To wonder how much breastfeeding matters 14 years on?

[ringle]

Genuine question. I bf both my kids with relatively few problems, mostly because I found it enjoyable.

But looking back it doesn't seem that big a deal.

What's prompted this is a couple of people testifying on another thread that their ongoing efforts to bf drove them to depression.

What are the stats?

I have two sons both now adults. The older one I bottle fed(from some comments on here I clearly I didn't love him and counld be bothered) and I breast fed my younger son until he naturally gave up at 18 months. They younger has eczema and had infantile asthma. The older boy has neither. They have both had the usual childhood illnesses. Neither is fat or big boned or any of the other excuses parents like to make as to why their child is getting larger than their peers. The only difference is one has a 30 inch waiste with a 28 leg and the other. 30 inch waiste with a 32 leg.
So no to me bf made no difference at all.

Contessa I didn't know that about oldest children. That's so interesting and explains a lot about me

It doesn't matter. It's just one tiny part of a bringing up a child. DS2 is 13 months and I stopped bf him at 11 months, it just didn't feel important after the first 9 months or so.
I think the pressure to bf is completely out of proportion to its benefits. It makes me really sad that young mothers end up feeling bad because they didn't bf.

I think most of the benefits are in the first few days. I have 5 DC and fed them all. Shortest period was 10 days. Longest was 11 months.

Whatamess and me!! I will try to find a reputable link.

I was thinking about this thread again this morning and although I of course totally agree that you shouldn't give yourself depression trying to breastfeed, I occasionally think that people protest a bit too much about there being NO difference whatsoever between the two. There are benefits to breastmilk which are scientifically proven, and no, we might never be able to tell that from individual children, but it doesn't mean the effects aren't there.

If there were two 5yo's and one would only eat turkey twizzlers and crisps and the other ate anything, would you honestly say there was no difference in their diet? There clearly is, even though you might not be able to detect in when you see them running around and even though it isn't their parents fault that one is a fussy fucker and the other isn't. There is a difference. Why can't it be ok to say that? There really isn't enough support for breastfeeding in this country and all this constant 'I'm ok you're ok' reassurance about formula being no different doesn't really help imo.

purplemeddler no I was born in 1986, so everyone was back on the breast is best boat. My mother readily admits she knew it was 'best'. I mean this is also while regaling stories of how I was wheeled in at a few hours old and she was asked if she'd like to (bottle)feed me now and she said no, so they dutifully wheeled me away and did it themselves. Obviously our bonding got off to a great start

You are confusing difference in diet with difference in the impact of diet Penelope. Two very different things. And also, as people have pointed out, actually the best evidence we have shows very minimal differences on an individual level and none at all for some of the typically claimed benefits. That's the point of this thread.

As for support for breastfeeding, we need that, and we can and should have it without bullshitting women about the likely impact. Wanting to breastfeed is a good enough reason to deserve help with it.

Quality peer reviewed studies (not a 5 minute Google search and not Dr.Sears) show only tiny benefits to breastfeeding and none address the pitfalls

"However, the reality is that our best quality evidence does actually tell us there's very little difference for individuals on average"

So why does the NHS care about breastfeeding? Why does it promote/encourage it? When all other factors that go into a child's upbringing are more important and completely counteract any tiny benefit from breastfeeding? It's completely pointless to try and push breastfeeding, given that there's no actual measurable difference in outcome. It is pointless/misguided to persevere with breastfeeding if it is in any way difficult or inconvenient. New parents ought to be told this very clearly by midwives so that they can avoid weeks of hassle and stress, and even PND.

It's really not that hard for statisticians to control for "measurable" confounding factors (such as parental income, education, number of children etc). Its not my discipline but I would be very surprised to discover that scientists studying the effects of breastfeeding hadn't included these factors in their studies.

The problem comes from harder to measure confounding factors (such as parental attitudes, harder to measure determinants of class) which might be correlated with both the decision to breastfeed and also on outcomes which are harder to isolate.

Pineapple, it's not my field either, but as I understood the article from The Atlantic, it's almost impossible to correctly design a study because it is illegal to ask a parent to commit to feeding a baby in a particular way (presumably this would be some sort of assault or undue influence or whatnot).

So I think it's very hard to even start on having controls.

It does seem as though the NHS simply doesn't try to talk about breastfeeding benefits on a population level. Is it really too difficult to communicate?

Well that's a lot of research in social sciences fucked then

With enough data it's perfectly possible to draw inference without using experimental data.

Very simplified, you could control for income by looking at the outcomes for breastfed vs non-breastfed babies for parents of the same income level.

if you have time Pineapple could you suggest a study method? I appreciate I'm kind of setting you up here because as you say it isn't your field but it would be very interesting (if you don't mind being shot down!)

Ooh! Do you think we should write to "More or Less"?

I tried bf when I had my DS and it just wasn't happening, he wasn't latching, both me and baby were getting frustrated and over upset so I put him on formula. Had a happy baby but I felt like a complete failure. I tried expressing too but for some reason he wouldn't even drink my bm from a bottle

I really think it doesn't matter at all. But I am an shameless ff mum! So maybe I tell myself that to deal with the guilt!

"More or Less" have done a podcast on bfeeding stats:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rzdl8

I'm slightly gobsmacked looking back that I BFed my DD for 3 years.

It mattered hugely to me at the time because I was having a mental breakdown and it was the only source of bond or comfort between me and DD. But that was just me...not relevant to anyone else.

So for me it really really mattered...and still does...because I don't know if I'd still be alive or functional with out it.

I BF all my DC's and I always found my DC's weren't as chunky as the FF babies who always seemed almost bloated, mine never got really sick, teething was it really, while other FF babies were constantly at the doctors, no allergies here either compared to some of the FF babies of the same age.

It matters and its important, if it dosen't work then thats ok, sometimes I think us mothers need to chill out about ourselves, clean, fed and warm equals a happy baby, and happy babys and children are the goal.

Pineapples crunching, they have done sibling studies.

The 'benefits' seen in other observational studies were NOT found when sibling pairs were studied. The only differences were a small difference in tummy bugs and ear infections, and possibly a very, very small difference on IQ (though no differences in exam results, amount going to uni etc), but the IQ association was still quite weak.

The PROBIT intervention study found the same result. No real long term benefits at all!

So why doesn't the NHS etc realise this, and drop it as a health issue? Stop promoting it and recognise it as a niche activity? There must be loads of money being spent by hospitals trying to get UNICEF "baby-friendly" certification and so on.

Assassinated, yes, I have no doubt there are "targets" distorting doctors' and midwives' advice.

At very least there ought to be a clear directive that if there is a risk of even mild depression/anxiety, no pressure should be put on. That would give HCP's a getout.

Incidentally, though my breastfeeding itself wasn't overly problematic, I was in very low mood after having DS2 and the breastfeeding was sort of consolatory IYSWIM (I didn't feel actively loving at first so I could say to myself "at least I'm breastfeeding him and he doesn't know what I'm feeling inside"). But if I could have that time back without the low mood as a tradeoff for the breastfeeding, I would in a heartbeat.

We all seem to agree on the key point - in the Western world it is never worth risking a woman's MH in order to bf because her MH always matters more to babe than the slightly better gut bacteria thing.

Maybe we need to get whoever is in charge of the NHS breastfeeding campaign on to mumsnet?

Bfeeding is hard. Looking after a baby is hard whether you're ffeeding or bfeeding. Mothers should be able to access support with feeding and should feel encouraged not judged.

One thing that is puzzling me though is a number of posts saying the scientific evidence for bfeeding benefits is minimal.

What about things like this from The Lancet last year? www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)01024-7/abstract

It brings together 28 meta-analyses (28 combined studies of multiple other studies) and comes up with some pretty balanced conclusions:
'The importance of breastfeeding in low-income and middle-income countries is well recognised, but less consensus exists about its importance in high-income countries. In low-income and middle-income countries, only 37% of children younger than 6 months of age are exclusively breastfed. With few exceptions, breastfeeding duration is shorter in high-income countries than in those that are resource-poor. Our meta-analyses indicate protection against child infections and malocclusion, increases in intelligence, and probable reductions in overweight and diabetes. We did not find associations with allergic disorders such as asthma or with blood pressure or cholesterol, and we noted an increase in tooth decay with longer periods of breastfeeding. For nursing women, breastfeeding gave protection against breast cancer and it improved birth spacing, and it might also protect against ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes. The scaling up of breastfeeding to a near universal level could prevent 823 000 annual deaths in children younger than 5 years and 20 000 annual deaths from breast cancer. Recent epidemiological and biological findings from during the past decade expand on the known benefits of breastfeeding for women and children, whether they are rich or poor.'

Saying there is evidence for some benefits (with the caveat that such evidence needs to be continually reviewed and new studies may improve on old ones - just as they do in every area of science) is not grounds for judging mothers who choose not to or can't bf. It is grounds for continuing to invest in support for bfeeding for mothers who do choose to do so or who would like support for whatever reason.

Assassinated beauty, because breastfeeding is such a political issue, no one wants to step out of line. And because although the benefits are really tiny, there could be benefits we don't know about. There might not be, there could be benefits of ff that we don't know about too, but the NHS errs on the side of caution. I personally would welcome a more evidence based approach.