Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

931 replies

mrsb26 · 08/12/2015 20:16

...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.

OP posts:
magpie17 · 09/12/2015 15:51

It mattered to me too. I guess it just doesn't matter to other people - I couldnt care less about how other people feed their child (as long as they are being fed) and I'm sure they don't care about how I fed mine.

I don't think it's nice to describe any baby as 'grumpy' though.

waitingforsomething · 09/12/2015 16:03

My babies were a bit grumpy! Doesn't mean I didn't love them to pieces, obviously I do, but they were of less cheerful disposition as babies than some others I knew. It's not like I said it to them

irretating · 09/12/2015 16:18

''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. ''

Deemed by who? The parents self reporting or by independent observation?

CultureSucksDownWords · 09/12/2015 16:30

It was mothers self reporting by filling out questionnaires according to the NHS summary article about the study.

irretating · 09/12/2015 16:34

In that case I'd wonder about confirmation bias. 'Breastfed babies are fretful and fussy. Formula fed babies sleep well and are content' are beliefs that have been around for decades.

Alisvolatpropiis · 09/12/2015 16:36

Are people seriously comparing formula feeding babies to babies being neglected in Chinese orphanages to the point they shut down.

Wow.

I really enjoy this topic, really gets on breastfeeders nerves that there's actually something they can't be smug about.

christmascracker2015 · 09/12/2015 16:39

My worst sleeper and one who cried the most was ff. I have 2 more and one was bfed for a long time and one ff both you would hardly knew were here.

TaliZorah · 09/12/2015 16:56

In my experience Yanbu. The number of bf babies I know of who don't even sleep 2 hours in succession during the night never mind straight through at 6 months is quite amazing.

I've noticed this. At clinic none of the bf babies sleep very long.

Also comparing formula to neglect is hilarious, it'd be offensive if it wasn't so stupid

thatsforsure · 09/12/2015 17:01

after I had my third baby I was on a ward with 5 other new mums - they all ffed and their babies were asleep for ages at night ( and more to the point so were they) my baby was up awake all night (for 3 nights) sucking away

  • possibly would have jacked in BFeeding at that stage had i not BFd the other two and so knew it would get easier
hippospot · 09/12/2015 17:09

I bf both of mine.

One was very settled, one was not (turned out he had multiple allergies - including cows' milk, so formula would have been tricky).

They are older now and I think the difference is in their personality, actually.

Cotto · 09/12/2015 18:44

Its true that BF reduces the risk of SIDs because of the frequent feeding and waking ,even when other factors are accounted for.
The figure is actually by 50% in EBF babies under 3 months old.
There was uproar on another thread when this was mentioned recently.

Babies are not designed to sleep away from their parents for long periods, I didn't find it a problem- stick em on the boob and they were happy Grin

What I found was that FF babies, had to be cleaned up from posseting endlessly, rocked, juggled, dummy in and out and in and out...
I just stuck mine on the breast and they settled.

CultureSucksDownWords · 09/12/2015 19:04

Probably because the risk of SIDS is very small anyway, and breastfeeding reduces this already very small risk. Other factors are more major risk factors for SIDS like smoking, unsafe co-sleeping (like sofa sleeping) or the baby sleeping in a different room to the parents.

Breastfeeding has benefits for both the mother and baby, assuming that breastfeeding is established and any major hurdles are overcome. But this is only one factor in the decision about how to feed your baby. Other factors may outweigh these benefits - it's clearly a personal decision for each woman. One woman's decision to breastfeed doesn't mean another woman is "wrong" to formula feed. Equally, one woman's decision to formula feed doesn't mean breastfeeding has no benefits associated with it. It's just that in each case the relevance of those benefits differs due to personal circumstance.

Alisvolatpropiis · 09/12/2015 19:07

Cotto so you were using yourself as a human pacifier. Not really so different to giving a formula fed baby a dummy. Not that being breastfed means the baby won't have a dummy as well, of course or that being formula fed means the baby will have one.

Snossidge · 09/12/2015 19:13

The whole point of dummies is that they are a fake nipple.

TaliZorah · 09/12/2015 19:14

So snoss?

CultureSucksDownWords · 09/12/2015 19:16

A dummy can be used to replace the kind of suckling that Cotto described. That doesn't mean that's she's being a "human pacifier", it's just a normal breastfeeding behaviour of babies.

Freezingwinter · 09/12/2015 19:16

..So the pp wasn't using herself as a human pacifier!

gingermopped · 09/12/2015 19:19

YRBVU

I hav 5 kids, 1st formula fed and she was a shit bag, lol,
Next four all ebf and 3 very content babies and another shit bag 😉

Snossidge · 09/12/2015 19:21

So of course mothers aren't human pacifiers. Dummies and formula are artificial breast replacements. Humans actually came before pacifiers, so it was a weird phrase to use.

Freezingwinter · 09/12/2015 19:22

Tbh the thread has turned into a ff vs bf debate which was obviously going to happen, but if the thread title was 'bf babies are more content than ff babies' words such as Breastapo would be being used!!

TaliZorah · 09/12/2015 19:22

Well she was, she was pacifying the baby with her boobs. Which is fine but that's what it is

Freezingwinter · 09/12/2015 19:24

Exactly, so she isn't a 'human pacifier' it's just a boob and the dummy was invented to replace that.

TaliZorah · 09/12/2015 19:25

She's a human and pacifying the baby with her boobs thus human pacifier.

Snossidge · 09/12/2015 19:26

Yes, that's what they're there for Confused That's what they were for before it was outsourced to pacifiers. The italics of pacifying your baby yourself just seemed odd. A "human pacifier" rather than just a mother.

CultureSucksDownWords · 09/12/2015 19:26

Or just a breastfeeding mother, instead of an being reduced to an object.