To think the 'information' the midwife gave me is almost propaganda?

[ethelfleda]

Recently had 24 week appointment. This is our first. Midwife asked if I had thought about feeding yet. I said I plan on breastfeeding. I say 'plan' because (as with everything else baby related) I am trying to keep an open mind as from what I hear, things don't always go according to plan! So I will try hard to breastfeed but I won't beat myself up if it doesn't work out for us.
She handed me a 20 odd page pamphlet thing and said it contained useful information on caring for a new born.

I started to read it today thinking it would be basic NHS info on how to feed, wind and change your baby etc. It was actually 20 odd pages of info telling me basically that if i don't breastfeed, my baby is more likely to develop cancer (as am I) as well as be admitted to hospital in their first year of life etc etc among other very scary statistics.
The language used was shocking IMO! And seemingly designed to make women who don't/can't breastfeed feel awful! Has anyone else had this information handed to them and thought it was way over the top??

"I think it may come from the entirely correct notion that unnecessary and casual supplementation with formula can reduce the chances of happy breastfeeding - what do you think?"

yes, probably

also, because the numbers of breastfeeding mothers are sadly quite low in this country it makes for a more anxious rhetoric around breast-feeding: you are either a breast-feeder or not a breast-feeder and that definition becomes very important. Succumbing to a nightly bottle can feel almost like falling off the waggon if you're part of a teetotal association: you forfeit the right to consider yourself a breastfeeder.

in Scandinavia where the more general feeling is that you probably will be doing some breastfeeding, there is less need for "saving souls", so to speak, so everything is a bit more pragmatic and casual

Nakedscientist...if that were really true, why aren't countries with higher BF rates the wealthiest, healthiest countries with the lowest perinatal mortality rates, obesity rates and infant mortality rates?

So why is the Lancet publishing things that aren't true?

I don't think they're lying, I think they are ascribing benefits to breastfeeding at a population level which may be only be very weakly true at an individual level.

The explanation of the 'conundrum' (not really....) of high BF rates in developing countries not also having low perinatal mortality etc etc is that breastfeeding can not have as powerful a public health impact as economic strength, high baseline incomes, infrastructure, clean water, lack of war.....etc.

Cory, I think there is an anxiety about BF and I agree with you that ppl want to identify with being a breastfeeder.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/breast_and_bottle_feeding/a274983-omg-you-d-think-i-was-feeding-my-3-week#5504964

That's a link to a thread I posted on ten years ago - I wrote about having a ticket for the breastfeeding bus, and how upsetting it can be when you feel you're on the wrong bus.

So those things are "true" at a population level? That small quote from the Lancet doesn't mention whether they mean individually or at a population level, but they're talking about "the world" which implies to me that they mean at a world population level.

Assassinated Beauty, you can read the whole thing for yourself
www.thelancet.com/series/breastfeeding

Alyosha I think you may be conflating a lot of issues there. A country doesn't become successful purely because it has a healthy, intelligent population. History, wealth, natural resources, access to affordable healthcare, vaccines etc etc play way more of a part.

So do people on here just discount medical research in favour of personal experience of the "well Brian looks alright to me" type?

The earth LOOKS flat.......just sayin"

(Bertrand....help!)

I don't think they're lying, I think they are ascribing benefits to breastfeeding at a population level which may be only be very weakly true at an individual level
when you test a factor for significance (car accidents vs young age for example) you will only get a significant effect if your test tells you that your factors occur together more often than would be expected by chance. You need to also provide a rational case for causality. You then produce a population risk which becomes more accurate the more people you test. Thus insurance companies know that younger drivers are more likely to crash due to lack of experience. Your own DC may be a brilliant driver and never have a single dent BUT the probability is high that they could.
Medical research also errs on the cautious often actually underplaying data so that it is not over interpreted

'The Series confirms the benefits of breastfeeding in fewer infections, increased intelligence, probable protection against overweight and diabetes, and cancer prevention for mothers.'

Let's face it, there's a hell of a lot of other stuff that can contribute towards this.

Fruit given in primary school, for example.

It's a big ask to attribute intelligence to breastfeeding. How do you ascertain that?

So basically, naked, it's inconclusive.

Thought so.

Another way to look at it is say "95% of people wear bright colours to weddings" that means that if I picked a guest at random they are only 5% of the time going to be in black. However, we know Aunty Flo always wears black so she is 100% likely to be in the 5% group.

Nakedscientist, some contributers to MN do appear to think that their own observations disprove evidence based on many robust studies. Its lovely that so many people have brilliantly intelligent, tall and slim children, but it really says a big fat ZERO about the UK's infant feeding experience.

So basically, naked, it's inconclusive

No the studies are conclusive. If they were inconclusive they would not have reached statistical significance ( and all those A* highly trained medics would have said " our studies were inconclusive")

[waves] Hello tiktok

Can I just say thanks @tiktok and @nakedscientist for bringing some intelligent conversation to the thread? Your answers have been genuinely interesting.
This rings true for more than one thread on MN:
some contributers to MN do appear to think that their own observations disprove evidence based on many robust studies.

This thread is really upsetting. The more the 95% statistic is stated the more I feel like those that genuinely did have serious supply problems are either once again not being believed or being made to feel inferior. I and many others on this thread did not produce enough milk.

95% means 1 in 20 are on the other side. That is really really high and a significant minority. If 600,000 babies are born a year in the UK it is 30,000. It makes experiences like yours (and mine) highly believable actually.

In terms of the benefits v individual experience. I would never argue formula can compare. I accept that studies show not overwhelmingly but conclusively enough that there are benefits, even though I am unconvinced by the intelligence one and different studies have shown different results on that. What is most surprising to me though is that the differences either at population level or individual level are not greater than they are. It is actually amazing that you can raise intelligent, healthy children on powder from cows out of a tin. And many of us had to, so we know that it is perfectly possible.

Quite simply, when breastfeeding fails formula is the best food for baby. Breastfeeding is only best when it works properly and all the evidence in the world and links to the Lancet and BMJ doesn't change that.

I don't think there is any contradiction between believing wholeheartedly in the benefits of breastfeeding and being able to accept that for one individual child this may not be the best and safest option.

On a population level, most 10yos are able to walk and run. The safe default position is to assume that your 10yo child will be able to walk and run. However, when experience showed that my dd wasn't, insisting that she had to because this is what statistics showed, would have done a lot of physical and emotional damage. No, I tell a lie: it did a lot of damage.

Being a parent requires a lot of you. It requires you to know what is statistically the best thing and so what is likely to be the best thing for your child. It also requires you to be able to recognise when your situation is the odd one out and the default position is causing harm.

So in that sense your own observations sometimes do have to override many robust studies in the case of a child (or mother) that does not conform to the norm. That is not some kind of negation of the value of statistics.

I was taught child development at school. It was good stuff and has proved valuable in my life. But if my child had been on the autistic spectrum (diagnosed or undiagnosed), I would have had to disregard it, maybe without knowing why, simply because my own observations showed me that it wasn't working.

I agree Cory, the big issue with BF/FF though is that it happens when you've just given birth. Women are vulnerable to pnd etc due to hormones/ life suddenly changing. Personally I was not at my most rational at that time so didn't see it in the way that an entirely logical person on a forum might. I saw it as breast is better for my baby and that I was an utter failure, rather than just a new mum actually doing the best thing. Therefore I think it's necessary to state the obvious sometimes on this subject.

Science matters hugely. Facts, provable facts. I don't know why women need to get so upset about all this. I breastfed, loved it, it worked, my children are fine. Some people don't want to or can't and their children on the whole are fine. In my view it is a pity the UK is particularly bad at breastfeeding and I'd like us to improve the rates, but no parents should berate themselves over the issue.

I breastfed, loved it, it worked

I'm genuinely glad that you had such a lovely experience and just a touch jealous .

I don't know why women need to get so upset about all this.

But with the best will in the world how can you understand how it to have a different experience? It is a really upsetting thing for many women and their feelings are valid. Wouldn't you have been upset if your parenting had started with your newborn baby being admitted to hospital for weight loss?

Cory default position is causing harm

I agree with what you are saying. However, can we please note that the default position in the UK is formula feeding.

I think it depends where you are and who you mix with naked. I honestly didn't know anyone else FF their tiny baby, I was the only one.

I think we're talking about different people's default position, nakedscientist, not that we actually disagree about anything. Of course the default position among the general population is formula feeding and of course it would be beneficial if this could change.

I was more talking about default position of the pro-breastfeeding community: official discourse, HVs, breastfeeding experts, breast-feeding supportive hospitals, the NCT, highly educated mothers who read up in advance.

And again, of course the default position should be breast-feeding, I am absolutely not disputing this. Just as the default position should be that a 10yo can walk or a 5yo can sit in an averagely noisy classroom without having a meltdown. Of course it should. But there should also be awareness that not all children, and not all parents, fit the default position. Not least parents need to have this awareness.

And health professionals and bf-promoters who discuss this question need to be aware that, again, not all parents who struggle will fit into the same pattern of "this is why you are having a problem". Just a bit of awareness goes a long way, and it does not need to include a desire to see everybody else conform to your own different position. I seriously never wanted to see all 10yos in wheelchairs, nor do I want other parents to give up breastfeeding just because I realise with hindsight that that is what I should have done.