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?

I thought there were others though?

But the cortisol might be good for them?

It might not as well. I don't have the data to hand but I know there are studies into cortisol levels in babies in Romanian orphanages. Its not good.

Isn't the point though that those cortisol levels are biologically normal?

You could google the Lullaby Trust Evidence Base SpeakNoWords, if you're not just being deliberately antagonistic interested. Some of the references used in the data goes into detail about the reasons for breastfeeding being a protection against SIDS.

In particular the fact that breastfed babies on average sleep less deeply and wake more often. This is a not-talked-about downside of breastfeeding that could be talked about more so that mums had more realistic expectations.

Also, I hope that breastfeeding isn't as bad for babies as long term appalling neglect as in Romanian orphanages. I fed DS1 for 16 months, which is a long time if it's as bad as that.

My first two were ff and slept like logs, my current baby is ebf and wakes up to 6 times a night.
It's hard but I know breast milk is metabolised faster and she's a small baby so she needs to feed lots.
But yes I've definitely found it to be so in my own experience.

YANBU

The point of the study was that cortisol levels were not lower in breastfed babies. They were 40% higher than in formula fed babies. That is the beginning and end of the study.

But the cortisol might be good for them?

I doubt it, given all the warnings and lectures you get during pregnancy about how stress and anxiety is bad for the baby.

But surely there is a normal level of cortisol in the body for it to function? That level would be lower than 'stressed'. My initial assumption was that the level of BF babies is correct while that of FF babies is too low.

Yes, I know. But breastfeeding is biologically normal for babies. So those cortisol levels are biologically normal, and so the formula fed babies cortisol levels are lower than what is biologically normal, ifyswim.

FATE, that was my point - you would rule out hunger in the same way you would rule out the others. If you're trying to feed the baby and they aren't responding, then it's unlikely that they're hungry. And if they do eat but still keep crying, then hunger wasn't the problem.

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.

I'm not a doctor, so I would recommend that the mother take the baby to their GP. My understanding is that it's normal for a baby to lose water weight in the first few five days or so, but should ideally have returned to their birth weight by the two week mark - but again, I'm not a doctor, my understanding may be flawed. I absolutely would not assume the problem could be solved by formula - you could potentially miss some serious health problems by assuming that.

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.

Yes, but that's not what you said originally:

stop being precious about breastfeeding. Yes, breastfeed. If it's all easy and stays easy then great. If it isn't, don't stress your baby because you at too precious about feeding methods.
● cortisol levels in a baby matter. Newborn babies who are ff generally sleep better IMO because there is no hunger stress, ever. And therefore usually there is also no exhaustion stress. Breastfed babies have 40% more cortisol (the stress hormone). This affects the child. Period.

You didn't say anything about babies losing weight and potentially ending up in hospital, just that unless breastfeeding is "easy", the mum should give up in case she stresses the baby out. The antibodies in breastmilk far outweigh any potential risk from cortisol (and as others have pointed out, the idea that formula fed babies experience "no hunger stress, ever" makes no sense). Even if breastfeeding is hard work, it's almost always best for the baby's health.

You can't blame me for finding it insulting. If someone said that it's "precious" for mums to switch to formula because of mastitis, and that they should put their babies' health first and keep breastfeeding, then a lot of people would be offended by that, too.

I was sleep deprived with DC1. Formula fed (though not exclusively). I got much less of that with DC2. Exclusively breast fed.
The thing that I think made the difference for me was that I was cosleeping and literally just put DC2 to feed (I barely remember it either) without doing so much as sitting up in bed usually. No faffing around with bottles, sterilisation and of course the stupid burping. I recovered very well too this time.

All babies are different so I'm sitting in the fence for this one. All 3 of mine were ff and slept like logs from very early on. However, if I'd bf them I may have been saying the same thing.

Do you have any data for what is considered a biologically normal cortisol level in a baby?

basic - cortisol levels are higher with stress. The study suggests the effort needed to feed could be the cause of increased levels. Its just speculation though.

As mentioned, there is no further research into the outcomes for these findings, so it is just raw data.

The SIDS data about more wake up and lighter sleeping is massively well researched though - SIDS being an area with lots of funding for research. Yet it is not talked about openly by the breastfeeding lobby.

Why? Why don't they be honest about it?

The data from this survey, presumably! They simply measured cortisol levels in 166 babies, between 1 and 4 times each. Babies in that study that are exclusively breastfed would be the baseline for a biologically normal level of cortisol, surely.

The researchers speculate "We suspect that the higher cortisol concentrations may actually play a role in the analgesic effects of breast feeding."

I think it's a huge leap to suggest that somehow the levels of cortisol detected mean that breastfeeding stresses babies out in a way that's detrimental to them.

The SIDS data about more wake up and lighter sleeping is massively well researched though - SIDS being an area with lots of funding for research. Yet it is not talked about openly by the breastfeeding lobby.

Why? Why don't they be honest about it?

Maybe doctors and midwives should start advising that formula-feeding parents should deliberately wake their babies frequently in order to ensure they don't fall into an artificially deep sleep; this might lower the risk of SIDS in formula-fed babies. I'm not sure too many parents would do it, though.

I absolutely would not assume the problem could be solved by formula - you could potentially miss some serious health problems by assuming that.

I would absolutely assume that one of the first things a paediatrician would do if faced with a 30 day old EBF baby who has continually lost weight - is give formula milk. Only if formula milk didn't cause weight gain would they be looking for other medical problems in the baby.

I would absolutely assume that one of the first things a paediatrician would do if faced with a 30 day old EBF baby who has continually lost weight - is give formula milk. Only if formula milk didn't cause weight gain would they be looking for other medical problems in the baby.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer - I meant that I would not advise a mum whose breastfed baby was losing weight to switch to formula. I would recommend that she take the baby to the doctor, because I'm not qualified to give out medical advice.

I can half remember some studies showing under 1s in group childcare have higher cortisol levels than those at home/with a 1 to 1 carer...but at the same time those infants also tended to show higher cognitive development...I wish I could remember more detail about whether the cortisol and the cognitive development were linked (remembering old uni lectures!)

I guess it's one of those 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' things, cortisol. I don't have a science background though so I may well have misunderstood!

I meant that I would not advise a mum whose breastfed baby was losing weight [for 3 weeks plus] to switch to formula. I would recommend that she take the baby to the doctor

And the doctor would give formula, then investigate. Because the doctors priority is soley the health of the baby. Not feeding mechanism. Thank goodness for doctors and their ethical common sense.

OP asked AIBU to think ff babies sleep better than bf babies?

The answer is she was not being unreasonable.

Those that are very precious about the way they feed their baby though, they don't like to talk about it.

Given that the scientific community do not fully understand the purpose and effects of cortisol levels in breast milk, let's not make a leap to assume that they are negative. The fundamental hypothesis of the ongoing research is that there must be an evolutionary purpose for the phenomenon and to find out what it is so that any benefits can be replicated in formula milk. The reason formula feeding is safe and effective when done properly is because extensive research has been done to replicate breast milk and feeding as closely as possible - so for example the tightly controlled composition of the milk, and advice to cuddle baby while feeding to replicate high levels of oxytocin.

It is really not helpful to correlate the biologically normal levels of cortisol in breast milk fed to healthy babies with the levels of cortisol in chronically neglected babies in an orphanage.

"Research shows that formula-fed babies sleep deeper and for longer bouts earlier than breastfed babies, although the total amount of sleep is the same.", from the Uni of Durham's infant sleep information source (https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/isis.online/ISISnormall_2015.pdf).

I'd have no problem making that known to first time mothers. But, the same article goes on to say:

"It [formula feeding] may also encourage babies to develop mature sleep patterns before other processes such as those controlling the regulation of temperature, hormone production, and the genes that control our biological rhythms, have developed. Arousal from sleep is thought to be an important mechanism protecting babies from potentially fatal heart-rate or breathing episodes associated with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Encouraging long and deep periods of sleep before babies are ready may put some babies at increased risk of SIDS."

I think I'd like to know the whole picture, not just the information about sleep on its own.

And the doctor would give formula, then investigate. Because the doctors priority is soley the health of the baby. Not feeding mechanism. Thank goodness for doctors and their ethical common sense.

I agree that the doctor would give formula if the baby were still losing weight at 3 weeks+, but I also never said I would wait that long - I said I would recommend going to the doctor if the baby were still losing weight one week after birth. If the mother were feeding on demand and still not producing enough breastmilk, I would be very worried for her health as well as the baby's.

I think I'd like to know the whole picture

We agree.

I think Mums, in particular new Mums who have less experience to draw upon, to just be told the whole picture in an open 'this is the way it is' kind of way.

I also dislike the mentality that breastfeeding is unilaterally given as always the best option in all situations without considering other factors. And that any suggestion otherwise must be wrong.

The "I'm right and you are wrong" attitude, as exemplified here, shows how far we are from being open to giving parents the full picture.

It should be OK to say there are pros, there are cons, you make your decision.

The NHS current Breast is Best policy does not appear to be working, from my understanding of the breastfeeding data compared to other countries. Its been in place for at least 15 years (I don't know how long).

So healthy discussion on how the policy could change to make a positive difference in the breastfeeding numbers can only be a good thing.

I hope researches find a better policy soon. It is my belief that positive but realistic expectations are a better way to go than current policy.

I would be interested to learn how the BF-Lobby on this thread would like to see the policy changing (if at all) to improve our national BF rates?