Aibu? to be pissed off at this: "The cost and social implications of using an infant milk should be considered when deciding how to feed your baby."

[Selyna]

WTF do Hipp mean by social implications?

Both methods of feeding a baby are acceptable so fuck off with the whole acting like ff is poison! my dd is perfectly fine but i hate this constant making me feel like a failure because i failed to bf although i tried so so hard!

but whatme, there was nothing wrong with entropy's calcs, either!

Don't let me distract you from your quest to find those contradictory studies, though, now will ya? :)

Those are unknowns as well Hilly, I agree, but not quite one a level with a species' exclusive food in its first months of life. I mean we are the only species on earth that feeds, en mass, its babies a product not only from an entity not its mother, but from another, unrelated species altogether.*

It seems anathema to me that anyone could venture that the long-term impact of that is, or will be, immaterial.

Again, I am not saying this to make anyone feel bad. It is on threads like these where these issues, questions, etc, can be raised.

*Apols for over-use of the word 'species'.

I'm a thwarted breastfeeder though I managed to express in some capacity for a month. 150 years is 2 generations and nothing has come to light yet? It's an interesting point.

Oh my word, is all I can say.

Can I suggest we do a time/cost benefit analysis of all the arguing done on this thread? I bet you could breast feed the whole von Trapp family in the same timeframe and still be quids in.

There's always a trade-off between pretty clear short and medium-term benefits to the species and unknown longer-term effects positive and negative.

I mean, the internet is fantastic, but we have no clue, really, whether it affects behaviour in the longer-term for good or ill. We can't uninvent it now :)

Same with formula. It's definitely what's been termed 'an uncontrolled experiment in infant health' but it clearly serves a useful purpose. What puzzles me is that while we accept mobile phones, the internet, cars, planes, food additives and so on all have downsides, known and unknown, any question about formula's safety risks taken as being a judgment on individual mothering.

pickles, 150 years would be 5 generations, and loads has come to light :)

Lots has come to light, and 150 years is nothing when you consider how long humans have walked the earth. :)

That's why I'm asking. I'm interested where's a good place to take a look?

Not taking it as a judgement btw.

but whatme, there was nothing wrong with entropy's calcs, either!

Except she decided to switch units from those we had been using, and then tried to discredit my calculations with a unit 1000 times smaller.

Good try, but no cigar. I noticed, and my calculations are in fact correct.

Can I suggest we do a time/cost benefit analysis of all the arguing done on this thread? I bet you could breast feed the whole von Trapp family in the same timeframe and still be quids in

Depends on whether you use Value Lemon Curd or Finest Lemon Curd you know :o.

pickles, you could try Politics of Breastfeeding (Palmer), or for a historical look at infant feeding the now out-of-print I think Breasts, Bottles and Babies (Fildes), which is less overtly campaigning - both will probably have chunks to read on Google books, both are referenced.

Depends what you're after - there are a number of academic reviews of the literature, inc Cochrane. NICE have papers which reference the guidance to support bf by saying why it's worthwhile doing so.

There's no evidence that babies' physiological needs have changed, BTW, to accommodate the different effect of formula - that sort of mutation takes zillions (to use a technical term :) ) of generations, and has to be advantageous to the survival of the species ...which is unlikely (thank you, Mr Darwin).

Thanks I'll take a look.

No, whatme, you tried to discredit her calcs by using a unit 1000 x bigger :)

Timeline:
i) entropy does calculations using kcals
ii) whatme says entropy's maths are rubbish and uses cals

I did spot the kcal/cal discrepancy, decided not to highlight because you were rubbishing the calcs as if the units were interchangeable, and so re-did your calcs as if they were the same units as entropy's ....

*And you know what? Evolutionarily speaking, 150 years is the tiniest of blips.

While we all know FF babies who've grown into adults and all is well, we can't know what the long-term impact is going to be on us as a species, feeding our infants - as their exclusive food in the first months of their life - a manufactured product from another species.

I don't say this as a way to make people feel bad, just as an add-on to this debate. *

That does not follow how evolution actually works and is at best a misinformed statement and at worst a classic scaremongering technique without any bases on argument.

Interestingly enough it is widely believed that lactose tolerance was the last evolutionary change in mankind which occurred around about the stone age more than 6000 years ago.

"That does not follow how evolution actually works and is at best a misinformed statement and at worst a classic scaremongering technique without any bases on argument."

What...?

I didn't state anything. I questioned. I said we don't know what the long-term effects will be, since it's still all so new.

No, whatme, you tried to discredit her calcs by using a unit 1000 x bigger

No tiktok, this whole thread was using Food calories, so I used those too, to compare like with like - ie 500 Food calories per baby per day compared to however many Food calories were in various foods. EG jumped to Energy units either because she didn't know the difference or was trying to discredit me, and hoped no one would notice.

And your timeline is wrong, I had done calculations way upthread before that to show prices don't differ. EG used the cheapest possible calories she could find and used Energy calories as her unit to try and argue against that.

I did spot the kcal/cal discrepancy, decided not to highlight because you were rubbishing the calcs as if the units were interchangeable, and so re-did your calcs as if they were the same units as entropy's

Yeah right - that's why you lampooned me for saying Tesco Curd cost £170 or whatever and demanding an apology. Face it - you either also got confused or were also deliberately trying to be disingenuos.

Anyway, it took me a while to disentangle the (deliberate?) disingenuity, but I think we have safely established now that no one (sane) is going to fill up on 500 Food calories a day with Tesco Value Lemon Curd in order to be able to claim BF is (near) free.

Er.....novack, which bit of Sod's post are you arguing with?

• "150 years is a tiny space of time, in terms of the species' evolutionary development" - what's wrong with that?
• "we can't know what the effect is on our species will be of feeding formula" - again, this is true, is it not?

The last evolutionary change is lactose intolerance you say, occuring in the 'stone age more than 6000 years ago'....a rough-but-good-enough point for the purposes of this debate, underlying the fact the evolutionary change takes ages to happen.

Believe what you like, whatme, I was telling the truth.

Please try to find some research that discredits my points about compensatory mechanisms.

Sorry Novack, I'm finding it difficult to follow your train of thought on this thread. First the contradiction re weight gain in pregnancy - being something the body just does vs 'eating for two' and not moving enough.

And now this. You tell me I'm wrong (when I didn't even venture an argument; rather, I asked a question!), and then go on to say the last evolutionary change took place 6000 years ago - exactly proving my point. That it takes 1000s and 1000s of years for our bodies to evolve and react. And given that formula has been in widespread use for just 150 years, it's still far too early to know what the effects will be.

As an aside, I'm still boggling a bit that whatme's entire argument rests on a giant conspiracy theory, and that there are actually loads of people in the know re breastfeeding being a giant swizz, and they're keeping schtum for fear of losing their jobs. I mean, there's so much £$?£$? to be made from breastfeeding, after all...

Actually I get novack's point. Sod's post, however hypothetically phrased, was Lamarckian in implication.

I didn't state anything. I questioned. I said we don't know what the long-term effects will be, since it's still all so new

I think its shows where this discussion is headed that the Pro BF best line of defence now is that "we don't know where all this is going" after 150 years of experience.

Next I assume pasteurisation will be the devils work because it males cows milk fit for humans to drink without risk....

Dilys, can you explain novak's point, then?

I actually do understand it now - she is saying that pregnant women gain extra fat because they move less and eat more, not because of some underlying hormonal impetus to hang onto fat. If they have extra fat this is because they have over-eaten and moved even less.

Well....pregnancy does affect behaviour, we know that, and this (moving less, eating more) could be the mechanism whereby the body hangs onto fat - because hanging onto fat is certainly what women do. They also do it even in situations where over-eating is highly unlikely, so maybe those women simply move less? This is not what the research says, because it posits a hormonal effect working on the metabolism rather than subtle or not so subtle behaviour change, but whatever...behaviour change could be part of it.

Either way, it happens in preparation for bf and no woman can do anything about it. Even if she rigidly controls her intake, it will still happen.

I don't see what's Lamarkian about Sod's points - but sort-of-Lamarkian-type insights into how behaviour in pg affects offspring are cutting edge :)

www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/

No, whatme, the best 'pro-bf' line is absolutely not 'we don't know where this is going'.

I think that's actually a weak point, though nonetheless true.

The point is not needed as we have good evidence of the short and medium term effects.

Now.

How are you getting on with your Googling???