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.

Sort of related to the breast/bottle debate...

I feel health professionals should also promote a 3rd road - a combination of expressed breast milk in a bottle and formula milk.

It took a while for me to establish breast feeding (thank goodness I could because there were definite feelings of worthlessness when I couldn't manage - by me not any health professionals I saw who were all very supportive of any feeding choice I made).

However, I feel sometimes professionals are either formula or BF and don't explain that a bottle can be used for both to allow some benefit from BF even if it isn't done exclusively.

Just a thought. I should emphasise that every mother has their own feeding journey and must do what they feel is best for them and their baby

xx

Would add - that awareness of the link between ff and increased risk of SIDS is very poor among the general public. Probably even poorer amongst women who intend to ff as they're hardly likely to be seeking out information about the benefits of breastfeeding.

"And is that the fault of new mothers, regardless of the way they feed?"

I didn't say it was! I was responding to the suggestion that there should be even less breastfeeding promotion than there currently is, despite the massive imbalance in spending on promotion of formula.

"The breastfeeding posters you read in GP surgeries make pregnant women feel nervous".

Do you also think we should stop talking about immunisation, preventing childhood obesity and the value of children brushing their teeth, for the purpose of protecting the feelings of those who don't wish to immunise their children, and those who struggle to make their kids brush their teeth and to stop them over eating?

Seriously - health promotion is designed to inform and to promote healthy behaviours, and that's what it should do.

"- it's piling on the pressure and making women fear attempting to breastfeed, for fear of "failure"

Do you have any evidence that breastfeeding promotion actually results in a reduction in breastfeeding initiation?

The research suggests otherwise.

"The vast maj of ffers I know don't gnash their teeth in anguish as regards putting their DC at risk from SIDS."

I'd suggest that the vast majority of ff have no idea that there's any sort of link between ff and higher rates of SIDS.

Most people I know are pretty risk averse when it comes to newborn babies.

There is no link between formula feeding and an increased risk of SIDS for fuck's sake.

As many people have tried to point out to you Mini

'Breastfeed if you can' is just one of the things on that list.

It does not mean that if you can't breastfeed, you are increasing your baby's risk of SIDS.

There are other factors to take into account.

I'd also suggest that the vast majority of ff come to a decision to ff without having done any a huge amount of research. I suspect most people spend more time reading buggy reviews than trawling through the medical literature on infant feeding.

I think there's a unicef study that says ff does not increase the risk however it's widely established that bf does decrease the risk. There's lots of publication on this. The Lullaby Trust link above for one.

"There is no link between formula feeding and an increased risk of SIDS for fuck's sake."

According to the NHS, the WHO, the RCM, and the Lullaby Trust there is.

Sorry.

"'Breastfeed if you can' is just one of the things on that list."

Yes. One of the things you can do to reduce the likelihood of your baby succumbing to SIDS. Not breastfeeding - ie, formula feeding, is linked to a higher risk of SIDS. Hence there is a link between formula feeding and an increased risk of SIDS.

"It does not mean that if you can't breastfeed, you are increasing your baby's risk of SIDS".

Babies who are not breastfed have a higher risk of SIDS.

"It has been shown that both partial and exclusive breastfeeding have been associated with a lower SIDS rate, but that exclusive breastfeeding was associated with the lowest risk."

"There are other factors to take into account."

Of course. But it is also true that not breastfeeding increases a baby's risk of SIDS.

Exactly Freezing

Jeez I think some posters here should write for the Daily Mail.

The way I understand this information is this, if every infant has a 1% chance of succumbing to sids, bf may reduce this to 0.5% but ff does not decrease or increase it. Those % are not accurate by the way, just an example.

You're being ridiculous Mini

Formula feeding alone does not increase the risk of SIDS and you know it.

Why do you spout this sort of thing on these threads?

You know full well that BF-ing may reduce the risk, but again that depends on co-sleeping, smoking etc etc etc....

Hi all,
We're getting some reports in regarding the tone on this thread, so we're popping on to say peace and love in a wishy washy fashion..?

Instead of breastfeeding promotion how about promoting informed choices?

"that says ff does not increase the risk however it's widely established that bf does decrease the risk."

Increase? Decrease? What is the baseline?

That doesn't seem logical to me. Health comparisons usually use the physiological norm to measure the efficacy of interventions. Why make an exception for formula? We don't for anything else.

I also wanted to say I'm a teeny bit uncomfortable discussing SIDS in such a blase way and it's a sensitive topic!

"Instead of breastfeeding promotion how about promoting informed choices?"

Because health promotion is about promoting behaviours that result in improved health at a population level.

But this issue is about personal choice, plus many of the benefits have been discredited and we've posted links to it

I hardly think a slightly better immune system is a population side issue

Mini - you're chatting shit. There is not a single credible study out there that links formula milk to SIDs, and considering the NHS recommend the use of formula to top up babies in premie wards I seriously doubt you found anything of the sort from a NHS source.

Why are you using bf as the baseline when most babies aren't bf?

Why is it so hard to understand that large-scale studies on any public health concerns say exactly nothing about individual outcomes?
And why can individuals not leave each other in peace, particularly when something as emotive as infant feeding and/or SIDS etc are being discussed??

Peace and love, indeed.

Exactly. If any parent reading this has lot a baby to SIDS, they really don't need to be reading words that have been twisted to suit an agenda.

SIDS is a cruel and awful thing and no mother has increased her child's risk of it, due to the milk she fed to her baby.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this thread now because it seems to have gone round in circles.

"Why are you using bf as the baseline when most babies aren't bf?"

Because health comparisons use the biological norm as the baseline against which to measure an intervention, not the social norm.