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 would like to know why some eastern European countries have such a great bf rate when England and for instance France are so 'poor'. Is it the people?

Which countries are you referring to? Don't forget that some Eastern European countries are very poor. Mothers might not be able to afford formula, it could be as simple as that.

Another reason may be that families stick together more and women therefore have more support. This is definitely the case with the women from countries like Bosnia, Macedonia, Bulgaria I know.

Many Easter European countries have not seen such aggressive formula milk marketing campaigns as the UK and other Western Indistrial countries,

Breastfeeding in countries like the UK took a near fatal blow in the 50s and 60s when formula was heavily pushed on mothers, even by government. Hospitals, midwives baby clinics would give away free formala to new mothers to get them off to a "oood start", effectively destroying the success of breastfeeding.
There grew up several generations of formula feeders, breastfeeding skills were lost, women forgot how to support each other, and we are still reeling from the effects of those formula campaigns.

We are having to re- learn breastfeeding skills, rely on support groups, health care professionals because we are no longer a breastfeeding culture.
Many rural countries are much more successful at breastfeeding than us in the UK.
Most breastfeeding problems if caught early have easy fixes, and at best are solved by peer support, sisters, aunts, grandmothers. Countries like those in Eastern Europe still have that hands on knowledge in the community, so easy fixes are minutes away.

women therefore have more support

I think support comes into it. Especially when you factor in breadtfeeders light sleeping and how some women find baby's sleep difficult to deal with.

I often think of this in relation to Tamara Ecclestone and the example she gives of Attachment Parenting. She is a great example of AP, but I wonder how much of her parenting style comes down to the fact she has so much support?

I don't know the details of Ms Ecclestones life, but given her wealth I would imagine she has someone who cleans her house, cooks meals, does the shopping, someone looks after her daughter alongside mum and takes over when mum needs a break, and all the other trappings of a life I could only dream of.

While lots of "normal" mums attachment parent, it's unavoidable realism that it must be so much easier if you have lots and lots of support around you - paid for or otherwise.

Breastfeeding in countries like the UK took a near fatal blow in the 50s and 60s when formula was heavily pushed on mothers, even by government. Hospitals, midwives baby clinics would give away free formala to new mothers to get them off to a "oood start", effectively destroying the success of breastfeeding.

Did worse to my Mum - 1970s NHS hospital took baby away ff without saying - said they did it so Mum could sleep - when she tried bf got no help did get shouted at and only given a ten minute try before being told it was a waste of time for her as she wouldn't be able to. She didn't bother trying with later children.

MIL had similar - bad labour - didn't actually see baby till next day for few quick seconds as she had to rest. Didn't hold him for days.

Mindtrope - good points!
Although I wouldn't refer to several generations of ff yet. I think mostly the baby boomers started ff 'en masse' so my mother's generations or rather their babies (my generation). My mother and her peers were more likely to be mixed fed or bf themselves I believe. So it is still a very recent trend.

Only if the baby isn't getting enough milk via breast feeding. Babies sleep best on a full stomach, whether breast milk or formula.

Hmmm I'm not sure about that oblada my parents were not Breastfed and I'm talking in the 40s. My grandmother also talked about bottle feeding her brothers and sisters in the 1910's, although I'm not certain they weren't Breastfed at all. Of course FF is a relatively new thing, because formula didn't exist, in 40s they had national milk I have no idea prior to that.

Basicbrown
I've read the 1955 edition of Benjamin Spock's book on childcare. Basically, formula was cow's milk diluted with water. Then a certain amount of sugar was added. Mothers would produce it themselves at home using a formula based on the baby's weight - I assume that's why it's called formula?
If you think about all the extra nutrients that are added to formula milk nowadays, it really is incredible babies thrived on this diluted ersatz breastmilk.

Both mine were EBF. DS was an atrocious, awful sleeper. No more than 20 minutes at a time until he was 6 months old, silent reflux, awake at the slightest sound. DD sleeps brilliantly and has done since she was very tiny. This is reflected in their personalities: DS is fairly sensitive and reactive to most things and is easily thrown off balance, DD is totally easy going and not flustered by much.

I know that anecdote is not data, but based on my sample of two I would say it depends on the baby, not the method.

"If you think about all the extra nutrients that are added to formula milk nowadays, it really is incredible babies thrived on this diluted ersatz breastmilk."

It was usually made with evaporated or condensed milk.

You do realise that modern infant formulas are also made predominantly from cows milk still?

Basic - I think the practice of using milk substitute kicked off at the beginning of the 20th century but formula rly started to take a prominent place past the 50s not rly before. Not saying everyone was bf before that but talking about general trends and when ff started to become more common than bf. I do know that my grandmother had a terrible time bf her kids because doctors were interfering, demanding she feeds on schedule, injecting salt water or God knows what if the child was not putting on weight according to their exact expectations etc... So I suppose to me it reflects the time when it all started to go downhill lol over medicalised labour/birth and feeding methods then leading to ff... (Combined with major surplus from cow milk production and of course a lot of other factors incl women going to go, wet nursing disappearing etc)

I think formula is called this because it used to be 'prescribed' by doctors etc

A lot of nutrients etc are added to formula but there is no evidence it is actually properly 'used' by baby in that form.

oblada great post.

I agree with all you have said.
Yes formula is pumped with extra nutrients, but often poorly absorbed.

Yes formula is pumped with extra nutrients, but often poorly absorbed.

Evidence base for this please

kellymom.com/nutrition/vitamins/iron/

Eh? That article is about how bf babies don't need vitamin supplementation and states that infants fed on cows milk (not formula) are at greater risk of aneamia. No shit Sherlock...!

Formula is the second best food for babies, behind breastmilk but way ahead of anything else and to suggest otherwise is just utter nonsense at best and at worst dangerous advice

The vitamins in formula are fine. Nobody needs to worry about that. All the studies show is that it doesn't make formula better than breastmilk. You can actually buy formula-like mixes for adults which are nutritionally complete and they test for the fact that they're absorbed/bioavailable. It's not some quack science!

Historically - the condensed/evaporated milk was often supplemented with substances like orange juice and cod liver oil - babies got extra rations for these during the war. And remember that people used to wean much earlier, in some cases at 6 or 8 weeks (but certainly by 3 or so months) so babies would get different nutrients from that, which although we now know is a risk in other ways, probably kept up their iron and vitamin levels. They were often fed very nutrient dense liquids such as broth. And, of course, some of them didn't thrive. But as infant mortality was higher in general the link to feeding wouldn't necessarily have been clear. In the original call the midwife book Jennifer Worth mentioned that they noted a difference between breastfed and bottle fed infants because many of their patients had such poor facilities for hygiene, the bottle fed ones were often sickly. But she worried that some of the women had poor quality milk which we now know is not an issue.

Basic - actually I was reading a book - the politics of breastfeeding - at least I think that's the one lol - and it was interesting (and I was surprised) to read there that there is apparently very limited evidence of formula being anything other than marginally better than plain homogenised cow milk... I haven't done the research or looked into it further but it was interesting. It also explained that indeed there is no real evidence of the vitamins etc added to formula being fully absorbed/utilised by baby. Again I haven't looked into it further but if anyone is interested I'm sure the book gives some references to be checked over!

I found the book very interesting and not just on those points of course.

Right OK, significant evidence here of Mumsnet being crackers.