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

And those of you who think people like me are fixated on judging mothers and have no business having any concern about how babies are fed, you do realise that some of us see this as a public health issue, don't you? And that as babies are the most vulnerable people in society, and as they don't have a voice, some of us feel a moral imperative to express our concerns about this subject, especially if everyone else seems to be dismissing the medical evidence and focusing solely on the welfare and needs of adults.

Word - yup, the weird accusations of 'scaremongering' and 'bollocks' about information on SIDS reduction on the Lullaby Trust and NHS Choices website has shaken me a bit. I've never seen anything quite as mental here on a ff/bf discussion. The insistence that the main cot death charity in the UK puts advice that is 'bollocks' and 'scare mongering' on its website. Really?

"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"

What do you do that counterbalances the additional risk to a baby of not being breastfed, other than the things you'd normally do anyway, like not smoking all over them etc?

Babies in the UK will die from not being breastfed. From NEC. From SIDS.

Thousands - literally thousands, will be hospitalised.

Most avoidably - because it wouldn't have happened if they had been breastfed.

this news report points out that if we had the same breastfeeding rates as Norway 865 fewer UK mums would get breast cancer.

And nearly 10 000 fewer admissions to hospital for gastric and respiratory illness in babies. 10 000. Every year. Think about that next time you're find the platitude 'happy mum, happy baby' tripping off your tongue, when you're trying to make someone feel happier about not breastfeeding.

So - what do you do to 'balance out' the risks of depriving a vulnerable newborn with an immature immune system of the immune boosting benefits of breastmilk - which have evolved specifically because a newborn baby is immunologically vulnerable? What 'extra' measures do you take to offset the lack of antibodies that your newborn will have if they aren't being breastfed?

There you go again mini yapping, yapping, yapping...

You are so wedded to your idea that you have ytterly lost sight of your goal. You like the fight and the sound of your own voice.

You have completely lost your empathy and sense of proportion.

You tell yourself that you can do and say anyhting because you have right on your side. In fact you tell yourself that it is your duty.

If you actually thought about what it is you are trying to achieve, you would realise that you are achieving the absolute antithisis.

mini a counter balance doesn't mean an exact equation.

Each family has to decide for themselves whether X is more important than Y.

Sometimes it will be obvious that X is more important and no amount of Y will sway a parent.

You talk about adult priorities as if they were trifles. But they are not. As adults we have many many responsibilities to our DC, not just feeding them. We also have responsibilities to others too

I never get bogged down in the statistics but I do remember the one lasting bit of information I was given by my school biology teacher. She said that often people think of breast milk as a food but that is only one of the functions it is designed for. It also has a very significant role in providing an immunological boost to a completely immature infant immune system so to compare it to formula is comparing apples and oranges since formula is only food. Anyway for my own reasons I have had to use formula but I have never and would never view it as something close to breast milk because it is not and my 2 ff ladies were in and out of doctors which was not much fun. Thankfully touch wood we have never been to a gp for illness with the bf little one although it probably won't be for ever a year and a half is not too bad compared to his sisters.

mini I hope to god you do not speak to new mums like that. The idea that you have access vulnerable scared new mums doesn't bare thinking about. Now I'm not disputing the facts we all know that ideally it's the best thing for a baby. Big life isnt always fair like that. We aren't all lucky enough to be in situations where it works out. But your insistent harsh delivery of information could be enough to tip any struggling mum over the edge.

I do remember the one lasting bit of information I was given by my school biology teacher. She said that often people think of breast milk as a food but that is only one of the functions it is designed for. It also has a very significant role in providing an immunological boost to a completely immature infant immune system
The immune system is well up and running after a few months, it has to be by the time they start eating other stuff.

Bf is crucial when it's the only food (assuming you can Bf - if not, Ff is critical), but once babies are getting food from elsewhere it quickly declines in importance.

There is minimal evidence that Bf kids are less sickly, but a lot of evidence that well looked after middle class western kids are. Bf is extremely uncommon outside of the middle class, ergo it looks better in most studies.

What do you do that counterbalances the additional risk to a baby of not being breastfed, other than the things you'd normally do anyway, like not smoking all over them etc?

Babies in the UK will die from not being breastfed. From NEC. From SIDS. Thousands - literally thousands, will be hospitalised. Most avoidably - because it wouldn't have happened if they had been breastfed

Apart from being disgracefully scaremongering and playing fast and loose with statistics, this totally ignores the tens of thousands of babies that will live due to Ff because their mothers couldn't make Bf work.

Statistically the chances of babies nationwide having good health are no doubt higher with breastmilk.

But with your individual baby you have to weigh that against other possibilities that might affect your individual family.

In my case, my GP pointed out that the risks of me dropping ds on his head due to the side effects of the bf-safe medication were higher and likely to be more serious than the risk of ds developing gastric or other problems from missing out on breastmilk.

And if I gave up on medication altogether, the risks of my dropping dead would also be pretty high.

As for dd, I have often wondered if malnutrition from insufficient suckling was not a contributing factor to her poor health in the early years.

Wow mini well I guess I'm a shit mum then. Thanks for the extra helping of guilt!

There's more to being a good mother than how you feed your baby. Not being a sanctimonious, patronising cow would be a good start.

Mini, please tell us your background. I recall seeing your similarly aggressive arguments put forward on other threads, specifically being very pro home birthing and anti c.section.

Mini you need to be very careful how you word your posts.

It is fine to have an opinion. It is fine to use stats to back up any factual information. It is not fine to try and use stats to make your opinion fact.

The last time I heard anything about sids in the UK was the recent study into co sleeping. Which iirc was that 300 babies die in the UK each year from sids. Which is 300 too many.

But it is not thousands is it as you claim.

There are vulnerable new mothers out there who are possibly reading this thread. How about you go make yourself a cup of tea and have a think about how you sound?

because it wouldn't have happened if they had been breastfed.

Seriously minifingers????

Seeing as you apparently understand science and statistics so well, perhaps you can point us in the direction of all those studies that have cloned children, then bf one and ff the other, in order to produce this apparently infallible information.

It is impossible to know the actual cause of death in the majority of SIDS cases. And because you can't replicate a child and then try feeding it differently, you can't say with any degree of authority that an infant death is entirely the result of how it was fed.

And, like all charities, the Lullaby Trust does have a specific agenda and will always promote the research and reports that back them up. Doesn't detract from the great work that they do but it's part of their raison d'etre. It's just like aid agencies don't promote research that says aid money gets wasted.

I'm just glad you were nowhere near me after the birth of my DD. And I say that as a totally pro-bf mother.

Hi froubylou, I think it's reasonable to point out that 300 is just for UK. If you consider internationally then yes, it would be thousands of deaths per year. I get the impression here that people forget theres people living outside of Great Britain.

I was once informed at age 17 that the reason I have MH issues is because I wasn't breastfed. This was from a very pro- BF aunt who never 'got over' mum's choice, but I found it quite hilarious! Mum didn't

I did state in the UK though. I guess that as the uk was mentioned by mini fingers as well as uk charities then itwas tthe uk we were discussing?

I am aware that the issue of bf vs ff is a world wide issue. In the uk we are more fortunate than some countries in that we do have a safe alternative if bf is not chosen.

my dd ended up in hospital because she was breastfed.......

Of course when it goes well its the best thing. The most surprising thing for me is how little it seems to matter in reality and how weak the evidence is. Plus once they are past 1 everyone forgets. Yawn..... time for bed

"And, like all charities, the Lullaby Trust does have a specific agenda and will always promote the research and reports that back them up"

What specific agenda is that? A breastfeeding agenda? Do you really think so? Why?

Why did they not include the advice to breastfeed for many, many years after the first piece of research suggested that there may be an association between not breastfeeding and increased incidence of SIDS? It's because they were waiting for more, and better evidence, which they now how.

In any case - do you really think they'd include this advice if it was based on evidence as weak and inconclusive as many here seem to think it must be (obviously most here have arrived at this conclusion without reading the abstract, let alone the full text of the research).

"Seeing as you apparently understand science and statistics so well, perhaps you can point us in the direction of all those studies that have cloned children, then bf one and ff the other, in order to produce this apparently infallible information."

I assume then that you don't accept any NHS recommendations about improving health outcomes for your children (including those regarding safe sleeping, smoking in pregnancy, alcohol consumption in pregnancy, salt consumption etc), as no research into human lifestyle choices and diet can control for these things. Or is it just the breastfeeding advice you are choosing to ignore on these grounds because it doesn't suit you to believe it?

"But it is not thousands is it as you claim."

I didn't claim it was 'thousands'. I mentioned the figures on the SIDS website - 300 babies lost to SIDS each year. According to the Lullaby Trust a lack of breastfeeding may put babies more at risk of joining this 300 each year. I've been called a loony and a fantasist for repeating this information, which is, as I said, there for all to see on the SIDS information website.

"specifically being very pro home birthing and anti c.section."

Actually I am massively PRO c-section as it's an operation which saves the lives of mothers and babies every day in the UK and around the world.

"Each family has to decide for themselves whether X is more important than Y."

Yes - and for some reasons increasingly huge numbers of women in the UK, particularly if they are young and poor, feel that it's worth it not to breastfeed. Even when their baby is tiny and very vulnerable.

Why is that happening more in the UK than in most other countries? It's not just about 'breastfeeding problems',although it's pretty much always blamed on that. Women who are absolutely determined to breastfeed USUALLY (not always) overcome early difficulties. But the majority are not willing to continue, sometimes even when things are completely straightforward. What's making so many women not want to breastfeed, particularly if they are young and poor? What are these dividends for the rest of the family that they so consistently seem to outweigh the baby's need for the protection from infections that comes with early breastfeeding? I'm genuinely curious as to how people think these decisions through, and why things are so dire for breastfeeding in our culture.

"I was once informed at age 17 that the reason I have MH issues is because I wasn't breastfed. hmm This was from a very pro- BF aunt who never 'got over' mum's choice, but I found it quite hilarious! Mum didn't"

Not a kind or sensible comment, but not quite as left-field as you might think:

here

This study was very widely reported at the time, and generated a lot of interest.

Well since my MH problems stem from genetics and past incidents, I doubt breastfeeding would have helped...

Thanks though.

A shorter duration of breastfeeding may be a predictor of adverse mental health outcomes throughout the developmental trajectory of childhood and early adolescence

That's the conclusion to the study. I'll leave that to whatever anyone may think.

Yes, it was an astonishing unkind comment, so thank you for sharing it again. This time it isn't funny though.

Mini please just go to bed now - step away from the computer.

mini I DO accept the NHS recommendations on bf and a whole host of other health issues. As I said, I am totally pro bf.

However, you are misrepresenting the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. All research is by its very nature biased by the assumptions of those carrying it out. Science isn't a static thing - new evidence comes to light all the time which changes accepted norms and advice.

I agree that bf currently appears to be associated with good health outcomes. However, this is more pronounced in the developing world and there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that (correctly made) formula feeding damages children, ie formula feeding is not conclusively associated with poor health outcomes in the developed world.

I agree with several pps that you seem to be so passionate about this subject that it's made you lose some sense of perspective about what you're trying to achieve - simply shouting loudly that you're right and everyone else is wrong won't encourage anyone to bf.

softly bf in a pool is not gross.....do you realise how much faeces and seminal fluid, vaginal discharge and urine goes into a pool?

Breast milk has nothing harmful in it whatsoever.

There is a specific BF/FF topic for topics like these.
Mini, why do you not just fuck off to them and spread the gospel.
Meanwhile I'll concentrate on ds off to uni this year,he was Bf for 2 or 3 weeks, but the bottle was the best thing ever.
And I have a happy intelligent healthy teen.

Mini you are coming across as a foot stamping toddler as people have dared to have different views to you. It's quite amusing to read but I hope to god you don't behave like this to venerable mothers who may be at a very low ebb.