there is way too much pressure to EBF?

[ArtFine]

Just that really.

I've had a difficult journey with BF, and when I look back I know it would have been better and much more healthier for my baby (forget me) if I hadn't breastfed. She has CMPA and other allergies (and had awful silent reflux etc), and this would have been picked up very early on had she been bottle fed, and saved her a lot of pain and tears.

Why is there so much pressure to EBF? Why is it always assumed that breast milk is THE best?

What's the harm for example in giving one bottle of formula per day so that babies get used to the bottle?

Retropear

I think you'd find it quite hard to make a case that the evidence NHS recommendations on the benefits of breastfeeding are based is seriously misleading ('stat twisting' seems to suggest that NHS bods are deliberately distorting the findings - can you explain why they would do this in relation to such an important issue as infant feeding?)

You misunderstand me Punk. Probably deliberately. I was making a point about your use of anecdotal evidence.

Sorry - that point about the 'stat-twisting' was in response to Chippy's post.

Not NHS bods but posters such as yourself and other bfing zealots.

And re PCOS surely consultants diagnose it not sonographers.

It took a lot of investigations to diagnosed mine.

"Not NHS bods but posters such as yourself"

Retropear - my sources of information about the benefits of breastfeeding come from three sources exclusively: NHS patient information, Royal College of Midwives textbooks, and UNICEF Baby Friendly (who do all the breastfeeding training and accreditation in the NHS).

I repeat on this site information from these sources without changing it, re-interpreting it, or putting my own spin on it. It doesn't stop you accusing me of 'stat-twisting' and 'scare-mongering'.

What's a bf zealot? Anyone who disagrees with your opinion?

Sorry I disagree- you twist and skirt over the fact many numbers involved are tiny to begin with.

You and others do it a lot.

Try picking other topics, for a start as you care so much eating more veg would have a far bigger impact on cancer.

A good nights sleep is quite important health wise and I'm knackered so I'll leave you to your number crunching.

Can I just add, that I've been fiercely criticised for pointing out (usually in response to a poster insisting that it makes no difference to babies whether they are bf or ff) that breastfeeding appears to reduce the likelihood of SIDS as just one example of how it can make a very, very big difference to SOME babies how they are fed.

I've been told that this is 'scaremongering' and 'stat twisting' despite this advice appearing on NHS Choices and on the website of the Lullaby Trust, which is the UK's main SIDS charity. here

You are buggering off because you can't give a reasoned and coherent response.

Arguing that 'eating vegetables is much more important' - sorry, I don't get your point. Yes, of course eating a plant based diet appears to help reduce some cancers. As does not smoking. But do they cancel each other out? If we acknowledge that smoking causes more cancers than all the other lifestyle choices put together does that mean that there is no point in talking about anything other than smoking? Does the impact of a healthy diet in adulthood render all discussion of the impact of breastfeeding on cancers irrelevant? I don't think so.

"But the point is in this country the benefits of bfing are pretty small so really not worth the pushing,stat twisting and scare mongering."

In this country? Why 'in this country'

Compared to formula the benefits of breast milk are vast. Compared to breast milk formula is a substandard alternative.

It is bottom of the list after donor milk and other options.

What does being in the UK have to do with the benefits of breast milk Vs formula?

Formula is and will never be 'as good as' breast milk.

*is not

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I EBF for 7 month and the pressure I was put under to give a bottle was bloody immense. Not many BFers here though .

Stack, it's not unreasonable to point out that breastfeeding saves the lives of many, many babies in developing countries. In the West most babies thrive on formula and serious illness or death from formula feeding is rare.

Yes the protective effect of BF against SIDS is true, especially at 2-4 months which is the peak age for SIDS. But baby sleeping in the same room as the parents until 6 months at least also reduces the risk of SIDS significantly but I don't see such a big push on that front with parents compared with their feeding method, and room sharing is a quicker win too. I'm not sure which of the two - BF and room sharing - has a bigger protective effect though.

mini - I agree completely with your most recent post!

SIDS is thankfully rare and considering the maj of babies are ff and thriving sorry the numbers of babies you're talking about are tiny so yes you're stat twisting and scaremongering again.

And no I didn't buggar off because I couldn't gave a reasoned and coherent response but because I and hoards of others have given reasoned and coherent responses over and over again which are ignored by some posters.It gets tedious.

I'm not 'twisting' ie misrepresenting anything.

300 babies a year die from SIDS in the uk. This makes it the most common cause of death for babies between a month and a year old. Breastfeeding is thought to reduce the risk to a baby by 50%.

Retro - nobody is ignoring your comments or anyone else's.

It's completely fair to point out that breastfeeding support is inadequate in the UK, and that postnatal care generally is patchy.

I think mini that other posters have been trying to point out to you, repeatedly, that the benefits of bf that are repeated ad nauseum ( such as correlation to reduced risk of SIDS ) are so very marginal. Let me give you an example. In my maternity notes there was only one piece of medical advice / information which was that bf children were less likely to die from SIDS or develop leukemia . That was it. That was the most important fact that whomever it was that devised the booklet thought new mums had to know. ' your baby is more likely to die if you don't bf ' basically. This is but one example of the kind of pressure the op and lots of other posters are talking about, although I suppose you would say that that kind of health warning is entirely justified in the name of 'educating' women so that they can make an 'informed 'choice. Unfortunately what this means in practice is scaring women into making the 'right' choice . Gets on my tits I tell ya.

Scientifically, breastfeeding is best for you baby - fact. I do think there's not enough support/advice for breastfeeding mums though. CMPA can be picked up in breastfeeding babies, and mums can exclude dairy from their diets to compensate - but when bf starts to be tricky, my local midwives say, "Give the baby formula." Not helpful!

Not only can HCPs give out safe formula advice, but they should - especially if they are "Baby Friendly" as giving out safe formula advice is one of the Baby Friendly standards.

beccajoh - you should consider making a complaint about HCPs refusing to give you advice!

The NHS has lots of information about formula preparation on their website including leaflets to download if anyone needs advice btw.

From personal experience I would say that I have received a lot of pressure to breastfeed (currently 8 months pregnant), but I think it's largely down to the individual NHS trust and the individual midwives/health visitors etc.

As somebody who genuinely can't breastfeed, I do find it frustrating as when I politely tell midwives (when they ask why I'm not going to bf) that I won't be breastfeeding because I can't, they don't believe me and start saying that only a tiny percentage can't rather than won't. Well I am one of that tiny percentage and if they read my notes properly they'd know that. I have been asked if I will be bf at every single medical appointment I've had, well, not the ones with the consultant, but everytime I've seen a midwife, and it does get pretty frustrating. Then you get the "well you could express, or syringe feed colostrum..." No, I can't actually, read my notes, my breasts physically cannot produce milk or colostrum.

The worst was a few weeks ago when I told one midwife I couldn't bf and she grabbed my boobs through my shirt and said in a very aggressive tone "you've got these haven't you?! What else do you think they're for?!"
As a survivor of sexual abuse I found this extremely invasive and inappropriate (and that's massively understating) and the thing that really annoyed me about it is that it's written in my notes that I've been abused (as some of the residual anatomical damage is relevant to pregnancy) and she had commented on it about five minutes previously! .
DH and I complained to the hospital and it's all sorted now, and we received a profuse apology, but that's not the point. As luck would have it, I've had a lot of time to deal with my issues and so it just made me angry at the time rather than shook me up for weeks afterwards, but that might not have been the case with somebody else. Even if you haven't been abused, I can't imagine anyone would take well to that kind of thing.

Also, I do not believe that bf is always best. There are a lot of women out there with medical issues or on medication which mean that breastmilk would be very bad for their babies, and so in their cases, ff is the best thing. It's just not right or accurate to say that bf is always best. Yes, in an ideal world it is, but we don't live in an ideal world. The whole bf/ff debate seems to really polarise people and it just doesn't need to.

Everyone has their reasons for their choices and I think a bit of live and let live on both sides of the fence would go a long way. I think bf and ff alike get pressure and nastiness, and I genuinely don't understand why people don't mind their own damn business and let each mother make her own choice. Personally I don't give two hoots how anyone else feeds their baby .

Let me give you anotherexample of what in talking about. My midwife had a nhs poster up in the wall right in front of the examination table which proclaimed a long list of benefits of bf. This include fewer ear infections, fewer gastric infections which is fair enough. However it also claimed reduced risk of obesity type two diabetes high blood pressure and higher intelligence all of which have been comprehensively disproved in recent years. Why is the nhs still making claims for bf that are either not true or unclear. Again it's to pressure mums into making the 'right' choice. Why? Because the debate within the medical profession has been hijacked by people who have an almost evangelical belief in bf as a cure all- leaving responsibility for the nations health on the chests of mothers .

Blimey stars that's awful! Please tell me that the midwife was disciplined!!!