AIBU to think ff babies sleep better than bf babies?

[Scrumptiouscrumpets]

It seems blatantly obvious to me that ff babies sleep better than bf babies. Just take a look at the sleep board on here, the bad sleepers under a year old are more or less all bf (and many of the older ones too!). Yet nobody officially seems to acknowledge this, all bf info I can find on the Internet states that bf mums actually get more sleep than ff mums because it takes more time to make up a bottle etc. Well maybe that's true during the first three months but definitely not later on when the ff babies start sleeping in long stretches while the bf babies start to wake more and more often!
I have a 4 month old who is ebf and I love bf, but I am seriously considering switching to formula.
Am I just imagining things? Are all these bf blogs right and bf mums actually get more sleep?

As a healthcare professional who deals with newborn babies every day this is the first time I have ever heard the term 'hunger stress' what exactly is this?

I can tell if my child is content.

Good. Bizarre thing that you asked.

If my child seemed discontented, why would I think it had anything to do with breastfeeding?

It might not be. But if your child is crying, grumpy and generally unhappy then there is something wrong. If a baby (under 12 months) cries then it certainly has a need that is not being met. That might be:

• sleep
• hunger
• comfort/reassurance
• pain

Assuming you would soon know about and treat pain, that you would pick up, cuddle and reassure an upset baby and that baby gets enough sleep..... Then your answer is hunger.

If you have breastfed or maybe are currently feeding the distressed baby - that's going to suggest that breastfeeding is the problem.

In this situation, depending on how precious you are about breastfeeding you might:

• offer formula to distressed child immediately.
• feed more frequently and try to up your supply. If baby continues to be hungry and distressed after several dats/weeks then offer formula.
• seek breastfeeding support and check fir medical issues all while perserveering with distressed hungry baby. Once baby's weight starts dropping, then give formula.

Again I feel you are being facitious and argumentative pearl.

There will always be a point when breastfeeding is not the most precious thing, so you can stop being precious about breastfeeding.

You forget that your experience is not the same as everyone's.

FATE are you actually joking?

Please nonknelisten to this utter garbage that is being spouted. If you have a BF baby this is 'distressed' (not a term we use) then please see your midwife or GP.

For christ's sake do not listen to the above.

A friend who had a premature baby mentioned that the midwives at hospital asked if she wanted them to give the baby formula (rather than expressed breast milk) over night to settle her into a routine where she'd sleep for longer periods overnight. When my friend questioned why the baby would sleep longer with formula, the response was 'they just do'.

What I get a bit cross about is that the breastfeeding lobby aren't fully honest about breastfeeding, in exactly the way the op mentioned. It's like the establishment are scared to be open about the negative research for fear this will put people off breastfeeding. My humble opinion is that unreaslistic expectation does the most damage to the breastfeeding numbers.

But research can be negative in relation to breastfeeding even when it is seemingly positive. So just imagine that cortisol levels was the key to everything, SIDs to obesity to high BP in later life. The obvious solution is to somehow add it to formula milk. Then breast could theoretically be best no longer ......?

I also think that while breastfeeding is clearly the healthiest way when it works well, the evidence is actually much weaker and the effects less than I'd personally expect. If I'd spent years slaving over breastfeeding and not enjoying it (and some women don't although I realise some love it) I'd want to think it had had a greater effect than it actually seems to. To be honest it amazes me that you can seemingly raise a healthy baby on powder from a tin....!!!

It's like the establishment are scared to be open about the negative research for fear this will put people off breastfeeding.

Glad I'm not the only one who gets this impression, I was beginning to think I was being paranoid.

I don't see what the problem is though. I think more honesty would actually increase bf rates. It's not hard to be honest without putting women off bf. As in most areas of life, the more information people have about something, the less daunting it seems.

I still remember how amazed I was when I realised babies don't feed every three hours for 20 minutes each side! Still find it hard to believe that the lactation consultant told me that as if it were the absolute truth.

I also think that while breastfeeding is clearly the healthiest way when it works well, the evidence is actually much weaker and the effects less than I'd personally expect.

And here we have the reason why these threads always go the same way. The evidence for the benefits of breastfeeding is significant, but on a population level. It's such an intensely personal thing that posters repeatedly pop up to try and disprove high quality research from the WHO with an anecdote about their auntie Maureen's feeding experience, as if the anecdote should disprove the research. It doesn't, of course, but in the whirl of sleep deprivation, hormones and guilt it feels like it should.

The evidence for the benefits of breastfeeding is significant, but on a population level.

The effect is less than I would expect, population level whatever level. Call it significant, OK but that doesn't change anything. I'd expect it to be greater. Your protectionist reaction is exactly what I mean.

FATE, I didn't ask you how you would know if your baby were content, but if they were content about breastfeeding.

Assuming you would soon know about and treat pain, that you would pick up, cuddle and reassure an upset baby and that baby gets enough sleep..... Then your answer is hunger.

How do you rule the others out, but not hunger? How do you know that the baby is feeling comforted? We can't read babies' minds; something that might seem innocuous to an adult may unsettle them. And how exactly do you rule out pain? Surely you should see a GP about that?

If you suspect hunger, then breastfeed the baby. If they won't eat, they're probably not hungry. If they eat and are still crying, then presumably hunger wasn't the problem. I'm not sure if you're implying that the mother's breastmilk somehow isn't enough for the baby, but if you are, low milk supply (rare as it is) is definitely worth asking a GP about, as it may be a side of other health problems, such as a hormone imbalance.

When did I say my experience was the same as everyone else's? I haven't said anything about my experience at all.

What exactly do you mean by a "distressed" baby, anyway? It's completely normal for babies to cry, even - gasp - formula fed ones. If you mean that the baby is literally crying constantly, then I agree with Agatha - you need to take them to a GP. If you know a mum who was feeding her baby dairy-based formula and he was still "distressed", would you think she was being precious if she didn't assume the dairy was the problem and switch to soy formula, despite the risks?

Assuming you would soon know about and treat pain, that you would pick up, cuddle and reassure an upset baby and that baby gets enough sleep..... Then your answer is hunger.

Or colic

Basic I don't call it significant. WHO and Unicef do, amongst many others, because it is.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'protectionist' or why your tone is quite so defensive. I didn't disagree with you. For all of the significant benefits of bf on a population level, they are frequently negligible on an individual basis. It does feel like there should be more of a difference for all of the hard work that breastfeeding can be.

This, then, is the fundamental problem that we have. It's desirable to keep breastfeeding rates as high as possible nationally and internationally, and the NHS's approach to this has been to promote breastfeeding unilaterally. Sadly this isn't backed up with appropriate support so we are left with low breastfeeding rates and a whole generation of mothers who feel guilty about the fact that they don't have the support to do what they are told that they should.

But I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not saying the effects aren't significant or that breastfeeding isn't best. I'm saying the effects are less than I would expect.

What level of effect did you expect?

Bigger than it actually is, I find it surprising. As I said earlier it's pretty mind blowing that you can raise a baby on powder and water. It's just instinct really, as breastfeeding so clearly has to be better.

How do you rule the others out, but not hunger?

It was an example that could easily also have been" baby is fed and not hungry, doesn't seem to be in pain. Maybe if I cuddle baby she will sleep because she's tired". Or any other guesswork. You asked: why would I think it had anything to do with breastfeeding? so I answered with a direct example of a feeding related point.

What exactly do you mean by a "distressed" baby, anyway?

Crying, upset, grumpy, unhappy, unsettled, discontented. Screaming, shouting, protesting. I could probably reel off another dozen synonyms if you really need it.

It's completely normal for babies to cry

Only ones who have a need not being met. Meet the need, baby stops crying. Its not rocket science.

I know a few families and babies dealing with CMPA.

There's nothing precious about putting your baby's health front and centre and more important than everything. Including feeding method.

Just to be clear Pearl87 - indulge me in at what point it is OK to stop being precious about breastfeeding? Lets say we have a newborn losing weight. Not failing to put on weight, but losing weight.

• 10 days of losing weight? That could just be birth weight
• 21 days of losing weight? Mother wouldn't be discharged from midwives so would be getting support.
• 30 days? Baby would be in hospital by then.
• Lets go further - is it acceptable to stop being precious about breastfeeding and offer formula after 45 days of losing weight whilst under hospital care?

My entire point about being precious about breastfeeding that you are apparently insulted by is that there WILL ALWAYS BE A POINT when breastfeeding is less important than other factors. For example the baby's health.

My first little lady wouldn't take to breastfeeding so I formula fed after expressing for first few weeks. From 10 weeks old she slept 7pm-7am and still does at 2.5( except when poorly). My little lady is bf and is 6 months old and wakes 3-4 times a night. From my own experience it seems to be true but that's just my experience

I would say luck of the draw. My girl (2.5 now) was ebf and the shittiest sleeper ever - woke every 1/2 hours till she was about 2. My boy (3 months and ebf as well) sleeps from 10pm-9am since he was two weeks. Been to midwife and paediatrician to make sure there's no issue with him and theyre happy not for me to wake him for a feed (he's quite big on the 91st %).

Good luck OP - I know what it's like to have a terrible sleeper, and I totally sympathise

So what if they do sleep better? It is made to keep them full whereas breast milk is metabolised faster. I think all parents just need to accept that babies are not made to "sleep through" from birth, however you decide to feed them. If you can BF you absolutely SHOULD and I make no apology for saying it.

Really measured post YippieKayakOtherBuckets, I completely agree.

My ultimate wish would be for more people to breastfeed and for longer. Its the unilateral NHS approach that annoys me so much.

It is completely the opposite to the NHS approach to SIDS. They overwhelm you with research and data on SIDS. There's even data on "unfashionable" things like promoting dummy use (going against dental ideals) and data showing co-sleeping dangers.

They deal with it in SIDS by ^recommending" things strategically. Like, for example, they recommend baby sleeps in cot in your bedroom. This is not saying "we don't recommend you cosleep", but it follows the data without saying "cosleeping is unsafe" (it isn't btw, for anyone reading).

There is data there showing the positives and negatives of breastfeeding. But instead of presenting all of the data and giving positive recommendations, like the NHS do with SIDS. Instead they present unrealistic expectations and completely ignore clear scientific data showing downsides.

Its the policy that needs to change. Not the pro-breastfeeding stance.

What are the scientific downsides of breastfeeding?

We were discussing earlier in the thread about cortisol levels Speak. 40% higher in breastfed babies. Very little data into what this means and the outcomes, since its a highly sensitive area to research (as was also discussed earlier in the thread).

Well the babies who lose weight for weeks and end up in hospital for a start. The ones whose mums are on crack. The risk of mastitis in the mother. PND when people fail (sometimes for reasons other than lack of support). Lack of sleep because FF babies sleep 10 hours a night

But the cortisol might be good for them?

It's a difficult subject to research since it would be heinous to induce stress in babies for the benefit of scientific study.

The study investigating cortisol levels in babies just tested saliva and urine samples and correlated to feeding type. It would be an ethically difficult subject to delve deeply into.