To think breastfeeding has made no difference to my dd and is massively overrated in terms of benefits?

[Placeanditspatrons]

I've nearly driven myself to a breakdown feeding my dd. She is 16 months now and I'm still feeding. She has been ill more times and worse than my formula fed from four months son. She does not recover any faster and she catches anything I get and gets it worse, despite supppsedly the antibodies passing to her and either preventing or reducing the severity of the illness.

I know it's anecdotal and the studies say overall bf babies are healthier but how much healthier? I mean I we talking one less cold? One less ear injection? Statistically? Many of my friends have said similar. Again anecdotal but I can't help wondering - after the colostrum which is more important I guess - does it really make any noticeable difference?

Well, isn't it interesting to find how terms change!
Virgin gut, as I understood it, is what all babies are born with before they take in ANY nutrients by mouth. ANY.
As soon as any nutrient starts going in, the gut ceases to be virgin because it starts to be populated with bacteria - from the bottle, from the air, from the nipple/skin, wherever.
I find that I object to the idea that the EBF have taken it over to mean that it is a gut that has only had breastmilk go through - that's just made a complete nonsense of the term, in my opinion.

Well well.

When mine were small my iunderstsnding of "virgin gut" was a gut that had dealt with nothing but milk-it was all about weaning to solid food.

Badders, you are really doing your cause no good, you know.

My mum had 4 dc, breastfed them all until they were 6 months old except for one (me) who she breastfed for much longer (think I was nearly 2!). Of all of us, I was the only one pretty much permanently ill. I caught every cold, stomach bug etc going. I also had the measles, was hospitalised with chicken pox and nearly died, and had a huge list of allergies.
My mum said to her HV one day 'is this breastfeeding malarkey really worth it?!' And the HV said that we could never know how much worse I would have been had I not been breastfed, but in her opinion the breastmilk was the reason I always bounced back.

"know I'm repeating myself but think we all are, bf has benefits but so does ff if the mother can't/won't. Why can't it be left there . Who cares what Norway does"

Well, this is the reason I care what Norway does. There are always loads of women on threads like this who are regretful, sad or more than sad because they very much wanted to bf and it didn't work out. If Norway is doing something that means that doesn't happen there, then I want us to do it here.

I am not talking about women who make an active choice not to bf. I am talking about the women who wanted to but couldn't.

virgin gut would be a completely meaningless term if it just means any newborn who has not been fed yet

"Virgin gut means any newborn that hasn't fed yet"
Exactly
Why do bf mums use this term to mean bf babies?
I really don't care how a child is fed. As long as it's fed.
Such angst: it's not worth it.

Bertrand - many many posters like me I've pointed out why we couldn't bf
You aren't listening
Lack of post natal care
Lack of knowledgeable hcps
Lack of legal rules to make work places
More bf friendly
There are so many reasons women couldn't bf long term or gave up quickly
I'm not sure why you find this so baffling....

And any of you who agree with Bertrand - do check out the recent mn thread on post Natal care
That will give you a very clear picture on why women do not/cannot bf

I'm leaving this thread now as I'm just repeating myself -
Op - I hope you are ok.
Do go to your dr if these feelings persist
X

iggi - would you care to explain why you have said that? Virgin means untouched - therefore a virgin gut meaning any baby's GUT that hasn't yet experienced any foodstuff makes perfect sense. Obviously it doesn't mean "any newborn who has not been fed yet" because that's referrring to a whole baby, and not its gut.

www.bjmp.org/content/clinical-audit-babies-admitted-paediatrics-unit-crosshouse-hospital-within-7-days-birth

Out of 50 babies readmitted in the first week of life, 29 were due to weight loss, poor feeding etc. 90% of these were breastfed

Patterns of maternity care in English NHS trusts 2013/14 - RCOG (of doc) states that 3% of babies were readmitted within 28 days of birth.

Obviously there is a difference in the time period between these two sources but if (and I appreciate it is a bug if) the reasons for admission in the first week are about the same as the first 28 days then that equates to 1.74% of babies being readmitted because of poor feeding. 1.57% would have been breastfed and 0.17% bottle fed.

So bottle feeding has a higher risk of admission for ear infections and gastroenteritis but a lower risk of feeding issues, excessive weight loss etc.

Breastfeeding has a lower risk of admission for ear infections and gastroenteritis but a much higher readmission rate for feeding issues, excessive weight loss.

In both situations if we are being a bit pedantic about it, we could say it's not the method of feeding but how it is administered /lack of support causing the issues (insufficient intake of milk or prep of bottles).

In both, in most cases the babies recover well enough. Looking only at dehydration where it is very severe, looking at organ damage etc is not comparable with a tummy bug unless again we are only considering the worst tummy bugs, where the babies life is on the line. For most ear infections, or tummy bugs, the baby will be fine, equally most babies with feeding issues will be fine.

But it seems that overall a baby has a similar chance of readmission whether bottle or formula fed, just for different things.

So maybe we shouldn't insist that one method of feeding is better, and instead encourage parents to feed their babies in whichever way they want to, without trying to persuade them one way or another, and without judgement.

We're not Norwegian though.

I get mighty sick time and again when Scandinavia is held up in several areas as a model we must copy. We are very different to countries in Scandinavia- different lifestyle,population,finances,government,education.....

You can't just replicate anything. Often things aren't as rosey as they seem. Look at education and the pressure put on women to return to work in Sweden.

"Bertrand - many many posters like me I've pointed out why we couldn't bf
You aren't listening
Lack of post natal care
Lack of knowledgeable hcps
Lack of legal rules to make work places
More bf friendly
There are so many reasons women couldn't bf long term or gave up quickly
I'm not sure why you find this so baffling."

Sigh Yes, I know this. Yes I know this.

But there are also a lot of women - I know many in real life as well as many who post on here who say that they couldn't physically bf. Not that circumstances made it too difficult, or they gave up when they went back to work, or any of the other reasons you list. And they often come to this conclusion within the first week. So why is this not such an issue for women in countries? Do we need better training for HCPs? Or what? Thats why I am interested in Scandinavian countries. Breasts are breasts and babies are babies. Why do Scandanavian babies latch on better than British ones?

Grayelephant, I think you've made good points... however I would just add that in the literature there does seem to be a bit of a lack of knowledge about some aspects of excessive weight loss/hypernatremia/hypoglycemia (ie early stage problems in establishing BF) such as, what are the outcomes of these (I don't think much is known about the long term outcomes, enough to say that there are no long term harms) - and, whether and how all of these cases can be completely prevented.

Tiktok (with her estimable knowledge and experience, and I have to say I do have great respect for her expertise and input on these types of discussions), has implied that these problems can be completely prevented with full implementation of our current knowledge and better support for BF, but I am not sure. There are research studies done in settings with extensive BF support which have shown a high % of first time mothers experience delayed onset of lactation and thus high weight loss for the baby, then needing readmission or supplementation - and I'm not sure that could have been prevented with more support for BF as per current practices. (If that means means more help putting baby to breast, checking for tongue tie, ensuring responsive feeding with no scheduling, skin to skin, baby to breast immediately after birth etc). I feel if there is delayed onset of lactation the only thing that can prevent unacceptable weight loss and readmission, is actually supplementation - but this is really frowned upon in BF circles and/or there is not recognition of the high % of times it might be needed. (Plus, of course, the virgin gut myth going around, which can result in parents not wanting to supplement even where it is desperately needed - I have seen mothers collapsing in tears at drop ins because they have had to give baby one bottle, and think it is actually doing baby some horrendous harm - but the baby really really needed it).

The idea of nipple confusion, I think needs to die as well - emerging knowledge does seem to suggest that it really doesn't exist. Non-needed supplementation once milk is in, will reduce mothers' supply (supply and demand etc) - but before milk is in - I am not sure and this goes against what I had understood about the physiology of different phases of lactogenesis. (Colostrum production being different from milk production).

Bertrand....
Sigh.
Perhaps they were like me and had retained
Placenta?
Perhaps they sustained birth injury and didn't want to tell you?
Perhaps they had a boob job and didn't want to tell you?
Perhaps they had cancer treatment and didn't want to tell you?
Perhaps they were so traumatised (see mn post natal thread) that they don't want to talk about it?
It staggers me that the above has never occurred to you.

....and yes
If someone asks why I didn't bf ds1 (although who would be so crass as to do so?) I would say
"I couldn't"
I wouldn't go into the whole sorry mess of me sons first weeks of life
Because, you know, I find it very distressing

Yes. All those things have occurred to me.

Do you think they apply to everyone who says they "couldn't"? Or do you think that some of those women could have if they had had different support? And that if another country has somehow found a way to provide that support we shouldn't try and learn from them?

I try not to do anecdotes, but my mil is still a little sad when she sees one of her dds or dils bf. Nearly 60 years ago she wanted to feed her eldest and tried, and had lots of milk, but a doctor looked at her milk, and said "it's no good- too watery" She believed him, an bottle fed that baby, and her 4 subsequent babies ( who are all hale and hearty adults). But she wanted to bf, but thought she couldn't because she didn't know what breast milk looks like. Do you really think the same sort of think isn't happening to women now?

They found a way to support their mothers in their country. We aren't Norwegian.

Going by the way Swedish women have pressure on them to return to work and do en masse maybe we do question more and stand up for what we want more. That is a good thing.

I 'couldn't' breastfeed my first but then could with the help of nipple shields, pumping and lactuation consultants.
My second was breastfed despite being on life support for a week and in and out of hospital.
It was a lot of effort to do both hence the mental health of a mother is very important and isn't given enough importance by hcp.
It's mine you could have bf - you just chose not to given the balance of circumstances which is completely valid and sounds like you made the right decision for you and your family. But leave the chip off your shoulder.

big mama peach, I agree wholeheartedly.
I think over reliance on breastfeeding support groups etc can actually be detrimental IF they are saying to persevere at all costs.

If someone wants to breastfeed, then of course they should be given all the help and support they need, and encouraged not to give up at the first hurdle. But equally, topping up, or switching to formula if the baby clearly is still losing weight or just isn't taking to it shouldn't be demonised. If there are doubts over whether through baby is getting enough milk, IMO parents should top up, just to stabilise the situation at least. It's not being unsupportive, it's being pragmatic.

Some interesting studies have been linked to here. It seems that the data about how common readmission with dehydration and related issues is can be variable (although the data grayelephant refers to is in line with what I've seen from other countries, i.e. 1-2%), and there is a lack of knowledge of longer term outcomes resulting from this dehydration.

What does strike me though is that there do seem to be genuine risks to exclusively breastfeeding, particularly for first-time mothers who seem more likely to have delayed onset of lactation. When I think back to the breastfeeding workshops and literature, and even just 'common knowledge' from general conversation with people, no-one seems to be aware that these risks exist. We hear plenty about the risks of formula (mostly from making it up incorrectly) but virtually nothing about the risks to the baby if your milk doesn't come in right away. This seems very unbalanced to me.

I have also heard about the 'virgin gut' from more than one HCP. A parent I know who actually trained as a GP was adamant that any amount of formula 'could do permanent damage to their little tummies'. It might not be the official line but it is certainly widespread, and is, I think, the main reason women resist topping up even if there is clear evidence of a problem. This and the 'nipple confusion' myth, which I have also been told by HCPs.

Fwiw I think that breastfeeding is worth giving a go if you can, but I think that there needs to be more common sense across the board here, and an acknowledgement that the benefits to the individual of EBF are small enough to be not worth risking either the mother's or the baby's health if there are signs of problems.

Bert...my impression is many women are heartbroken when they can't BF because they believe that BF is hugely superior to FF.

The evidence doesn't really bear this out. It is superior, but mainly in terms of cost/faff/a slight but significant reduction in relatively minor infections.

I think if we were more straightforward about presenting the confirmed benefits of BF (as BMP has shown) women would still want to BF, but they would feel less pressure and less of a sense of failure, and they might be more likely to supplement with Formula in the later months & continue to BF a bit.

At the moment the overblown health benefits of BF mean women put themselves under enormous pressure to BF.

W/r/t Norway - Bert, around 20% of mums in Norway are not BF at 4 weeks - that is much higher than the oft quoted "only 1% of women can't BF".

I know estimates of the number of women who cannot EBF are around 15-20% - but these do come from a study done in 1990, I don't know if there's anything else out there.