To ask what people did before formula?

[Annabelleinapickle]

There's always a BF/FF debate but genuinely what did we do before formula existed? It worked fine then, people produced milk? Personally I think it's all the devices, unhealthy crap invented that has made our bodies less able.

To the best of my knowledge I am the first woman in my family for hundreds of years to Breast feed.

Most of them didn't because they were prohibited from doing so as part of their marital agreement because Breast feeding in many circles was considered unbecoming and hindered fertility, mothers whose babies had died or ceased BF either intentionally or due to the fashion for solids very early were hired to feed the babies.

Branded formula was used from about 1910 ish, more babies in our family died after then.

I do think a lot of the things we have can impact on BF, things like dummies, shields and fashion and over the years some of the BF advice advocated by medical people is shocking, things like 5/10 each side no more frequently than 4 hours during the day and water at night, babies removed from mothers and kept seperate, that sort of thing

Most of them didn't because they were prohibited from doing so as part of their marital agreement because Breast feeding in many circles was considered unbecoming and hindered fertility, mothers whose babies had died or ceased BF either intentionally or due to the fashion for solids very early were hired to feed the babies.

Needs do you mean this was the case in your own family, and in fairly recent history as well as hundreds of years back? Are you talking about British culture or another culture? I am fascinated by the thing about BFing being prohibited in their marriage agreement! Can you elaborate?

Like many others, I assumed that everyone (bar a minute minority) could breastfeed, because otherwise the human race would've been wiped out.

But of course, women and babies routinely died in childbirth. It happened all the time - you were lucky to escape with your life. So if even surviving childbirth was pot luck, then of course it makes perfect sense that many, many women genuinely can't breastfeed.

I was lucky - it took a while to get breastfeeding established with DC1, but once established, it was fine and I produced plenty of milk. With DD it was a doddle - she was 98th centile, and I EBF until she was nearly 7 months old. Again, I had an over-supply, if anything.

My mum was very pro-breastfeeding in the 70s when it wasn't a popular choice and although she died before my DC were born, I think some of her rhetoric sunk in - even if some of it was perhaps wrong, i.e. that all women can breastfeed. One thing that did sink in, was that your supply fluctuates to meet your demand, so I never had any worries about DD being a big baby, and would I have enough. If you do have that worry, it must be hugely tempting to just give breastfeeding up, and switch to formula, to be sure you're getting enough into them.

I still found breastfeeding to be really tough - not the physical act of it, but the weight of responsibility that comes with it, and the unrelenting, bone-crushing tiredness that comes with being the sole night time feeder.

I also think that we have evolved so incredibly far from our early cave-person model, so that breastfeeding is something many modern women just don't feel is right (or even feasible) for them.

Cave women would be up all night breastfeeding their babies - but then they'd be able to loll about in the cave the next day, maybe keeping an eye on random children, while the rest of the tribe would be out hunting and gathering and keeping the enemy at bay. They wouldn't be expected to do much at all.

Roll on several millions of years, and our set-up is quite different. We've organised ourselves in nuclear families, and we're all responsible for our very own, individual 'cave'/house. In many cases, there's no extra support. The women has to go out and gather - do her own shopping and tending to kids, keeping her own house in order, and of course often going to an office to work. She has moved about, and family and old friends live far away.

Suddenly, being up all night feeding a newborn is something only women with support around them can do. A hands-on husband. A mother/MIL who takes the baby and other children off her hands for a while. No job to go back to. The financial wherewithal to pay for help. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Yes, 'breast is best', and breastfeeding is the best option for babies. But this doesn't take into account modern life, and the incredibly varied demands that are placed on mothers.

I BFd two DC for over a year apiece, so I have no axe to grind. But I read the posts of some prolific (and less kind/supportive) pro-breastfeeders, and just wince. There is no nuance or empathy or understanding in their stance.

Needless to say my grandad had a life time of eczema, my grandmother had milk intolerance and couldnt eat a warm loaf of bread!

Wow, sounds like I dodged a bullet.

Hmm. I am not so sure it makes that much difference in the end. There will always be people who are living embodiments of that theory, but for every handful there are probably thousands more who aren't.

BFing was pretty unfashionable and increasingly uncommon in the UK throughout most of the 20th century. Formula is blamed for an awful lot of illnesses and allergies and of course obesity and while I don't doubt there is a connection, I do think it tends to be overplayed by staunch BFing advocates. Likewise I think the apparently proven benefits of BFing are vastly overplayed, once the problem of poor hygiene in FF is taken out of the equation.

There are several generations of adults walking around now in the UK for whom the majority were probably FF (or given some early version/vague approximation of modern formula according to whatever was available and considered suitable at the time) as was the cultural norm. The majority of them don't have allergies or serious intolerances, the majority haven't carried obesity with them from early childhood, the majority don't have diabetes and we know that the burgeoning problem with type 2 diabetes is much more to do with an over-reliance on a ready supply of high carbohydrate processed junk foods and poor lifestyle choices, lack of exercise etc., in later life rather than how our mother fed us as a newborn.

Some of the countries seeing the sharpest rises in obesity and diabetes rates now are developing countries where BFing is and always has been the norm for the majority.

In addition, I'll bet there are still plenty of children who have been EBF and weaned onto solids just in time to take their driving test by well educated, well intentioned, middle class mothers who pride themselves on doing it all 'properly' who still go on to develop asthma, eczema, reflux, lactose intolerance, chronic constipation, IBS and a whole gamut of food allergies and intolerances. And while FF children are more likely to end up overweight than BF children, I really do think that far more about education levels and class bracket of the parents than it is as a result of the formula itself. On the flip side, even these days, a dogged and unwavering determination to EBF for reasons of principle will sometimes result in a baby being underweight and failing to thrive to the point that HCPs will need to step in and monitor the situation.

And I truly believe that the recent trend for extending Bfing and weaning onto solids post 6 months or even later, and a reluctance to give a baby a bottle at all, instead going from breast to cup, is possibly a factor in many children/toddlers developing up with sensory issues over different tastes and textures and will result in more cases of very fussy eating and food related anxiety.

this - in the early days when DD was glued to me every 20 mins, I remember thinking that bf is really meant for cave people who could lie around naked all the time (unless a sabre tooth tiger came to pay a visit) rather than modern women with clothes and jobs and everything else.

I am glad I was able to stick at it, but I am v aware that I got lucky with a very easy feeder who got it at once, and nipples that never got sore (must be made of rubber). If I had needed to top up or to FF, I would have done. I would never dream of judging how anyone else feeds their baby. I find it sad that it's become another way to put pressure on mums when it should just be personal.

I totally agree with your last post Dowager.

I think for first timers in primeval societies when sore nipples and mastitis kicked in there would always be someone else on hand to help out by wet nursing for you until you healed. Then, when you were managing nicely on your third baby you could repay the favour for another woman. Plus let's not forget that (occasional periods of famine or malnourishment causing a drop in fertility levels aside) most of those women would have been knocking out a baby a year or at least every couple of years from aged about 13 or 14 until they finally died in childbirth of dropped dead through sheer physical exhaustion at about 35, with no teeth left in their heads, fissures, prolapses and God knows what else.

There would always have been someone to step in a feed a baby whose mother was struggling because all of them were nothing more than breeding heifers for whom having babies and BFing formed their whole existence.

There's an interesting bit in the Victorian novel 'Mary Barton' which describes a newborn baby whose mother has died being fed on 'porridge' made of cow's milk thickened with bread. Gaskell wrote 'Mary Barton' while recovering from the death of her own baby.

But yes, without access to formula, babies die. I volunteer in an orphanage in a developing country. We have babies brought in who have been born underweight anyway due to their mother's malnutrition, whose mothers haven't been able to produce enough breastmilk or afford to buy formula. It is the most heartbreaking thing.

Hmmm
Dunno
My cousin bf all her 3
All have teeth problems, speech issues, asthma and excema
I remember reading the bf literature when pg which stated that bf protected against all of the above
I do wonder if the stats pedalled by bf advocates (bf babies are basically better than ff babies in every way :)) are just a modern reflection of better pre natal medical care, better pre natal nutrition and better vaccination schedules?

My great grandfather bought a goat and kept it in the garden and my father and his twin were fed goats milk.

My dad (in his 50's) was fed a mixture of cows milk, watered down with sugar added. He has bloody awful teeth now!

My aunt fed me for a bit when my mum couldn't (I'm 27). We are very close!!!

DFIL was fed goats milk.

Most of them didn't because they were prohibited from doing so as part of their marital agreement because Breast feeding in many circles was considered unbecoming and hindered fertility,
Interesting... I'm intrigued, what is your cultural background as I've never heard of this before (apologies for my ignorance)?

BF protecting against something doesn't mean that it's a magic bullet which means it will never happen though. It just meand that on a population level it reduces incidence. So for example (and I've made up these stats to illustrate) if 10% of FF children have teeth problems then 5% of BF do. Some children are still going to be in that 5%, just not as many as in the 10%.

I see your point Bertie but I don't think the actual differences in incidences of [whatever] can firmly and unequivocally be attributed to BFing when there are so many other social and environmental factors at play when looking at the differences in demographic (in the UK) between those who EBF and those who FF to some extent or other. I think it's incedibly difficult to separate causation and correlation in the BF v FF argument.

We are lucky to have choices.
I do think those who have not had problems feeding and who enjoy and love it don't seem to speak about that much or am I the only woman who liked it, not just doing it because it helped the babies but because physically it was very pleasurable and lovely. It is some of the most precious memories of my life actually and not that I would ever impose any view on any of my children I am so happy my first grandchild is breastfeeding so well. I hadn't realised how important that was to me.

The main thing for women as ever is don't beat yourself up about anything - Since Eve in the garden of Eden men have sought to foist blame on women for all sorts. Instead just be content with your own choices. You are probably doing very well.

On the culture and marriage contract point that is fascinating. Everyone always breastfed in our family on both sides until my father had his special milk cow in the 1930s but even by the 1960s they were back on breastfeeding (my mother was one of the first NCT members in 1961 and thought natural is best as i do about so much in life). In fact the reason I have arms and legs is because she thought that- she refused thalidomide when pregnant with me as it was a drug and not natural. I am not saying that everything natural is always good for us and not saying I would never take any drug (I am here because she took clomid I think it was after about 7 years of infertility) but on the whole it's a very good rule of thumb in life. Not breastfeeding tends to bring your fertility back sooner (which may not be a good thing for the body of course) so in cultures which want a lot of children there can be pressure to stop breastfeeding so that year's annual baby can be produced.

My Nan used condensed milk apparently I'm not sure if that was after breast feeding though babies were also weaned earlier the babies were fed saps which was wet bread

(I mean refused the drug which "caused" Thalidomide - can't remember its name - distofan? (having watched Call the Midwife series recently it all came back to me - including my mother's call decades later when she read the new research on effect on children of mothers who took Clomid - the fertility drug)).

I agree. We don't know. The only one thing which is directly attributable to breastfeeding is that exclusive direct breastfeeding prevents gastroenteritis caused by incorrect preparation and storage of formula, or contaminants in formula. That's it. The rest is correlation because we have no way of isolating other factors, but we can make a good guess based on what we know about other things. I was just answering posters who were saying "Well this baby I know was breastfed and was ill". Yes that will still happen because reduces chances does not mean eliminates 100% of cases. It's not going to work like that, nothing does.

I don't believe that the "disadvantages" of formula are significant in the developed world. It's clear and obvious to me that the physiological norm is preferable where possible, and I actually think that although we can't measure the benefits it probably has even more that we're unaware of, but I don't think that breastfeeding suits every mother and that's fine - we have a perfectly good and safe alternative.

Im sure bad teeth wasnt to do with cows milk and sugar im sure there is other factors anyway i think my grandmother moved onto powdered milk (not formula) she used to talk about boiling bottles to sterillise them I guess with 9 children over 20 years and a house to run and working she didnt have time to breastfeed

" the drug which "caused" Thalidomide'

No, Thalidomide was the drug, the condition phocomelia (absence or stunting of limbs). There may have been other drugs that were later found to have caused phocomelia, like the one you mentioned, but Thalidomide is the chief one that seems to be most mentioned. I think Debendox was another drug suspected of being teratogenic i. e. causing damage to the fetus.

I think thalodomide was a drug within a drug if that makes sensse

Thalidomide was the drug name - like paracetamol, ibuprofen. Distaval was the brand name. Like calpol, nurofen.