Where are the 99%?!

[Popplemama]

Just a (fairly) light hearted query but, after six months of EBF I was quite proud of myself for making the 1%.

However according to MN I seem to now be the odd one out for making it this far and for now thinking that enough might be enough?! To make it worse my lovely DD has had bottles, has now had formula (it was our wedding anniversary and I fancied a night off!) and I'm even fantasising about being able to stop (and wear normal bras and drink white wine...)

AIBU in thinking that MN is where the 1% congregate or are the BF surveys a bit skewed?!

I bf ds til 20 months. Havent a clue whether he had formula before 6 months. Havent a clue whether he ever had formula at all. I think he started on food about 6/7 months but cant remember. Dont know what club i'm in. Never got a badge.

Not sure it matters.

We'd failed to be in the 1% in the first 48 hours. Ds1 had low blood sugars and had to be fed by hook or by crook, and my milk was slow to come in following a traumatic birth that put me in HDU. DS2 had one ounce of formula the evening I was discharged and was too exhausted to sit and feed him, so gave him to DH with a carton of ready mixed.

Ds1 was BFed until 13 months with only a few ounces of formula along the way.

Ds2 was BFed for 20 months and only ever had that one ounce of formula.

Both were bottle refusers.

Both were ready to steal and eat food at 23 weeks so weaning started then.

I'd say the benefits of each BF they had outweighs the "negative" (it isn't) connotation that deviating from "exclusively " breastfeeding implies.

I think statistics about babies having some breast milk would be far more informative and realistic.

My ante natal classes were full of how bf isn't the easy option but is the better option for your baby. I went thinking 'yes I will bf' and came away thinking 'well its unlikely that i will be able to but ill try and not beat myself up if i can't....' I think I was so convinced I wouldn't be able to do it, that whereas NO pressure at all. As it was DS latched himself omit during first skin to skin and is incredibly easy to feed.

In 1999 in my case it was never discussed at ante natal that it might not work out. Hopefully things have changed.

One of the 99% -but bf one till 18 months and the other to a week over 2yrs.
DD1 the guidelines were 4 months for solids and I went back when she was 3 months and after struggling with expressing she had formula at Nursery (FT), bf at home.
DD2 - was told to give her formula at 3 days old because she was sleeping too much and not feeding by the hospital ...think they were wrong but that's another story - that was her one and only bottle ...but I started her on solids at 4 months as I didn't know the guidelines had changed to 6 months. When the HV found out (at almost 5 months) I was told to stop the solids ...I went to the original research for the 6 month thing and from what I read decided that it was pointless going back and I'm not convinced by the argument for ebf to 6 months ...(it was all about diarrhoea etc...in an Eastern Bloc country iirc)
I now think you know your baby ...and your instinct is probably better than any artificial guideline...
However I hate the well done for bf so long - it must have been really difficult for you thing.
When they gave DD2 the bottle I thought that meant she wouldn't want to bf again I was gutted - but honestly partly cos I thought I can't face the hassle of ff feeding.
With both I co-slept and bf on demand - they helped themselves to night feeds (DD1 was a dreadful sleeper I don't think I could survived having to get up, find and warm bottle etc -even sit up to do it) , it hardly disturbed me then I had no bottles to clean, nothing to take with me when I went out - and it was cheaper - nothing to buy...
I sympathise completely with people for who bf doesn't work - don't think anyone should be made to feel guilty or judged -we all only do the best we can.
Those few days of bf can be a struggle (cracked nipples etc) ...even later it can be (at 1yr DD2 took to biting which wasn't fun -did nearly stop then) but on the whole I think bf is 100x times easier than ff...and for me at least was the lazy parent solution.

I can't remember how long I fed any of mine for.

Which % should I be in?

dd is a 1%er but no-one has never asked - damn it...cannot show off!
she ebf till she weaned at 2.5 so no bottles at all, food after 6 months.

wierdly in her peer group i knew only 1 bottle baby, all the others were ebf...no idea why as we didn't go to nct or similar baby group, perhaps i just have like minded friends

I would have been a 1% - bf to 15 months, but DD self-weaned onto solids at 19 weeks. We did BLW so were entirely led by her. So that puts me into the 99%. It's a very stupid way of doing stats.

In my antenatal classes in 2012 it wasn't even really presented as an option that bf might be difficult,or not work out. One woman asked about mastitis and was told it was "very very rare and easily avoided" (bollocks).
The sessions were of no help to me when I went on to have lots of feeding problems. Just felt like I was abnormal and a bit of a failure for not finding it easy and natural.

Yes, the stats are skewed, and no, the definition is not strict.

The infant feeding survey asks what age the baby first had solid food. Some mothers say 'at six months' even if they are only bf before that date. They go down in the survey as not excl bf at six months. It's a badly worded question. It's very likely that more uk women are excl bf at six months and then starting solids at that time.

The breastfeeding questions ask what the baby is/was having at specific points of the survey. If your baby was on breastmilk only at the survey points then he or she will be recorded as being excl bf. The survey is not able to account for what happened before eg a few bottles weeks before.

There are other surveys which ask different questions, and differently worded questions. For some purposes, 'exclusive' is mixed in the figures with 'predominant' ( this was the case for the data sets which formed the basis of the weight charts in use in the uk. The babies were exclusively or predominantly breastfed and not for six months but for four to six months. )

The infant feeding survey does indeed show massive differences in different areas. It also shows the majority of women who stop in the early weeks and months would have liked to continue.

I think that on MN a lot of people who habe bfed in general congregate. Much more than in reality tbh.
It migt be a socioeconomic things or just the fact that when you are bfing and need advice you tend to stay where people who can give you advice are.
So lots of (vocal) people bfing on here just as you have a lot of (vocal) parents of children with SN.

And YY to the fact that the criteria are very strict so not representative of the number of people who bfed iyswim.
dc1 was bottled fed.
dc2 was bfed BUT he was on solid earlier than the 6months (Partly because he was hungry and ready for solids, partly because the advice changed in the 20 months between dc1 and dc2 and I struggled to see why it did).

TBH I think it's a shame because it means that people thinks that bfing until 6 months is very hard, very few people can amange it etc... It will hardly encourage new mums to try and do that!

I'm a 99er% even though I breastfed for 4 years, because I gave solids more than one day before 6 months. As do most people - which is what you expect when the guideline is to give solids by 6 months but no earlier than 4 months.

This 1% stat is not very useful. The stats for "any breastfeeding" at six months is much more useful, and that is 34% at the last infant feeding survey. Which about correlates with what I have seen, and seems reasonable.

I really really don't understand why it's 'stupid' to collect stats in this way and to ask women what they did and when. It's not a judgment on anyone! Please tell me why this is stupid?!

balls, inserted my "er" in the wrong place :o

1%er here. Started BLW at just over 6 months. Had a horrible time in hospital following EMCS and poor latch, then a few months of bad latching/ very frequent long feeds. I live in an area with v low bf rates, so HV have guilt tripped me if I even mentioned introducing small amounts of formula, which when added to my PND meant I never bothered with formula.

Latch is much better now DS is almost 8m but he still feeds around every 2 hours and is a very slow feeder. I wish I'd have been prepared for how difficult it would be as I felt like a failure which added to my PND. Strangely proud of myself, just wish I could get some sleep.

And YY too to the fact that, when you say it's easy, not an issue etc, you are actually making women who find it hard very uncomfotable, as if they have 'failed' at something.
I did feel like this with dc1 (hence the bottles too...).

There is a need for a much more balanced view on bfing.
It is OK and 'normal' to bfed until 6 months (a year, whatever) but you migt find some difficulties at the start (eg latching on, mastitis etc...) that CAN be solved with the right support.

It's not stupid, tiktok, but it's not very representative, and it's being reported in an (IMO) "stupid" way because it's basically giving the impression that hardly anyone is still BFing at 6 months, when a third of women are. It's obvious that a large proportion (in this case, 99%) of people will have introduced solids by 6 months when the guideline is to introduce solids by around six months and when the history is to introduce them sooner. If we had a more leisurely history of introducing solids then you'd expect some to introduce before and some to wait until after. But currently, at least in my experience, there is considerable pressure to meet this "deadline" of six months because of concerns about iron levels, and stats which count EBF AT six months ignore anybody who introduced solids even a week before this, which is totally within guidelines, and expected behaviour.

So it's not a helpful stat. IMO.

Apologies if someone already said this...

OP did you not know you can drink and bf btw?

Alcohol level in breast milk matches that in your bloodstream, not that in your beverage.

Not recommending it, but even if you got absolutely plastered the level in your milk would be akin to the level naturally found in fresh orange juice.

I'm one of the 99% - but so what?

Dc1 was a nightmare to feed in the early weeks, I was expressing as much as I could as couldn't get a latch at all. But couldn't express enough so had to supplement formula. Finally got feeding sorted at the 4 week mark and kept bfing until about 14 months. Introduced solid food at about 22 weeks as he seemed ready.

Dc2 I fed through severe reflux (dc) and PND (me). Dh gave the odd bottle so I could sleep. Introduced solid food at around 23 weeks, which really helped with the reflux. Bf'd until 7 months when my milk dwindled due to pg hormones.

Dc3 was a dream to bf. Bottle refuser so never had formula and I bfd until 14mo. But did try some first tastes of food before 6 months so I guess again not in the 1% - as it turns out he wasn't that interested so we left it again for a while.

I don't really care now but I don't find this 1% label terribly helpful tbh. I think we all do our best for our children in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Bfing should not be a big guilt stick to beat yourself with.

Ime, bfing gets much easier and less tying after 6 months anyway, (I def found it easier than faffing about with bottles) so I'd consider continuing a bit longer OP (maybe in a more flexible way so you can have the odd glass of wine etc), unless you are desperate to stop. In which case, of course, do stop.

I don't think that collecting survey like this is 'stupid'. We need them to know how to best support women to start with!

The way the surveys are done and what sort of information you take out of them is a very different matter and depends highly on what your agenda is.

Eg: stats on exclusive bfing might show that only 1% of women exclusively bf their baby until 6 months (as no solids, no formula ever). which looks disappointing - not a lot.
Or you can look at stats that show the number of women who still bfing (but might also give solids/formula etc...) and be very happy of the results (eg the 34% mentioned before).

This has a BIG impact on women attitude imo.
34% feels like it's quite a normal thing to do and not impossible to achieve. And maybe there is no need to pput such a emphasis on bfing as so many woemn already do that anyway.
1% is very little if you think that having anything else than breast milk before 6 months will have an impact on the baby's health/IQ/whatever else.

Bertie, yes, as I explained, the question is badly worded. I get that. But the outrage here is at actually asking mothers what happened and not taking into account the baby who wanted solids at 19 weeks.

As if that should somehow make the stats invalid.

Yes to the point about drinking and bf. Myth that you can't do it!

I couldn't fully go EBF to 6 months because I returned to work at 4 months and it was hard work for little reward to express at lunch time. So, DS had a bottle in the middle of the day.

You should do what you are happy to.

I ended up breastfeeding to over 1 year, but it was slowly reduced over time to make up for weaning.
It was still lovely first thing in the morning and last thing at night, and it was great when DS was in hospital that I could feed him the best possible food and soothe him too.

time.com/3901565/breastfeeding-childhood-cancer-leukemia/