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.

Not necessarily true re dummies giving you a good nights sleep. I speak from experience. If only it was so easy!!!
Where do you get the information that bf has no impact on sids please??

Ds has a dummy, he likes it but it drives me insane and he still doesn't stay asleep.

Oh and btw I had easy births and. I pain relief and I never try to frighten other women, I'm also unfit, a complete wimp and felt terrified but still managed to push them out.
I know other women who are fit as a fiddle and ended up with intervention.

I found that intervention was pushed onto me very much so once I entered the hospital despite not needing it.

Oh for the love of god, who are you trying to convince? Who here, or pretty much anywhere feels that women who have interventions in their birth are inadequate or 'socially undesirable'? It's a straw man argument!

Are you seriously trying to tell me that no-one has ever said that a mum who has a c-section "hasn't really given birth"?

Again - who wants to 'shame' mothers for ff?

Have you missed the countless posts from new mums saying their HVs have berated/judged them for not breastfeeding? Or they've sat at a parent & baby group and had whispers and stares for using a bottle rather than a breast? It's not just here either, it's on facebook, it's on netmums, it's in real life.

Formula manufacturers spend £20 per head on marketing for every baby born in the UK, compared to a spend of 14p per head on breastfeeding promotion

And is that the fault of new mothers, regardless of the way they feed? The formula companies are a law unto themselves but they use clever marketing - the "take it from us - you're doing great" slogan is a prime example of that. It suggests inclusiveness and support. The breastfeeding posters you read in GP surgeries make pregnant women feel nervous - it's piling on the pressure and making women fear attempting to breastfeed, for fear of "failure".

And no, actually, I think formula marketing is unethical, and it did make me unhappy to continue buying formula because I was funding that kind of marketing - but what choice did I have? Should I have just stopped feeding my baby? Do I deserve to be berated for doing all I could for my daughter?

We had no La Leche League in our area, or it certainly wasn't promoted. The HCPs and breastfeeding supporters in the hospital walked right by my bed and the bed of the other young mum. I had to beg for help, which consisted of my boob being shoved in my baby's face and having "Hold her like a rugby ball" barked at me. When I asked for a demonstration, she walked off. The same HCP spent ages by the bed of an older mum, showing her how to breastfeed. I was told I couldn't leave hospital until I "sorted out breastfeeding or give her formula". I was scared, young, feeling like a failure, feeling abandoned by the HCPs, facing another night in hospital with a baby I had no idea how to look after, very anaemic and without my partner - I was pressured into giving up breastfeeding.

And then I was berated by the same HCP when I gave her formula. I was told by the HV that DD would've been much better protected from illnesses if I'd breastfed her. I was handed a load of leaflets telling me how great breastfeeding is, like reading a few pieces of paper would sort out DD's later-diagnosed lip tie and solve her latch issues and turn me into a breastfeeding pro.

But it didn't. Instead I got PND, I felt total self-loathing every time I saw these arguments on Mumsnet with posters saying "Women have a duty to BF because it's a public health issue" (there was a poster who had exactly that attitude when DD was about 3 months old), and I came close to attempting suicide on several occasions, and my biggest thought of self-hatred was, "I couldn't even feed DD properly. I couldn't even protect her enough". This time last year, seeing someone say "Committed mums BF for longer" or "It just takes a little more effort and perseverance" would have destroyed me.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere; a way of promoting breastfeeding (because of course promoting bf is important; I wasn't suggesting we should never promote it, just that the promotion should maybe follow formula's example rather than trying so hard to be nothing like formula that they become aggressive and divisive - after all, we hear so much to say that formula advertising works so well) that doesn't make expectant parents feel pressured/alienated/less likely to breastfeeding; more funding for breastfeeding support targeted at demographics that are less likely to know the benefits of breastfeeding, more of the promotion being aimed at normalising breastfeeding culturally and socially etc.

I've yet to see anyone say that the SIDS statistic is incorrect - I have seen people point out that dummy use is contraindicted in early breastfeeding, and dummy use can also help to lower the SIDS risk, so there's a bit of swings and roundabouts going on.

Oh and I had a great labour and birth. Drip induction, but I was allowed to stay active constantly. Sat there at 10cm dilated for an hour because I was expecting it to hurt more and I just thought I needed a giant poo. DD came out in three pushes. It was lovely and very little pain despite being "medicalised" (in a hospital because of previous abdo surgery and history of genetic conditions in immediate family, so actually I felt more relaxed for being in hospital!).

I see a lot of women being told "Oooh drip induction, that's going to hurt, you'll need epidural straight away!" so I always chip in to say that it doesn't always hurt and you definitely shouldn't assume you'll need an epidural. We do have too many scare stories about birth these days.

The same goes for breastfeeding, though - the amount of "battle-hardened" ex-BFers who tell women who say they're hoping to breastfeed "Ooh, just wait until your nipples are shredded", "I had an awful time breastfeeding" - it puts women off.

mini what's wrong with interventions exactly? I loved my cesarean. Luckily we have modern medicine which means we don't have to have a natural birth and all the complications that go with it if we don't want to.

"no-one has ever said that a mum who has a c-section "hasn't really given birth"?

People say all sorts of fuckwitted stuff - there will always be some idiotic folk out there pissing into the wind. But to imply that there is any sort of consensus or widespread agreement that these views (that operative birth is not a birth) prevail is a complete distortion.

There is no widespread 'shaming' of women who have c/s and/or bottle feed, although it suits some people's agenda to insist that the shaming is common currency and a powerful cultural trend. It ain't.

It would be suaring a circle though. If you tell the truth =- that breast is best and we need more breastfeeding in the UK that upsets those who want to and find they cannot. I would say sadly we have to let them be upset for the greater good. they could always choose not to rad any threads or books on breastfeeding or just seek out formula website/discussion groups.

www.dur.ac.uk/resources/isis.online/pdfs/ISIS_bed-sharing_2014.pdf

Page 2

By far biggest SIDS factor is smoking in pregnancy and smoking whilst co-sleeping.

Also says that being breastfed reduces risk of SIDS for both cot sleeping and bed sharing.

Tali - interventions are a godsend if they are unavoidable in the process of delivering a healthy baby.

But if they're avoidable?

The rate of emergency c/s for healthy low risk mums on U.K labour wards is double that of similar mums who have chosen to labour in birth centres, with no improvement in neonatal outcomes. The emergency c/s rate for low risk multiparous mums on labour wards is FIVE TIMES that of similar women trying for a home births. Again, no improvement in neonatal outcomes. That should give you you some idea of the number of avoidable surgeries currently happening to healthy mums in the uk.

Says who though?

www.lullabytrust.org.uk/document.doc?id=300

The Lullaby trust is one of the biggest charities in the UK for safe sleep.

mini

Again, is that a problem? I chose to have a cesarean. I've never wanted to give birth naturally, it's a terrifying experience and as soon as I was pregnant I knew I wanted a cesarean.

I think it's great that interventions are available if people want them. As it happened in my case I'd have needed one anyway, but the point is that interventions can be just as wanted as no interventions

Now forcing someone to have interventions when they don't want them is wrong. But just stats showing more interventions doesn't necessarily mean that

"Sorry but if you don't smoke or co-sleep and use a dummy there is no urgent need to BF as regards aids."

That's for the individual to decide isn't it?

It's not up to you to tell them which risks are acceptable and which are not.

Most people do what they can to reduce the risks of SIDS to their baby, at least all those things that they have some control over.

I think the whole point of encouraging natural births is due to (I believe) fewer complications and less recovery time? And before you jump down my throat, I'm not knocking anyone for having/wanting interventions, I'd have wanted all the interventions in the world if my baby had needed them. I think that's why they encourage it.

Fair enough Tali.

I have yet to meet anyone who would prefer emergency surgery if they thought they could have a healthy vaginal birth without it!

Planned c/s is a different issue. I know it's preferable for some women.

Women who are trying for a vaginal birth - well usually they want a vaginal birth if they can!

I think the need to cover up doesn't help women continue to bf.

I knew that within 2 weeks I had to be out, school run, assemblies, swimming lessons, shopping. I was so scared of being sat in swimming lessons and having the baby fussing and struggling under a blanket with the latch. If you've got the hang of it it's fine.

It's so stupid that people can sit pigging on crisps and dropping them over the floor but you feel awkward openly feeding your baby.

With regards to co-sleeping unless you plan to do it properly you are at a greater risk of SIDS. A lot of parents will fall asleep with their baby by accident, or sleep in such a way that they think is safe but actually isn't. Somewhere in the ISIS website it talks about how BF mothers are more likely to adopt a safe co-sleeping position than FF parents. This mainly because having baby close to you to feed helps regulate babies temperature.

Perhaps if SIDS studies were controlled for safe sleeping positions and not include sofa sharing or accidental co-sleeping and other risk factors we might get a better idea.

My phone is not the best for searching on the ISIS website but it's a good resource for infant sleep studies.

I found the opposite

"The numbers involved are tiny particularly as most of the benefits are from exclusive bfeeding."

I'm happy to go on the advice of the main U.K SIDS charity on this one, and the advice of the NHS.

The Lullaby Trust lists the following things that parents can do to reduce the risk of SIDS:

• place baby on their back to sleep
• keep baby smoke free before and after birth
• keep baby in with you in a cot or Moses basket for six months
• breastfeed if you can

What qualifies you to tell people that it's fine to ignore any one of these recommendations?

It may be fine or it may not. None of us are in a position to judge in the case of other families - it's down to their assessment of risk and their comfort zones around risk taking behaviours with baby.

It is not recommended to co-sleep if you are extremely tired. If you plan to co-sleep look at ISIS website. Unfortunately a lot of people start co-sleeping because they are extremely tired.

I think HCP have scared many parents into keeping their co-sleeping a dirty secret and then you end up in a situation where parents are falling into co-sleeping without knowing what is best or not.

Most parents buy a cot and Moses basket how many who co-slept started out with that intention.

Pretty similar to parents who planned on BF and fall into FF.