To hope that I can ask about FF without being shot down in flames?

[Darksideofthemoon88]

I'm interested in WHY people choose to FF if not for medical reasons (ie they can't because of medication they have to take, or because their baby was very premature and is unable to suckle) - I've seen a lot of threads where people assert that FF was best for them/their family/their baby or that they chose to FF without trying BF, and I'm curious as to why. Genuinely curious I'm not interested in fighting with anyone about what's best or right; I'd just like to read about why people FF because I honestly don't know. In the interests of full disclosure though (I know how MNs feel about this! ), I am a breastfeeding mother.

As an undereducated, wc mother who had some of her children in her twenties, can I just point out that continually re posting stats about Educated, older, affluent women being more likely to BF can be really unhelpful.

It perpetuates the myth that BF is not for the likes of me. It means that women are put off because they think they will stick out from their peers.

It is insidious. I have been questioned by HVs who are incredulous when they say 'what milk are you using' and I say 'mine' (non smugly).

They simply didn't expect someone with my vowel sounds to BF.

By the time that happened I was older and more assertive gobby

If had happened with my first I would have found that difficult to deal with.

Its just worth a thought.

"If it really was that 'natural' and 'easy' to breast feed there would be no need for La Leche League, Attachment Parentingcultsgroups, lactations specialists, nipple shields, Lansinoh or indeed those truly absurd facebook articles imploring formula feeders to 'come out and support your bf-ing sisters' whilst having their 'permission' to feel good about our decision to formula feed".

So, so true.

devere- so what do we do- hide the facts? It is useful to explore statistics surrounding breastfeeding so hopefully we can best utilise support resources..

Devere good point - though I think on a discussion thread we are all grown up enough to be able to, er, discuss, the social and cultural aspects of infant feeding(surely?). But HVs and others speaking to mothers about their own situation are just demonstrating poor care if they make assumptions.

In any case, the majority of UK mothers in most socio-economic groups start off breastfeeding (though for unsupported mothers under 18 I think the figure is a shade under 50 per cent). The older you are and the later the age you left education, the more likely you are to bf....but we are all individuals, and should be treated as such!

Oh combust so it's womens fault they can't bf, another stick to beat them with. You can it compare Tibet with UK, it's absurd and not like with like. Their communities are so different to ours! Throughout history some women have not been able to bf, have used their own substitutes, or babies died. Oh Gosh wish combust, mini fingers and silver would just go away.

Again combust your putting it down to women not having the skills and totally ignoring other environmental, physiological, psychosocial factors. And the fact that also simply some women do not despite seeing the benefits and stats.,

You know what? Statistics are fuck all use to 99.9% of the population (see what I did there?).

They are for scientists, fundraisers and people who are trying to push their agenda.

'best utilise support resources'...that is not real English. It is jargon. It means nothing to ordinary women who are feeding their babies.

Too much of leeches out into RL and it is pointless at best, counter productive at worse. A lot of women (particularly the ones we are talking about) will look at stats and glaze over.

I get that some people are very invested and feel passionately about BF. They like to discuss it and stats and research are part of this. I understand and I am glad that there are people who care that much.

But they enter into every, single discussion about BF/FF and they are really not as important or interesting as the users think they are.

I am sorry if that sounds hostile. It is not supposed to but it is hard to get a tone across on the internet.

Poor women no wonder they feel dreadful when tgey cannot master this skill, feel they have let down their baby, may either increase PND, or contribute to PND.

I was knew of them, felt awful for 2 years, was on AD, but as dd got older it became less important.

Dd has a dx of ASD, I don't think bf was for her either.

These are the most up-to-date stats I can find for initiation of breastfeeding and 6 - 8 week rates in England. The 2013/14 stats were not produced (in the NHS England link I looked at) because of problems with the responses from providers.

Summary of results

Initiation of breastfeeding

In England the breastfeeding initiation rate was 73.9% in 2012/13, which is similar to the annual percentage for 2011/12 (74.0%) and slightly higher than 2010/11 (73.7%), 2009/10 (72.8%) and 2008/09 (71.7%) (Table 1).

Amongst SHAs, the initiation rate varied from 59.3% in North East SHA to 86.8% in London SHA (Table 4).

Amongst the 147 PCTs that passed validation, breastfeeding initiation ranged from 40.8% in Knowsley PCT to 94.7% in Haringey Teaching PCT (Table 4).

Prevalence of breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks

The 6-8 week breastfeeding prevalence figures are based on the number of infants recorded by PCTs as totally or partially breastfeeding, as a percentage of all infants due a 6-8 week check.

When making comparisons over time, it is best to limit this to those quarters with high and consistent levels of coverage. There is evidence that the significant improvements in data coverage that were achieved in the early quarters of data collection affected the comparability of the prevalence estimates over time. This is because improvements in coverage have resulted in the inclusion in the statistics of a disproportionately higher number of women who are not breastfeeding.

In England the breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks in 2012/13 was 47.2% of infants due a 6-8 week check, the same as recorded in 2011/12 (Table 2).

In England the breastfeeding prevalence at 6-8 weeks in 2012/13 Quarter 4 was 46.8% of infants due a 6-8 week check, similar to the figure of 46.9% recorded in 2011/12 Q4 (Table 2).

Amongst the seven SHAs who passed validation, prevalence as a percentage of infants due a 6-8 week check varied from 31.9% in North East SHA to 50.7% in South Central SHA (Table 6).

Amongst the 125 PCTs that passed validation, breastfeeding prevalence as a percentage of infants due a 6-8 week check ranged from 15.7% in Knowsley PCT to 81.6% in City & Hackney PCT (Table 6).

This is the link: www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/breastfeeding-statistics-q4-2012-to-2013

And here is a link to the latest infant feeding survey (only performed every 5 years), which gives some information about drop off rates after 6 - 8 weeks in 2010:

www.hscic.gov.uk/article/2021/Website-Search?productid=9569&q=infant+feeding+survey&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=1&area=both#top

This paragraph (from the summary of the above report) deals with exclusive breastfeeding:

"Across the UK, 69% of mothers were exclusively breastfeeding at birth in 2010. At one week,
less than half of all mothers (46%) were exclusively breastfeeding, while this had fallen to around
a quarter (23%) by six weeks. By six months, levels of exclusive breastfeeding had decreased to
one per cent, indicating that very few mothers were following the UK health departments’
recommendation that babies should be exclusively breastfed until around the age of six months."

I have found this thread very interesting reading - thanks to those who gave their reasons for FF. I breastfed my son exclusively until he was 6 months and then moved over gradually to formula between 6 - 8 months (when I was also introducing solids). I did this mainly because I was returning to work and as I had found expressing extremely time-consuming and difficult, didn't want to express milk for him when I went back. As I'm a barrister with a fairly heavy court practice, it also would have been logistically problematic! I also found BF more difficult as we got towards 6 months, because my son's teeth started coming through, and he was much, much more distracted whilst feeding.

Statistics were really fucking useful for me when I was trying to make a decision as to whether to have an induction for gestational diabetes, for choosing my children's schools, for deciding whether it was safe to let my children walk to the shops or whether I should worry about them being kidnapped by a paedophile on their way.

We are talking about a baby's sole source of nutrition for months on end.

I suspect most people on here spend more time researching what buggy they're going to buy than reading up around the possible health implications of choosing not to breastfeed.

I suspect most people on here spend more time researching what buggy they're going to buy than reading up around the possible health implications of choosing not to breastfeed.

Jesus wept.

I suspect most people on here spend more time researching what buggy they're going to buy than reading up around the possible health implications of choosing not to breastfeed.

I can't say I blame them if the attitudes on this thread are anything to go by...

Devere, it doesn't sound hostile. It sounds self-centred.

Why can 'ordinary women feeding their babies' not be party to a discussion about social and cultural factors involved in their choice, yes, with statistics too?

I work with 'ordinary women feeding their babies' and many of them really don't 'glaze over' when the talk turns to the context, the environment, the social factors.

In a discussion forum, widening the discussion out from 'this happened to me, so that proves you are wrong' or 'my friend did x, and then y happened, so that shows I am right' is helpful....not to those who prefer to glaze over, but to some :)

Stats can be cut and sliced to suit whomever commissioned them. We don't truly have full access to the original raw data. On that bases alone I am always sceptical! One of the frustrating things about MN debates sometimes, is the amount of times people go digging around google to find some shitvile stolen off another MN university research to try and prove their point.

Ultimately the only thing that is important is what a mother feels is right for her and her baby.

"And the fact that also simply some women do not despite seeing the benefits and stats"

Absolutely - and as I said, this is primarily a cultural issue.

Nearly half of all women in Norway are exclusively breastfeeding their four month old babies.

Only 7% of UK mothers are still exclusively breastfeeding at the same age.

We all have the same equipment, and at that point almost all UK mothers are still on maternity leave (not that that necessarily means all that much - the women who are most likely to return to work statistically are also those most likely to still be breastfeeding).

Why is it that UK mothers find breastfeeding emotionally and physically overwhelming and drop out in droves compared to Norweigan mothers? It's about more than medical help with problematic breastfeeding, which admittedly is better there in the early months. It's something to do with attitudes towards and a perception of what is 'normal' and manageable in baby behaviour and early mothering. And what much of the world accepts as a normal experience of being a mum to a newborn and small baby, is seen as dysfunctional, emotionally overwhelming, unbearable and oppressive to UK mums.

How sad it is to have reduced women to neat little statistics.

The pressure to breastfeed was one of the main reasons I developed severe pnd after the birth of my dd 11 years ago. One of my strongest memories is of walking to buy a box of aptamil and then going to the train station with the intent of throwing myself under the tracks.

How ridiculous is that? That nhs pressure and family pressure etc etc had made me feel like life wasn't worth living and I was a failure as a mother because I couldn't master the "skill" of breastfeeding.

Thankfully I am still here and I took the strongest dose of antidepressants for 2 years to help myself out of the dark hole I found myself in. I gradually found that formula feeding was enjoyable and rather than dreading my baby waking because I had to endure yet another breastfeed I was able to look forward to feeding. Formula feeding helped me to bond, contrary to what many say.

So when I had ds 10 years later I reached for the formula and didn't feel bad about it at all as I realised the infant milk you choose (formula or breast) is a small part of parenting. It really is.

For the record - I also opted to have an elective section with ds because I found my vaginal birth with dd very traumatic. Judge away....

I just hope anyone reading this feeling bad about formula feeding realises most people don't give a flying fuck- the vast majority of this thread don't and most people in real life don't.

I realise I posted my stats at a somewhat inopportune moment ! In my defence, they are just intended to give an accurate picture of how many women start breastfeeding, how many women are doing it partially or exclusively at 6 - 8 weeks, and how many continue exclusively after starting, because there was some debate about this upthread. I remember the stat about 1% continuing to breastfeed exclusively at 6 months from when my son was that age, and I was surprised as it seemed to me based on the experiences of my peer group that the rate would be higher than this. It's possible that exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months increased exponentially between 2010 and 2012, but more likely that my peer group was just different from the "norm".

"Stats can be cut and sliced to suit whomever commissioned them."

What vested interests are there among doctors and researchers to make more women breastfeed by deliberately falsifying and distorting the findings of research?

Seriously?

And why do you not apply the same logic to the claims made by baby milk manufacturers whose research is very difficult for the public to access, often abandoned halfway through a trial and not published if it looks like it's going to show an unfavourable result?

Who has a vested interest in persuading women to feed one way or another?

The NHS?

Or baby milk producers, who once they've 'got' a mother know she will be reliant on their very expensive products until her baby weans.

The 1% at six months includes all the babies who are still only drinking breastmilk but are having solids at earlier than 6 months.

Only 1% of UK babies haven't had formula by a year, but at six months it's probably higher than that.

I wonder if any studies have been done on the outcomes for children growing up with mothers who have a complete lack of empathy for others?

I would be more worried about them than formula fed children.

I know a lot of breastfeeders Welshwabbit but none who exclusively breastfed to 6 months. Even those who breastfed for 1, 2, 3 years.

I always wonder how they pick the people they ask in these surveys. I've never been asked to take part in one.

"How sad it is to have reduced women to neat little statistics".

Nobody is 'reducing women to anything'.

This is a public health issue as well as an individual choice and a lifestyle issue.

It's not wrong to talk about the broader demographic and cultural issues which shape our parenting experiences and choices.