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?!

Intradenrtal, it's not really in dispute that breastfeeding for longer has a 'dose related' effect on the incidence of childhood cancer. Here's a recent overview of the existing knowledge related to leukaemia:

archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2299705

However, I am not certain about evidence for the importance of total exclusivity, except that the figures indicate 'the more the better'.

In any case, serious illness of this sort has other factors associated with it, including horrible random chance.

I don't think the 1% stat is helpful and I agree it makes breastfeeding up to 6 months sound like a very difficult thing to do. I think it would be more helpful to say that x% of babies, including babies who have started weaning or are mix-fed, are still breastfeeding at 6 months. I don't know what that figure is, but I bet it would be a good deal higher than the 1% EBF stat.

DS2 has recently turned 2 years. He still breastfeeds. We didn't start weaning him until after 6 months. But, when he was a new born, he had severe jaundice, had phototherapy, and because he was too sleepy to feed and my milk hadn't come in, he had a few cup feeds of formula on medical advice until I was able to express enough breastmilk for the cup feeds.
So no matter what we did after that, we were never going to be part of the 1% exclusively breastfeeding until 6 months. Our very positive breastfeeding experience after DS2 recovered from his jaundice doesn't count at all as far as that statistic goes.

I'm probably disqualified, but DS had formula for the first few days of his life (post c-section complications, jaudiced baby, hysterical American doctors) but went on to be bf until 17 months. We started solids at 6 months. I suspect the numbers are a bit higher in the US than 1% though...

The use of info like this (the cancer stuff) is fine in a public forum I think, especially when the topic is under discussion, and especially in a thread like AIBU.

It's not right for it to be 'used' as a way of criticising individual parents.

Some people actively want to know - I occasionally meet women who have lost a friend or close relative to breast cancer and for them, knowing that if they breastfeed they can do something to protect themselves is important.

No one sensible ever thinks breastfeeding is a sure fire protection against serious (or even non-serious) illness, however. There's always far more to it than that :(

Long-term breastfeeding (whether exclusive or mixed) is much more common among middle-class, older mums ( ie 30+). Mumsnet attracts a lot of thirty something, middle-class women (me, for a start).

That's not to say that working and upper-class women don't bf, or that there aren't any MN users who are/were young mothers or never breastfed. There are lots.

But because of MN's demographic and bf trends in society, breastfeeding is likely to be more common among MN users. Thus there's more bf chat here than you'd expect, given the stats.

Wish I could quote sources here but I'm BFing a wriggly baby who keeps threatening to boot the tablet off my lap ;-)

FWIW I'm the only person still BFing exclusively in my NCT group. Everyone tried it, some went straight for mix-feeding and some had a shit-awful time and couldn't. I nearly gave in in the early days. Bfing is not a picnic and I wouldn't blame anyone who couldn't do it. Certainly wouldn't be quoting cancer stats at them 1% sounds about right to me.

If it matters to people what label they wear, if it matters to people how they measure up to statistics, those of you who were fully breastfeeding without solids at 6 mths can stick the label on....it does not matter if your baby had formula earlier on. The 1 per cent comes from a survey that collects information at particular points - the question does not say 'and did your baby have formula before for this time?'

But honestly.....what does it matter what the label is?! :)

I was in the 1%. Breastfeeding worked for me. Trivial discomfort in the first few days, then it was easy. I was lucky, other mums in my NCT group got mastitis, which sounded ghastly.
But all of us, in my NCT group breastfed (either exclusively or combined) to 6 months. My group cannot be unusual, so I doubt the statistics.

The person who mentioned childhood cancer seemed to be stating a fact. That's what I really object to and find really insulting.

I feel like a 1% er, and continued to BF both DC way past 6 mths.
However I'm not a complete purist and did give each a trial bottle at some point before this, and also both of them tried some solids before 6 mths, especially dd who was weaned earlier before the guidance changed to 6 mths (I think they suggest 6 mths now as ideal??)
So despite endless BFing of my two limpets I may not technically be in the 1% club. I'm sure my DC don't care though!

The actual paper says
ANY breastfeeding for 6 months or longer was associated with a 19% lower risk for childhood leukemia compared with NO or shorter breastfeeding
Not EBF.

Also:
EVER breastfed compared with NEVER breastfed was associated with an 11% lower risk for childhood leukemia (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94), although the definition of never breastfed differed between studies.

Quite, intra. Sounds correlational, not causal. The socioeconomic differences alone between groups who do and don't try breastfeeding must be confounding.

Liking your analysis Intradental - appreciation of concurring factors is often limited I've found, especially, but not only, in the media

I don't get the whole breastfeeding is virtuous thing. I only breastfed both of my dss for a year each so as to avoid the hassle of sterilising things, buying special equipment and buying formula milk.

You still did a good thing for them and you though roundabout

Also maybe the colostrum in itself does bring many benefits?
Many people say that's the case

OP white wine and breastfeeding are not contraindicated! Why does this misinformation get pedalled.

We'll first two were in the 1% - including no solids till 26 weeks.

Not so sure about the youngest but think not.

Not because I did anything different but because I was trying to wait till 26 weeks but before that I'd turn round few weeks before to find one of the older DC had given baby something they were having and baby was happily sucking and chopping down on it. I'd say don't but they'd say but mummy baby wanted it - and baby clearly did and got most upset when it was taken away.

Most people I know who bf past 6 months introduced food before 26 weeks sometime on advice of HV or other HCP. However many others it was often because they wanted to do it before they went back to work at 5 - 5 half months when paid their maternity leave was up. I also found they were often very vocal at trying to convince other mother like me waiting to do what they were doing.

So I think 99% is everywhere.

Does anyone actually give a flying fuck about what % of women choose to feed the same way they do?

1% for second DC but not first, who went onto mixed FF/BF at 4 weeks because he was not latching properly and not gaining weight. Later turned out to have dyspraxia which still affects his mouth control at the age of 11. He was weaned onto solids at 20w per guidelines at the time.

By 2nd DC the guidelines had changed, so she was EBF, no formula, no solids for 6 months and continued to BF till 2yrs 9 months. Never planned it this was, was never a conscious decision. I found BF extremely painful / difficult in the first 6 weeks for each DC, horrendous in fact but I wouldn't say I am proud of getting past that with DD, it's just the way things turned out, she piled on the weight and latched properly so it was better than for DS.

1%er twice over here. I suppose I am proud that I could overcome bfeeding problems (thrush in both nipples, big fat fucking OUCH ) but that's not to say Id consider myself a failure, had I not overcome them iyswim?
I think everyone knows that in the majority of cases cringing slightly saying this breast is best. However we do have an excellent alternative in formula. I think the demonization of it is a bit off, if I'm honest.

First baby. Ended up in hospital because she failed to establish feeding. I refused to let then formula feed her cue anguished nights in the hospital breastpump area trying desperately to pump enough milk, followed by the same at home later. The nurses must have despaired of my desparation to join in the 1% club .

Luckily then found amazing breastfeeding group and got it sorted. But in retrospect I just wonder why!

Second baby you think I'd have learned! But no.. Real difficulty establishing feeding, slow growth for first 6 months. I only kept going because of his dairy/soy allergy and the commercial milks just made my stomach turn. Turns out he has a severe speech and language disorder and very weak muscles in his mouth. So must have found it difficult to suck properly. Poor love. I ended up feeding him only from one boob! He never latched properly on other side.

What I learned was that whilst ebf is on one set of measures 'best'. There are other things that have to be taken into consideration. Again its about information to allow women to make the right choices for them, and support for whatever choice you make.

The 1% purist thing seems bizarre. So DS1 would be excluded from these stats because he was given the odd bottle on the maternity ward as I was ill, even though I went on to BF him for almost 3 years? DS2 would make it onto the list, if nobody mentions the birthday cake he managed to sneakily cram into his mouth at a family party, aged 5 months.

Anyway. Extended BFing was certainly unusual in the areas I lived in, which were mainly lower-middle class at the time. MIL is still convinced I only stopped because of her wise advice that I'd done enough now(given from about four months onwards), and would still be continuing to breastfeed sons larger than myself if left to my own weirdo devices.

It is (to me) not relevant. Baby fed? Check, move on

This ^^ 1 million times.

I've never known anyone in RL to get so hung up about it, as many people do on Mumsnet.

Feed milk - whether it's breast, formula or both and then move on and concentrate on the rest of your child's diet and exercise.

If more people did that, one fifth of children wouldn't be overweight or obese by the time they started school.