Benefits of breastfeeding 'wear off' by 5

[greygal]

Had 6 week check for DS today with my GP. He asked all the 'normal' questions, including how I was finding breastfeeding.

I've been really lucky and had no pain, soreness etc and DS is gaining wait incredibly well so I explained that despite my longest sleep in 6 weeks being 4 hours in one go, I felt that it was going really well and felt positive about continuing.

He then launched into a rant about there being far too much pressure on mothers to breastfeed and that by the age of 5, any benefits to a baby of being breast-fed had worn off!

AIBU to wonder why the bloody hell we're all bothering (especially people who have cracked, bloody nipples/ blocked milk ducts/ mastitis etc)?

Is it true that there is no difference between a breast fed and formula fed child by 5 years of age?

Define if you can. A lot of people insists 98% of women can..but do they want to,are they supporter ,is their mental or physical health coping,are they bonding,is the baby adopted,are there any other issues with the baby that prevent breastfeeding/make it impossible without intervention etc?

Sure but seriously not worth making yourself miserable over or any angst at a population level.

Processed food and screens on the other hand.....

Think of the money that could be saved by parents setting good examples by not constantly checking phones and policing phones belonging to their children properly.

Babies are growing and developing in a speed and way which is phenomenal compared to when they are older and subject to the other environmental factors which tealights describes.

Bf-ing has the potential to affect the babies' gut, brain etc in a profound way which the other factors do not. Whether and the extent it does is not so clear on an individual level though I accept there are studies on a population level.

Stop being deeply offended, please.

www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/more-breastfeeding-would-save-nhs-millions/

On a population level BF reduces disease incidence. But it requires a portion of the population to BF in order for the benefits to materialize. I said the choice to FF on aggregate has a cost - the NHS apparently agrees. If this is offensive then facts are now offensive.

It’s simply not possible that most women in the UK aren’t capable of successfully breastfeeding.

That was your knobbish post, eeanne, how dare you presume to lecture what other women do. Suits your agenda, obviously.

I breastfed my children and your views are offensive. HTH

Not sure what the fuss is about.

Breast is normal and yes, because it is made by humans for human babies, better than formula which is derived from cow's milk. I have no problem saying that and find that utterly uncontroversial.

To accurately quantify how that affects on a population level in a developed country is less easy but the statement still stands.

Other parenting choices have a far bigger cost.

@Lyingwitchinthewardrobe surely what @eeanne said is factual isn't it? I didn't read it as judgemental, just a statement that the vast majority of women in this country are physically capable of bf. If it's true in 3rd world countries it seems unlikely it's not true here.

I also don’t see anything offensive in what eeanne said but some people will find offence in everything. It is true that physically the majority of women can breastfeed if they want to.

Somersetter, Does it really need saying? Do we really have to have this same tired trope on every single thread about breastfeeding?

I guess we could compare ourselves to third world countries if that pleases you so do that properly then, make it comparable. Infant mortality is far higher. That being the case, the mode of feeding is rather immaterial isn't it because a) there isn't necessarily a choice - breastfed or nothing and b) the babies may succumb to illness and die regardless.

Do you have figures on live births in third world/developing countries to determine how many babies were breastfed - and for how long - and whether immunisation was possible and/or carried out - and how many died for lack of nutrition and/or disease? I don't see how or why you would compare how mothers feed their babies here.

I really don't see why women here have to be judged on how they feed their babies. In the UK we are fortunate in that there are options for feeding babies and they will thrive regardless of bf/ff, everything else being equal. These goady breastfeeding threads really aren't worth the broken fingernails and I'm sick of them.

It is not just third world countries. Norway and Japan have some of the highest bf-ing rates.

Not being goady. Just stating a fact.

I'm aware of that. What does it have to do with women being judged - still - in a supposedly 'developed' country, regarding the manner in which they feed their babies?

I've already said, I breastfed mine. I have never, ever felt the need to talk other women into that method of feeding. All mothers want to do the best for their babies. If we accept that premise then why do we persist in treating women as nitwits? It's so patronising. If they don't breastfeed then there's a reason for that. As long as there is help and information out there and they feed their babies then why is it anybody else's business?

I really don't get it. I can only assume that some people are not fully occupied.

lyingwitch I am genuinely puzzled why you are upset and not sure what these latest posts are about. I can only assume there is some background to this I am not aware of.

This is becoming too much of a twilight zone, so I am out.

kellymom.com/fun/trivia/bf-rates-2004/

Nothing about developing countries. UK BF rates are well below peer countries. Even the US which lacks public healthcare and required maternity leave.

Again - since when are facts offensive?

Or is someone arguing that British women are genetically not capable of BF?

The US statistics on bf in comparison to ours in the UK always puzzles me because the US has virtually no paid maternity leave. Is a key difference among poorer families due to the US giving breastpumps free through health insurance whereas the UK gives milk tokens for formula to poorer families? Research does suggest that middle class families here in the UK have much higher bf rates than working class families. Is there a financial aspect to this? Is it easier for poorer families to ff because the formula is heavily subsidised whereas buying breastpads, tops that are bf friendly, feeding bras etc is not subsidised and too expensive?
I don’t for one second think finances are the only reason but could it be a contributing factor?
Is formula more expensive in the US?

Is it easier for poorer families to ff because the formula is heavily subsidised whereas buying breastpads, tops that are bf friendly, feeding bras etc is not subsidised and too expensive?

But aren't we always told breastfeeding is free? Which I have always thought of as nonsense anyway

And yes formula in USA is in my experience 30% - 40% more expensive. But food products generally are, and a breastfeeding mother expends an extra 500 calories per day approximately. Which is another factor nobody seems to talk about - breastfeeding can't deny the laws of physics and the "energy in" has to be coming from somewhere.

BF in Usa is a mix of things. It's a huge status symbol for wealthier white communities. It's a cultural think in Hispanic and Latin populations (although there mixed feeding is very prevalent). And it's actually much less "breastfeeding" meaning feeding the baby directly at the breast than UK, and a far higher proportion of pumping - American websites will show you quite how obsessed they are with pumping and freezer stashes, etc, especially if returning to work earlier.

sycamore with the gap in rates I don’t think you can say there’s less direct breastfeeding in the US, even though you’re right to say there’s much more pumping as women have to go back to work earlier.

It may be actually that because of the lack of mat leave, American employers have to deal with more nursing mothers and that leads overall to more openness about it. Whereas in the UK it’s more expected that you stop BF by the time you go back to work.

my Food requirements when bf are ridiculous sycamore. I’m currently bf and I’m constantly hungry. I’m eating a lot of food but have still lost all of my pregnancy weight gain. If I added up the cost of the additional food I am buying, the breastpads (I always leak when bf even long after it is well established), the nursing bras and the basic vest tops I have had to buy it would amount to quite a lot of money and formula feeding would almost certainly be cheaper if I was entitled to milk tokens.
I’m not saying that this is the main reason for bf rates being so low among poorer families but I do wonder if it is a contributing factor. I wonder if providing free breastpads and vouchers for nursing bras might help poorer families with the cost of bf. Can milk tokens currently be spent on other foods if the mother is bf?

lyingwitch: I'm not judging

I fully support women's right to choose not to bf. But I also support efforts to increase bf rates in this country. I see no contradiction between the two.

A few posters have noted that BF lowers breast cancer risk in the mother.

Important to note that while it lowers long term risk, the risk of breast cancer is actually higher for 5-10 years following pregnancy , possibly due to the inflammatory processes involved in tissue remodelling during involution of the ductal tissue.

As always, these things are generally more nuanced than they first seem.

Those cancers in the immediate postpartum period tend to be more aggressive too. It’s not as simple as it purely lowering risk full stop

Afaik the most strongly proven benefits of bf in developed countries eg uk are prevention of:

• acute upper respiratory tract infections
• diarrhoea
• acute otitis media
• necrotising enterocolitis (preterms only)

All the first 3 tend to be restricted to the period baby is breastfed and start wearing off within the weeks after breastfeeding stops (I think this is quigley et al millennium cohort study).

Many other long term benefits (prevention of chronic or long term problems) have been claimed, like prevention of asthma, obesity, eczema, leukaemia etc. But the associations do not always show up consistently between studies and often the better controlled studies show less effects or smaller effects - suggesting that the associations may be down to confounding (i.e. Often something like more advantaged families wanting to bf more and/or finding it easier), and health of kids in more advantaged families tends to be better.

As far as I know the health effects of bf in developed countries hasn't been studied past a year. The components like antibodies that provide immune protection in milk are still there, but babies tend to be less prone to infectious illness as they get older so the protective effects of bf likely wane as the kid ages.

Bottom line, I don't think anyone knows and if bf works for you , do it as long as you want. Personally I doubt there is much protection going on as the baby moves out of infancy. But that's no reason to stop.

Heres a great link. From the WHO, for those who have been so supportive of the WHO.

It’s a meta review of all the research currently available on the subject and it concludes that there are no definite long term benefits

Link to the paper: apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/79198/1/9789241505307_eng.pdf

Didn’t that study conclude that there were increased IQ points, and that some other presumed benefits needed more research?
And that again says nothing about benefits for babies.

The increased IQ one was found to contain confounding errors and also be within the statistical margins of error. I’ve read the primary paper and I’d certainly not put money on there being a reproducible difference (and I’m a scientist who used to review papers as part of my work.)

It’s actually really difficult to do research in this area - practically impossible to account for all potential confounding factors.

As always - do what’s best for you and your baby - if that’s ebf then do that :)