To hate the assertion that breastfeeding 'costs money in increased food'

[Lycidas]

This line is often trotted out whenever someone emphasises the economy of breastfeeding over form: 'except that the mother has to consume more food in order to produce adequate breastmilk'. Nonsense.

Firstly, evidence suggests that breastmilk supply is only threatened when the mother's calorie count dips below 1500 a day, which is below the average intake for a breastfeeding woman. More importantly, one of the virtues of breastfeeding is that it can burn 300-500 calories a day. Assuming that the mother doesn't increase her food consumption, and sticks to around a standard 2000 calories a day, this deficit is precisely what's needed in order to maintain a consistent level of weight-loss in the postpartum months. This deficit will allow the body to utilise the fat deposits that were placed down during pregnancy in order to produce breastmilk.

It just really pisses me off when someone makes this argument about how much extra money they spent on food, then says;:"OH, and btw breastfeeding didn't help me lose any weight!' Well, no shit sherlock.

This isn't to say that I think breastfeeding is significantly cheaper (have spent more than I would like to think on a good quality nursing pillow, bras/vests, pump etc), but simply that the argument based on food doesn't compute.

I’ve never heard that used as an argument.

Never heard that in all my life! Who said it?!

Bizarre. Never heard that said before.

Never ever heard anyone say that. What a weird thing to say.

I def spent more money on food when BF. I have never known a hunger like it.
I am very slim, was back to pre-preg weight within a couple of weeks and really had to eat loads to keep up with the demands of my babies.

5 months pp with DS1 ie not long before he started solids I felt I could barely keep up with him. I felt like missing out the middle man and just shoving Magnums down him!

I have never been a big breakfast person, but when BF I had to eat breakfast. Then (once I was back at work) I would have a proper canteen meal, then go and BF DS at the on-site nursery and then already be hungry as I returned to my desk.

Am still sure it was cheaper than FF though, especially for my second child for whom I didn't express for either ie no pump and bottles etc.

Never heard anyone say this.

I have never heard that argument in my life or in 4 years of breastfeeding and reading/learning about it.

Hmmm, odd that no one has come across this. I've seen it on MN quite a few times and in the comments section of this Guardian thread:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/20/is-breast-really-best-i-looked-at-all-the-data-to-find-out#comments

'Except the mother has to consume a greater amount of food in order to create breast milk (and in fact, a greater amount of food than is put out as breast milk, given that energy is expended in the process of creating the milk, as well as some food simply coming out again as human waste), so unless the food the mother is consuming is free from all those things then that argument doesn't work."

My sister said it and I thought wtf. Yanbu

I needed to eat a lot more than usual when I was breastfeeding, so it was true for me. I’m not a huge eater normally though. Fine if it’s not true for others.

Yabu for getting “pissed off” though. You must have little to worry about.

I’ve never said that to anyone as an argument but it was absolutely true for me. Your experience is obviously different! Never been so ravenous as when I was breastfeeding, it has completely changed my eating habits as I used to get full very quickly and eat tiny portions. When I was breastfeeding I just wanted to eat eat eat all the time, it felt like I could never get full. I lost all the baby weight within about a week of giving birth but then put the same amount back on while I was breastfeeding. Yes this is obviously because I was eating a lot, I don’t think anyone would dispute that so I don’t understand your argument about the caloric deficit. People obviously mean they ate more as they were hungrier.

I was staaaarving when I was breastfeeding, combined with sleepless nights I was definitely eating more than £10-15 extra a week

I eat way more when breastfeeding but I've never heard it as an argument, it doesn't cost me much at all, just larger portions of standard cheap meals we'd be making anyway with extra veg, potatoes, toast, etc. It's not like women eat an extra fillet steak a day or anything.

I never heard that argument used before either. But bf does make you feel hungry and very thirsty. I guess if you were drinking cola all day you wouldn't lose weight.
I might have stuck with it for longer if I'd thought it was going to make me skinny

True for me
Never lost a lb while bf

I do think that tiredness makes you eat more too. So if you were bf and therefore up all night, you might spend more on minstrels and crisps food.

I've not really heard this either.

But I do think there's some truth in it. I had an insatiable hunger when breastfeeding, especially in the early day, and really noticed a drop in my supply if I tried to curb my eating.

I didn't choose to bf for financial reasons. There are many other benefits.

I spent loads more on food, partly because I was ravenous and partly because DD was permanently attached to me so I couldn't cook and ate out a lot.

I've never heard of anyone else saying it though it was just my circumstances because her dad wasn't supportive.

I think the weaning and fussy toddler stage cost the most because of the food waste.

It would be a weird thing to just come out with, but the only time I've heard it is in response to people saying that bf is best because it's free. As you point out, bf isn't free and imo can even be more expensive than ff, if you end up buying a nursing wardrobe, bras, pillows, nipple shields, lansinoh cream, breast pump, bottles & steriliser (for expressed milk), lactation consultant, etc. Compared to just bottles and formula at £10/week. A breast pump alone would buy six months worth of formula.

On the other hand, if a woman tells me she bf and her food bill went up, I have no reason to disbelieve her. I suppose that could happen.

I was staaaarving when I was breastfeeding, combined with sleepless nights I was definitely eating more than £10-15 extra a week

^^
This

I don't like the suggestion that new mums should restrict their calories from what their body is telling them they need or that they should lose weight.

So I voted YABU.

I ate well in pregnancy, shall we say, and laid down my fat stores. And bfing was the easiest thing I have ever done in my life to lose weight. It was brilliant.

I did know a few ‘naturally’ slim women though who felt really hungry breastfeeding- but some of those women were probably also smaller eaters who hadn’t laid down as much fat in pregnancy and had less stores to use up.

Interesting perspectives. I guess I would argue that an increased appetite shouldn't equate to increased money spent, if the additional consumption is managed sensibly as @Falafel19 pointed out - i.e. no need to spend more on ultimately non-filling/nutritious snacks, crisps etc.

It's funny, the sleep deprivation completely eroded my appetite in my case, but I can accept it's different for others.

Yeah I shouldn't get pissed off or care at this, but the Guardian closed its BTL comments so I had no chance at a rebuttal and had to rant somewhere.

I've not heard this argument either

I dislike the idea that women who have had babies should be losing weight as quick as Poss and have BF sold as a means to do this

It's usually a US based argument that BF isn't really free because of the resources it consumes for the mother. That's because they have naff all maternity leave so in order to "breastfeed" they have to express every hour of the day and night which is frankly hellish and not at all low cost.

The Guardian is very popular in the US so you're probably seeing the comments from there.

I definitely ate more when BF although I've never used it as an argument. Baby weight was off within a month - ok I'm still fat but that's not the baby's fault!

But tbh having bottle fed one and breastfed the other, breastfeeding has personally cost me way more

• boobs have stayed bigger meaning new bras at 25-35 a pop (huge boobs)
• plus conversion kits to make drop cups and my time doing it
• huge boobs mean I've needed feeding tops even under shirt dresses etc which allow boob access as otherwise I'm ridiculously exposed
• had to buy clothes which allow boob access (my wardrobe was 90% dresses and most did not allow boob access. I can't go to work in jeans and a t shirt)
• back to work whilst baby still feeding means i need a pump, bottles etc

It's cost me far more tbh.