited twice.As I said before anybody with a brain knows the effects of bf on intelligence is totally inconsequential,miniscule compared to other areas of parenting hence the healthy couldn't give a shit attitude I hope most people take on this subject.

Oh and dp recently took part in a "study",medical research for a well respected uni. He says he was heavily swayed into answering a couple of questions the way the interviewer thought he should. Hence my scepticism regarding any "research" "study" etc. Sorry a "study" isn't gospel,it can be discredited or even wrong.

Bf is a tiny part of raising a healthy,intelligent child into an adult,soooo not worth the hysteria,obsessing and air play given to it. This thread is yet another pointless discussion on the subject.

I should also point out that despite being an intelligent parent who knew where to go for help and advice, I still formula fed ds2, because he was in hospital at 6 weeks old, diagnosed as failing to thrive.

He'd lost 10oz from his birthweight (which is quite a lot, if I recall correctly) and at 6 weeks old, still hadn't regained the majority of that weight. I'd had the health visitor on the doorstep every day or couple of days, telling me she wanted ds2 to have gained an ounce by the next time she visited, and telling me to supplement with formula.

When I told her how much I wanted to make breastfeeding work, she told me that she had to think of the best interests of the baby!! I asked her if she thought I didn't have my baby's best interests at heart, and asked her to leave my house forthwith.

I persevered with breastfeeding - ds2 was almost constantly on the breast, and still he didn't gain the weight back, and then one day he woke up from a nap with really raspy and difficult breathing, so my gp told me to take him up to the childrens ward. They diagnosed a chest infection and started him on antibiotics, but what concerned them most was his weight - and they kept us in to see if he would gain some more weight (that's when I heard the staff using the phrase 'failing to thrive' in reference to ds2). In the end, it was only by introducing formula top-ups that ds2 started to gain weight, and then we were allowed to go home, but this spelled the end of bf for me and him.

I can't see how it would have ended well if I had persisted with bfing ds2 - he clearly wasn't getting sufficient nutrition or calories to survive - the intelligent thing was to supplement him with formula, so that he lived. I have photos of him at 6 weeks old, and it is hugely distressing to see this white, spindly baby - he looks almost like a famine victim - and it is my milk that made him that way!

Ds3 was mixed-fed from the word 'go' - he was bf during the day and had a couple of bottles during the night. This worked really well for us, but if I cut down the number of bottles, he just stopped gaining weight.

I cannot help believing that my milk was not any good - I couldn't nourish my own children.

Baggedandtagged what a ridiculous analogy, your grandad was lucky.

FF babies aren't generally lucky if they're intelligent,they just will be.

Bf has practically zero impact on intelligence(not so maternal influence,genes),tobacco has a massive impact on health.

StayingDavidTennantsGirl - did your HV refer you to a lactation consultant at any point during the difficult early days of feeding your son?

MilaMae - how do you feel about the research showing that formula is safe and beneficial to babies? Do you discount the value of those studies as well?

Because surely, before a commercial product is allowed to be given to babies as a complete replacement for a food which is known to be safe, there should be exhaustive studies to show that there are no drawbacks or risks associated with its use?

Are you aware of any independent research showing that formula isn't associated with any disadvantages for babies?

Do you not think that ANY commercial product manufactured for children ought to be exhaustively tested to prove that it is at least as safe as the product it's designed to replace?

"Bf has practically zero impact on intelligence"

Well - it has 3 - 6 points impact on intelligence.

How significant this is is a matter of opinion surely?

Just stumbled across this:

iqbyprofession

Average IQ for college professors/doctors: 132
Average IQ for caretakers: 112

If there are only 20 IQ points for your average members of these two professions, then you could argue that 6 IQ points might make quite a difference to some people's life chances!

IQ is only a measurement of one type of intelligence. I have poor mathematical and spatial awareness due to dyspraxia, so I only score around 130 on IQ tests, but have always done very well academically with subjects based on reasoning or interpretation rather than there being only one right answer. IYSWIM/

I really don't give a shit about "studies" "research" full stop.

My kids consume a vast amount of different foods,I don't worry and obsess over stats about any of these or any other particular area of their childhood to be frank.

I use my common sense and a huge deal of perspective.

Oh MilaMae, Bagged's point was exactly that... just because someone has amazing qualifications and was breastfed doesn't mean it was the breastfeeding that did it.. the same way you couldn't make the same causal link between a really old person who has smoked all their life.

This thread must hold the absolute record for me in people totally and utterly missing the point in so many places.

Maybe you're missing the point Grubbalo.

Personally this thread holds for me the record in posters writing patronising posts.

I'd love to see how said study recorded quality of parental interaction which must have one of the biggest impacts on intelligence and has nothing to do with IQ,genes,class or anything else.

Bet they had a really reliable,cast iron,scientific method of collecting and recording their data.

I'm sorry if you found me patronising, this is just such an emotive subject and I think people are reading posts quickly, and without reading the previous pages etc.

From Bagged's previous posts, I'm pretty certain that I've understood her point, although I stand to be corrected

You can't mention genes on mumsnet when discussing bf MilaMae. There's no such thing as genetics just glorious booby juice.
heh.

Spudulika - no, my HV didn't suggest a referral to a lactation consultant. As far as we could see, the latch was good, and he was feeding for a long time, hence my conclusion that it was my substandard milk that caused the problem.

I do wonder whether there were things I could have done, or supplements I could have taken that might have helped, but when I was in the middle of it all, I just wasn't together enough to think beyond what I was already doing.

MilaMae The study was two part; the first part examining the contents of the fridge. Organics, sustainable fish and lentils ensured top marks whilst a mere whiff of a Gregg's wrapper or pre-prepared fruits scored negatively. For the second part the parental SKY subscription package was analysed. Any family unit subscribing to more than just the basic package was assumed to be deficient in basic parenting skills. HTH.

"My kids consume a vast amount of different foods"

But what about if they decided to replace all the variety of foods they were eating with a single, highly processed food which was commercially manufactured and sold as a complete food replacement product? Would you not want to think it had been fully and independently tested to ensure it was safe?

StayingDavidTennantsGirl,

If you'd had difficulty digesting food to the point where it was affecting the quality of your life your doctor would have referred you to a gastro-enterologist if he or she hadn't been able to diagnose a problem.

If you have difficulty breastfeeding - a normal biological function - you should have been referred to an expert.

IMO your health visitor let you down.

Poor quality of milk is almost never proven a problem with breastfeeding. The issue is almost always down to how a baby is feeding or medical issues with the mother which impact on supply. I'm sure your milk was TOP QUALITY. Just your little boy wasn't getting as much as he needed at the time for reasons which were difficult for you or your HV to identify.

Would like to say MilaMae - I am with you about parenting practices having the most important impact on child development.

I just don't discount the value of breastfeeding completely because of this.

Habbibu, I applaud your heroic attempts to explain the nature of research and statistical results on this thread. However, every time I think you've cracked it there is another post saying something like "Ah but ... Albert Einstein was BF and Stephen Hawking was FF so that proves it's all nonsense". Keep it up though!

don't know about intelligence but breastfed babies are generally healthier and leaner as children.

Is there a difference between generally and have a higher probability of being?
I would imagine so.

Strange post alfie.

Not sure "lean" is something to be aspired to,however genes ,lifestyle and diet will play a far bigger part in being lean and healthy so again bf is pretty inconsequential really.

Yes bf is the preferred option but so are many other things which actually have a far bigger impact on health and intelligence. We don't seem to have thread upon thread obsessing about all these other aspects of parenting though-bizarre.

lean doesn'y mean skinny or slim, it means whatever your build your percentage of body fat is lower, so you are healthier. Breastfed babies store a different type of fat that disappears more quickly.

I really can't believe breasrfeeding a baby is inconsequential. Sorry.

Compared to other issues which have a far bigger impact it is-sorry.

OP, I agree with your second post. To start an ignorant thread like this, you certainly can't be intelligent.

Go away and amuse yourself in private instead of trying to start a bun-fight!