aibu to be sick of seeing bfing vs ffeeding debates?

[ImNotABarbieGirl]

That's it really. I've just turned the tv on and AGAIN...there it is! It just infuriates me.

I still bfeed dd (22 months) I already live with friends and family making me feel uncomfetable, ignoreing little funny jokes/comments about it. I really do not need to turn the television on and hear some woman spouting how its disgusting etc on national television.

It annoys me moreso (sp?) That it is never a fair debate. It is always two extremest type people who just want to point out how wrong, disgusting etc the other party is.

Surely most people have access to information and support out there to make an informed choice about what's best for them. So what is the point of all this then? It seems its just another way for us to belittle eachotherparenting choices

Please excuse grammer/spelling

Oh, what I originally intended to post to the OP is I think the BF/FF debate is just a facet of a much larger issue.

Which is pregnant women and mothers are fair game for every man and his bloody dog to happily and loudly judge, criticise and make hurtful comments about any and every aspect of motherhood.

Simplest example off the top of my head is the celeb mags that trash women for not frantically rushing to lose baby weight, criticising for amount of weight gained in pregnancy, and praising mothers who do lose weight very quickly.

Mums are just fair game from the moment they announce they're expecting.

I don't care how other people feed their babies, I am just astonished quite often by how ill prepared people are for the changes having a baby creates.

I don't think people are unprepared. I think that despite expecting the disruption that everyone reaches a point at where it is all to much. And it's deemed ridiculous to expect things to change or to want to change it.

Yes babies cry and you expect disrupted sleep. Doesn't mean that after months and months it doesn't reach a dangerous or traumatic conclusion. And to bang on about it being normal or criticising someone's decision doesn't help. Unless you are prepared to go and take over for a while and allow the poor mum to breathe then its at best unhelpful and at worst just compelles a mum to continue well beyond her safe point. Because she's been made to feel that something is unrealistic or is going to harm her baby even if its just once or twice.

We aren't there, we don't know this person. by all means offer advice and support but posting statistics and scaring the shit out of people is just cruel.

Duelling fanjo - what do you mean? If you can explain to me how anyone can be completely prepared for the trials and tribulations of motherhood I would be astonished.

Statements like that do other women, and mothers, a massive disservice - go back to your judgypants box and stay there please.

I don't think you can be completely prepared but I think it's a no brainer that babies need to eat and so wake up a lot which means sleep will be disrupted a lot for a long time.

WTF has that got to do with this thread - you have to do that if you are ff or bf? I'm very confused

MINIFINGERS

I really do have to pick you up on some of your earlier posts;

"Yes - the NHS, UNICEF, WHO , the American Academy of Paediatrics, the Royal College of Midwives - all scare mongerers, radical lactivists, extremists, plonkers. They must be - all of the links between ff and higher rates of the illnesses I've mentioned on this thread (and many more I haven't) are presented in their literature as supported by a good evidence base and are all at the very least least worthy of serious consideration."

"the desperation to ignore the evidence. Maybe it's because as a culture we're so completely sold on bottle feeding and can't bring ourselves to accept that there might be any significant drawbacks for babies in doing something which is so acceptable and convenient to adults."

The WHO who have recently concluded, following a pretty exhaustive analysis of the evidence, that many of the oft touted long term benefits of bf/risks of ff are either non existent, not supported by evidence or 'modest'.

apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/79198/1/9789241505307_eng.pdf

This the problem that I have with people like you on these threads. You imply repeatedly that there is a general consensus within the medical community that bf is a significant factor in child health and insist that anyone who disagrees with you either has issues or has failed to understand the science bit. The fact is that while there are some proven short term benefits there is no consensus as to whether there is ANY medium or long term benefit of BF. Some studies say yes some say no. The WHO meta study concluded, in short probably not and certainly not to any significant degree. It also concluded that whatever supposed benefit was being investigated by a given study in general the better studies showed either no difference or were inconclusive whereas the poorly conducted studies tend to show benefit; In short the better designed the study the more likely it was to show....fuck all.

Can we agree that the WHO are unlikely to be ignoring evidence and misrepresenting data because it has ishooos or has been infiltrated by agents of 'big forma'....

There's disrupted sleep, and there's no sleep at all. Ones normal the other isn't and the notion that its normal and a person is unrealistic to want to improve the situation is nothing short of dangerous.

Roweeena my recent comments were in response to Wheresmycaffeinedrip who was making the point about sleep deprivation and so making some connection between feeding formula = better sleep.

I would agree with you that feeding formula doesn't always lead to better sleep (Although it is often cited as a reason to feed a baby formula) but many people seem to believe this and so therefore seem to think that a mother getting better sleep is a good reason to start using formula.

my point was that people surely realise that having a baby = sleep deprivation in many cases.

Of course ff doesn't garuntee an improvement. It does however allow for distribution of feeding responsibility so that mum can get a break.

"There's disrupted sleep, and there's no sleep at all. Ones normal the other isn't and the notion that its normal and a person is unrealistic to want to improve the situation is nothing short of dangerous."

yes. that's why I asked you earlier if you thought Formula = better sleep?

"It does however allow for distribution of feeding responsibility so that mum can get a break."

xpost. Fair enough.

And I will say once again. I know it doesn't garuntee sleep. But it does mean that friends and family can feed the baby and mum can rest or leave the house.

X-post sorry

no I am sorry - I am being a bit of an arse but only because I strongly believe that breastfeeding rates are low partly because of the lies and mis-information surrounding formula. I just wish women could make informed decisions and get the help they need to breastfeed without pain.

And there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Just sometimes on here it's not done in a nice way.

Congtats on your baby. Here's some information that might help, drs/hv don't always know what they are talking about but here's a web site that might help and I hope you can make a guilt free decision that's suits your family. pm me if you have any questions i know how tough it can be- is a pleasant way of communicating some mis information.

Your baby will die if you don't breast feed look at these stats. Formula is bad dont listen to anyone and feed day and night til you drop.- is not helpful.

Surely we can agree that how the information is given is as important as the info itself. After all everyone wants the best for their kid and its hard enough without people being tactless and calling you selfish or unrealistic or lazy for making a decision they don't agree with.

Forgot the :) as that's really not meant in a nasty way DF x

AHHH I understand - I hadn't fully read the preceding posts.

When I went to school and did childcare (compulsory subject in Swedish secondary schools in the 70s), it was believed to have been statistically proved that putting your baby to sleep on its front worked as a preventative measure against SIDS. It says so in there.

Clearly, there must have been some factor that those studies forgot to compensate for.

Personally, I always think to myself that I wish I could see the actual study and see exactly which factors they have compensated for: income level, health and education of parents, genetics, early delivery, complications surrounding birth etc. Not least genetics: some conditions which are not always diagnosed correctly can cause early death but can also make it more difficult to breastfeed. So it might not be the lack of bf that is causing the SIDS but the SIDS-causing condition that is causing the lack of bf. I'd also like to see the results analysed by a professional statistician: it is embarrassing how many academics don't really understand statistics at all.

Not saying I don't believe it, just that I always wish I had more information.

My rubberduck - I acknowledge that the isn't a consensus among all medical professionals on a range of issues relating to infant nutrition but there's ENOUGH of a consensus that an agreement has been reached that parents can be advised in SIDS literature and NHS information that breastfeeding reduces the likelihood of SIDS.

There is also enough public and accessible acknowledgement amongst the SIDS medical community and within the establishment for the belief that breastfeeding may help protect a baby, to make the sneering and instant consensus on mumsnet that this is all a load of lactivist bollocks with no good evidence behind it at all, SHAMEFUL and telling.

Seriously - there is something very grim going on when the response of mature women to the suggestion that how you feed your baby may have health consequences for them is anger, vilifying and disbelief. It's really, really fucked up. There are too many people here who are DESPERATE to believe that there really are NO health issues that warrant consideration when it comes to feeding choices. Time again you see this - not just in relation to an issue such as SIDS which is rare, but in acknowledging that ANY babies will ever experience any ill health from not being breastfed. I think sometimes people hear the truism 'breast feeding protects babies from illness' and they think its all completely hypothetical - ie, no REAL babies are ever ill or hospitalised from not being breastfed.

Because if you think that way the whole debate really does boil down to adults doing what they find comfortable and convenient, and babies scarcely come into the equation at all. IMO that's just WRONG. And dishonest.

And that, friends, is why I will continue joining in these debates. Because the discussion of this topic has become very one sided.

Well said minifingers.

"Errr bollocks Mini.

SIDS is thankfully rare,if you avoid risk such as over heating,smoking,co sleeping,sleeping on back etc statistically there is buggar all implication from ff."

So why does the Lullaby Trust refer to research suggesting that breastfeeding may reduce the risk of SIDS by as much as 50%, and include it as one of the 5 things a parent can do to protect their baby from SIDS, along with putting them to sleep on their backs etc?

From their website:

"As long ago as 1965 it was shown that babies under 3 months who died of SIDS were less likely to be breastfed than infants who did not die. Since then, numerous studies have supported the protective effects of breastfeeding, with one overview report concluding that breastfeeding reduces the incidence of SIDS by approximately half.

Even a brief period of breastfeeding can be protective for your baby. It has been shown that both partial and exclusive breastfeeding have been associated with a lower SIDS rate, but that exclusive breastfeeding was associated with the lowest risk."

I repeat - this is the main cot death charity in the UK. Why would they include this if there was 'statistically bugger all implication from ff'? Why?

I'd really appreciate a response that answers this specific question, and also a response to this information being included on NHS Choices if it's 'bollocks' and 'scare-mongering'.

Thanks!

heres the link if you want to look for yourself.

and here:

here

So please - specifically - can you address why the main cot death charity in the UK has 'scaremongering' and 'bollocks' on its website?

"The WHO who have recently concluded, following a pretty exhaustive analysis of the evidence, that many of the oft touted long term benefits of bf/risks of ff are either non existent, not supported by evidence or 'modest'."

First off - it concludes that breastfeeding protects against obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and it is associated with better cognitive function in later childhood. Yes - the benefits are 'modest', but that's exactly what you'd expect given that the VAST majority of the studies included in this analysis include in the 'breastfeeding' arm of the trial, mainly mixed fed babies, a good number of whom will actually be predominantly ff, and babies who are classified as 'breastfed' on the strength of less than 4 weeks of mixed feeding. And yet, bizarrely, studies STILL find differences in blood pressure in children who are likely to only have had a minimal amount of breastfeeding YEARS down the line!

This is one very good study into long term outcomes associated with breastfeeding which DID control for exclusivity and dose with breastfeeding, and was conducted in the UK. It's a follow up of an earlier study into short term outcomes associated with breastfeeding:

here

The only person who sounds remotely desperate, is you mini!!!

You have had lots of responses. Lots of women saying they have seen the information, they have discussed it with health professionals, they indeed are health professionals, and their view is different from yours.

You seem completely unable to accept this.

I don't think there have been any posts saying that there are no benefits to breast feeding. If there are, accept my apologies.

What there are a lots of posts saying that such benefits are marginal in the west, and as such can be counter balanced by other things. We all make these decisions each and every day of our lives here in the UK. We're able to do it. We don't need you to patronise, hector, insult or harrangue.

Today, for example, I drove my DC to the woods in my car. Statitistically this is far more risky than not driving. Children are killed every week in the UK in car accidents. However, I decided that such a risk is small here in the UK. Lucky us . However that does not mean that I don't understand the stats. That I am in denial. Or that I don't accept that there are REAL children in hospital now as a result of trafffic accidents!!!

Your insistence that not breast feeding in the UK poses serious health risks is frankly hysterically overblown. It smacks of being absorbed by the sound of your own voice rather than having any interests in protecting real people.