To suggest that ff babies are generally more content than breastfed babies?

[mrsb26]

...because they are fuller for longer?

Following on from an article I read recently regarding a study that suggested that of its recipients, the ff babies were generally deemed to be more calm, easy to settle to sleep etc than breastfed babies.

I know this is bound to be a taboo subject, but I must say, as a breastfeeding mother myself to a 4 month old dd, I have considered whether she'd be more satisfied on formula. She's not the easiest of babies and, to me, seems fussier and more demanding than her formula fed peers.

For example, she is really hard to settle to sleep for naps. She will sometimes feed to sleep, but not always (I know this is a debate on itself). I have never been to the shops or out for a walk for half an hour without her fussing (even if it's just for a little bit). She will sit on my knee or go to someone else for five minutes tops before fussing and starting to cry.

I'm not doubting the benefits of the quality of breastmilk, obviously. I guess I just feel like I'm filling up a tank that's emptying as quick as it's filling^^ and that she's never fully satisfied. I know breastmilk is digested quicker, but still.

She has no issues re: reflux, tongue tie or anything either.

Of course there are behavioural differences amongst all babies, but as a general rule, what is your opinion? Interested to hear from anyone who has perhaps breastfed one baby and formula fed another.

FFS. Sharon didn't imply FF was like giving a baby a beer and a curry. She said her HV told her the effect of being full and sleepy after a beer and curry is similar to the effect a baby has after being fed formula. I'm not sure if people are being obtuse on purpose to strengthen their point or if they are just not reading posts properly,

Tali you sound very bitter about BF and are making a tonne of sweeping generalisations and assumptions.

I've read a lot of the breastfeeding studies- it's very difficult to separate out the effect of feeding method from the confounders such as social class etc. Not to mention that babies who are harder to breastfeed may in some circumstances have underlying conditions which also may skew the data. My own interpretation is that breastfeeding is probably slightly better for baby, but probably not in any way comparable to social class, education etc in terms of impact. However it is a lovely, convenient, free method of feeding your child. Interestingly there is clearer evidence of benefit to women who breastfeed.

"I've read a lot of the breastfeeding studies- it's very difficult to separate out the effect of feeding method from the confounders such as social class etc."

Difficult but not impossible.

All the studies used by the NHS control for smoking, income and and education of parents among other things. And they STILL find significant differences in health outcomes, including in rates of SIDS.

More to the point - while the health outcomes for individual conditions when considered individually they are not so striking when you consider them as a group it seems more significant.

The list below is from those well known breastfeeding propagandists and nazis, UNICEF:

"Below is a list of differences in health outcome associated with method of infant feeding. The studies have all adjusted for social and economic variables. All were conducted in an industrialised setting.
Artificially-fed babies are at greater risk of:
• gastro-intestinal infection
• respiratory infections
• necrotising enterocolitis and late onset sepsis in preterm babies
• urinary tract infections
• ear infections
• allergic disease (eczema, asthma and wheezing)
• Type 1 and type 2 diabetes
• Obesity
• Childhood leukaemia
• SIDS
and breastfed babies may have better:
• neurological development
• cholesterol levels
• blood pressure
Other studies of health and breastfeeding:
• cardiovascular disease in later life
• childhood cancers
• breastfeeding and HIV transmission
• breastfeeding and dental health
Women who breastfed are at lower risk of:
• breast cancer
• ovarian cancer
• hip fractures and reduced bone density
Other potential protective effects of breastfeeding (more research needed):
for the infant:
• multiple sclerosis
• acute appendicitis
• tonsillectomy
• improved parenting
• reduced child neglect/abuse
for the mother:
• rheumatoid arthritis
• maternal type 2 diabetes
• postnatal depression

Mini- I had typed a reply and lost it. I don't dispute that breastfeeding is better for baby and mother, but the public health benefits in developed countries are quite likely overstated. It is not possible to fully control for all confounders, and when looking at huge studies there is almost always going to be a statistically significant result; which may or may not be clinically significant. It is impossible to do a properly designed study in this field which is obviously going to make things more difficult. It's similar to all nutrition studies in that eay.

Just to take for example a particular interest of mine- type 1 diabetes. The studies here are widely variant- there are studies which suggest that children at high genetic risk of T1 may actually be at reduced risk ig fed a highly hydrolysed formula instead of breastfeeding or traditional formula. Other studies say breastfeeding is protective and others still say no difference in the groups. If we look at 2 children in one family fed differently in infancy their chance of developing autoimmune diabetes is the same.

Breastfeeding is lovely, convenient, cheap, safe way of feeding a baby. There are clear benefits to the mother. There are likely benefits to baby, although these will be difficult to quantify. This is enough to convince me to breastfeed.

Saying FF babies are at greater risk of getting SIDs/Leukemia is like saying people who buy Powerball tickets have greater odds of winning the jackpot.

Technically this is true, but the odds are so ridiculously tiny that they're not enough to say that buying a lottery ticket is a good investment, iykwim.

All breastfeeding does is add another ticket to the raffle. It doesn't guarantee that your baby will be healthy.

My son ate two hourly day and night until he was 6 months old. He was formula fed from birth.

My first was hard, hard work at the start. Seemed to be constantly feeding and did use the boob to comfort him - could hardly prise him off. It was very tough and exhausting. It might have been easier for looking back - for those early months though the faff of nighttime bottles and for out and about would have been a pain. No2 also BF but was really different - just a much more calm and self contented baby. Weaned himself of the breast at about 6 months as he seemed to prefer the bottle by then whereas no1 was still happy for a bedtime feed at 2.

I guess BF and babies are designed to be like that for what ever reason, even though BF babies can be so different. I'd never thought about the fact that BF babies might tend to spend more time with the mum and more time feeding etc and maybe that constant contact is good for them.

Might have been easier for me to FF

"Saying FF babies are at greater risk of getting SIDs/Leukemia is like saying people who buy Powerball tickets have greater odds of winning the jackpot.

Technically this is true, but the odds are so ridiculously tiny that they're not enough to say that buying a lottery ticket is a good investment, iykwim".

SIDS is the biggest killer of babies under 1 in the UK. From the Lullaby Trust:
"Since then, numerous studies have supported the protective effects of breastfeeding, with one overview report concluding that breastfeeding reduces the incidence of SIDS by approximately half".

Last year there were 270 SIDS deaths. :-(

In a culture where people are very vocal about about preventing rare accidents to children it's interesting that infant feeding is seen by many as nothing more than a lifestyle choice.

mini while the SIDS risk may be lower its no comfort to people like my mil who breastfed and still lost their child.
There's risk no matter what you do. It's our job as parents to assess those risks and decide what we are comfortable with. I'm comfortable with my choice to ff. I'm comfortable with other people doing what suits them. It's no elses business how someone other than themselves feeds their baby. And ff mothers should not be told that their choice is inferior or inadequate. It's not. Just different. In a society where we are expected to embrace free choice I find it ridiculous that women are slated for their choices, by other women.

Piper not bitter just don't like being told I'm not doing the best for my baby by smug breastfeeders

mini a dummy has the same effect:

santarobin - That is EXACTLY it.

If a woman finds total fulfilment in breastfeeding her baby every 1.5 hours, dream feeding, comfort feeding, whatever feeding....then that's great. You do you. But don't project that onto other people, or assume that you are somehow morally superior to women who don't feel like that. Because to be totally honest, that makes you a complete twat.

If another woman finds total fulfilment in being able to share feeding responsibilities with others, being able to get more rest, and not having a baby literally physically attached to her all hours of the day and night....then that's totally normal too.

Women have fallen into both camps for THOUSANDS of years. Why the fuck do you think wet nurses used to exist???

Personally I think the only reason international organisations take such a strong stand on breast feeding, is to make absolutely sure that massive corporations can't massively undermine breastmilk, and claim that formula is hugely superior - especially in developing countries where women won't have access to alternative information, or really, money to spend on formula.

Wasn't there a big nestle scandal like that in the 80's?

You only have to look at recent history with the smoking lobby, and now with the coal and fossil fuel lobby, to see that actually yes. Big corporations really do try and pull the most evil shit you can imagine in the name of profit.

Aren't dummies considered to lower the risk of SIDS?

In all honesty, I think my baby is just a good sleeper. This was the case when newborn and I was breast feeding and continued to be the case when I switched to formula. So perhaps it is just the baby you're given.

Formula sits in babies' stomachs for longer which is why they feel more content. I don't like the thought of this but if you do then go ahead.

I think it could be true. I bf both my babies, but once I ff one as I had an evening out to go to and I wanted to make sure he would eat if I wasn't there.

Well he slept longer than EVER after that ff.

But one experience doesn't equal proof.

Surely the whole point of feeding a baby is to make them full? And why wouldn't you want your baby to be content? I'm not comfortable with the idea someone would want their child to be hungry and miserable but there you go, each to their own and all that.

Fatty, no one wants their baby not to be content. You've seen a baby after a breastfeed "milk drunk" and sleepy? That's why babies often feed to sleep, because they are very content! It's just that breastmilk typically is digested faster than formula, and so they will often want another feed a bit sooner than if formula fed. That's all. That's not the same as wanting your baby to be hungry and miserable - you can't think that any normal parent would want that?

No I don't but the whole point in feeding a baby is to make them content (as you said). It doesn't matter how that's achieved so long as its achieved so there's no need for the "I'm not comfortable with that" remarks. Fair enough if you want to breastfeed. Go ahead. But if a mum wants to bottle feed then they should be able to without judgey comments like that.

goodness exactly. I'm not a bad mother for enjoying things myself AS WELL as my baby.

If someone enjoys being joined to their baby great. I'd had enough by the time I was pregnant, I wanted my body back. I did try to bf, neither of us got on with it, so that's that. I do enjoy the freedom of ff, and there's nothing wrong with that

Absolutely, judgey comments help no one, and why threads that pitch one method against the other also help no one.

I really am not interested in how other individual people feed their babies. I am interested in the fact that many women initiate breastfeeding and then encounter issues, and then can't access effective support. The NHS should be providing (non-judgementa) effective support for women in the first 6 weeks at least, whatever their chosen feeding method. Midwives and HV should be as expert as properly trained lactation consultants, and also be able to provide effective support for those that choose to formula feed. It doesn't seem like a particularly difficult thing to achieve.