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?

Significant part
A breastfed baby will be protected against ear infections, diarrhoeal diseases, pneumonia and urinary infections. Breastfeeding has been calculated to prevent 72 per cent of hospital treatment due to diarrhoeal diseases and 57 per cent of due to respiratory infections. In addition to infections, breastfeeding also protects the child against atopic and metabolic diseases. The incidence of leukaemia and sudden infant death syndrome is lower among breastfed than formula-fed babies. Extended breastfeeding protects the child from overweight and type 2 diabetes later in life

@Natsku so interesting. Seems that claims of 'formula fed babies being just as healthy' are totally wrong!

Let’s not forget that night time breastmilk contains sleepy hormones so a wakeful baby is much more likely to go back to sleep if bf than ff.

as someone who long term breastfed two babies and short term breastfed one, I do think that bottle feeding is often considered the same as wilfully poisoning your child. There are so many other things important to the health of a child. Their long term diet is more important, for starters.

Natsku, reading the article, seems they're again talking on global level. I can see that in developing countries it would make a huge difference but in countries like UK and Finland the benefits simply aren't as noticeable.

If DS2 had his way, he'd still be breastfeeding at 5!

I can see the GPs point - there's so many factors that affect children's health and their future prospects that BF or not probably has a very negligible effect after a certain age. But that does still mean that there is a benefit when they are younger. There can also be disadvantages, so most people weigh up the pros and cons and make their decision. I do think often women suffer trying to bf to the point their mental and physical health is affected, and don't see how the benefits of it outweigh that (and I was a bf peer supporter years ago).

Also, some of the benefits prior to age 5 would continue, surely? Such as lower incidence of ear infections (I was bottle fed and had horrific glue ear, grommets, more infections etc until I was about 10 = it affected my education as I couldn't hear anything or was off school with pain or having operations. My BF siblings never had that issue)? Then again, no one magically became Einstein purely due to being BF.

Sorry natsku, I don't know where you got that from, but I take it all with a pinch of salt. It's a very wide quote isn't it. It seems to read that a bf baby will never ever get any if those diseases/ conditions, and we all know that can't be true. I've known lots of bf babies to get more coughs / colds etc etc than mine, who were FF. We all know guidelines etc change so learn that what some of these sites eg the NHS etc aren't gospel.

@greygal.....no they are not totally wrong. At all.

I know this might sound a bit shallow..,,but you also loose a shed load of weight BF. I eat a ton of food (chocolate) and still the weight came off.

I always wonder why this isn’t made more of a point as to some individuals it may encourage them more than other benefits.

Even if the benefits physical wore off by the age of 5.

Think of all the mental benefits for your child, their attachment to their parent and feeling secure and content. That will help build upon their mental stability and development which will stretch into adulthood.

On the other hand as-long as a child has a good attachment regardless of feeding method then it all works the same. I wasn't able to breastfeed my daughter so I pumped for 4 weeks but I mentally couldn't do it myself as pumping was draining the life from me so I then switched to ready made formula.

Bringonspring, it hasn't been true in my circle of mum friends.

It's from the Finnish national institute of health from their latest research tabbymumz and it doesn't suggest bf babies don't get those illnesses but that overall breastfeeding reduces the incidence rate so on a population level breastfeeding has huge benefits but those aren't necessarily seen on an individual level.
This is true for both developed and undeveloped countries - Finland and the UK aren't exempt from these benefits.

Just wanted to point out that DC was breastfed and he is a fantastic sleeper. The babies I know who are good sleepers all have bedtime routines of the same time every day, a story, a cuddle and into the cot. That applies to both the breastfed and formula fed babies.

I don't think there's much of a correlation between feeding methods and sleep, I think baby is predisposed to be a good or a crappy sleeper and what we do can help push them towards being a good sleeper, but can't overwrite their natural tendencies.

Meh, much of a muchness. I'll get flamed, but go ahead.

If you get on with it fine, then that's great, if you don't (want to) then don't, though you should get all the proper support you want. As should FF mums and dads.

In the West I really think the benefits of BF are overstated partly because at first it was necessary to promote BF. Now it's not done to say it doesn't matter.

All the things they research in conjunction with BF can also be down to other factors. It's impossible to find a causal ljnk.

FWIW the American College of Paediatricians is reconsidering from the weaning at 6 months and has started recommending 4 months again. Mainly allergens seem to be better between 4 and 6 months.

Bringonspring yes I’d forgotten about that. Despite putting on an embarrassing amount of weight in pregnancy and I was back in my jeans 2 months post birth with a lot less effort than I expected. I definitely credit breastfeeding as I wasn’t restricting my diet at all really.

@GummyGoddess you're way off base there:

expectingscience.com/2014/09/09/lets-face-it-formula-fed-babies-sleep-better-from-their-parents-perspective/

I slept with mine and breastfed in the night without properly waking up so I got good quality sleep. I know some people disapprove but I had an Indian GP who was very pro breastfeeding and co-sleeping as he said it was the norm where he came from and seemed to benefit mothers and babies. Not sure if he meant India or his particular city/region.

But if we are arguing that evidence for breastfeeding benefits isn’t compelling enough there a massive problems with those studies on sleep too. They are small, and they rely on the parents recalling how often baby wakes. I would have thought that would be enough to reject them. My b/f baby always slept well and continues to do so into toddlerhood, out of all her friends the worst sleeper by far has always been ff. Whatever ‘evidence’ you throw around people are far more likely to go by anecdotes and what those they know and trust tell them, which is why it’s a stupid thing for a doctor to say if mum and baby are getting on well with b/f. No amount of evidence either way would convince me that milk designed for cows or other animals was better for me and my baby than milk designed for humans.

I wish I had a gp that had told me something like that. All the health professionals I came across after my baby was born made me feel like a terrible mother for formula feeding. My health visitor told me I had let my baby down for not being able to breastfeed him and others made me think he was going to be ill/have a terrible life because he was formula fed.

I'm wondering now why my local maternity hospital had a milk bank and bothered to send a midwife out every other day to pick up my milk if it wasn't better than formula. They always said how important it was and how great that I was helping sick prem babies. Obviously irrelevant in regard to five year olds.

Do they still do that or was it a mad idea from the 70s?

@TabbyMumz I think that on balance, I'm going to take heed from official sources, like the NHS, who state that bfing lowers the chances of my son becoming ill, dying of SIDS, having allergies etc etc rather than you just repeating that your children were more healthy.

Unfortunately, however you want to look at it, your children were more at risk of the above things because you didn't breastfeed them but that's okay and it was your choice and a perfectly fine one to make!

I may be totally wrong here but my hv told me that ff babies do sometimes sleep better but it's because formula is harder for them to digest (because it's not naturally designed for their immature digestive systems) so they don't get hungry as quickly as bf babies. Incidentally, she also told me that is why more ff babies die of SIDS - because they are in such a deep sleep.

Yes greygal I always understood that the natural sleep wake cycles of babies was somehow protective as they’re not really designed to sleep deeply for hours.

Seems like a pretty huge benefit of breastfeeding, Rumple!

grannytomine my hospital in Finland has a milk bank too and all babies that need extra milk, not just prem babies, get donor milk, no formula at all unless mum brings it herself. I gave birth last week and my baby was giving top ups of donor milk by syringe (instead of bottle) because he lost too much weight at the beginning and he's an otherwise completely healthy full term baby.