Emily Oster on Breastfeeding - minimal benefits.

[IamOvercome]

I am pregnant with my first and am an economist so I was recommended books by fellow economist Emily Oster. The books don’t give advice. They review the statistical studies underlying pregnancy advice and whether they are any good or not.

It’s been such an eye opener. For example it is pushed pushed and pushed some more that breast is best. But when you review the evidence there is minimal evidence for benefits of breastfeeding for babies. The strongest evidence is actually for mothers that it can marginally reduce chance of breast cancer in later life.

Same with not introducing babies to bottle to confuse them when breastfeeding. Literally no concrete evidence for it.

Yet this is all pushed as clear cut facts by midwives and other health professionals.

There is no way of definitely co-sleeping safely. It will always be safer to sleep separately (next to but separate).

And UNICEF are the people behind the execrable Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative which is so Baby Unfriendly it's resulted in big increases in newborn admission. Including my baby.

@EthelTheAardvark

And cost may or may not come into it. I’ve seen several posts on MN over the years from women saying they we advised that breastfeeding would be cheaper but they didn’t feel that was actually the case once they had factored in things like the cost of breast pumps, lactation consultants, etc etc.

This is nonsense. Who needs a lactation consultant, FFS? It's hardly a routine requirement.

I'm sure I was lucky, but for me the cost of breastfeeding was solely a breast pump, which lasted me through three children. It hardly equates to all those tins of formula, bottles, sterilising equipment, etc etc.

There are also the less tangible benefits, like helping to keep weight down, sheer convenience, and simply the fact that if my children were feeling off at all they could easily be comforted and would be getting some nutrition at the same time.

Cost didn’t come into my decision to use formula from day one.

Washing up bottles takes a few minutes a day. Took it in turns with DH so a few mins every other day. Sterilising is the time it takes to push a button on the microwave. All sterilised in 6 mins. Making up a bottle takes a few seconds when you make a cup of tea. Feeding the bottle you look at and talk to your baby as you can easily see their face.

It's nothing like the amount of time it takes to BF - my baby used to do an interminable hour long BF at the start of every day. I used the time to read Joan Wolf's Is breast best?
Which I'd highly recommend!

And, again, if you have a relatively straightforward time and already own suitable clothes I can imagine BFing is fairly low cost.

Those of us that have problems soon see BFing costs go sky-high, usually with no guarantee of success that they'll actually solve the problem. I estimate that my year of 50/50 BF/FF the BF half cost double the formula half.

@FilthyforFirth

I can't get passed the first page and someone saying they have a better bond with their bf baby over their ff baby. What an absolutely shocking thing to say.

I have done both before someone accuses me of being jealous I couldnt bf or whatever.

What a truly dreadful thing to say/think.

Why is it awful for a woman to honestly share her personal experience of mothering?

@RidingMyBike

Safely cosleeping has been shown to reduce sids.

The unicef baby friendly hospital was going when I had mine is there USA, breastfeeding rates at the hospital I used were over 80% at 6 weeks, whereas the non unicef accredited hospital were under 40%. I've never known any baby readmitted due to breastfeeding whereas I know several due to allergies to formula.

Do what you want for you but don't ignore the benefits especially for those in poorer countries or situations. I couldn't afford $30 a week for formula

@RidingMyBike

There is no way of definitely co-sleeping safely. It will always be safer to sleep separately (next to but separate).

And UNICEF are the people behind the execrable Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative which is so Baby Unfriendly it's resulted in big increases in newborn admission. Including my baby.

No one claims it's safer to co sleep, but it's acknowledged that many people do for various reasons and therefore it's safer to have some guidelines for people to follow to try and minimise the risks.

@RidingMyBike

There is no way of definitely co-sleeping safely. It will always be safer to sleep separately (next to but separate).

And UNICEF are the people behind the execrable Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative which is so Baby Unfriendly it's resulted in big increases in newborn admission. Including my baby.

Re co sleeping It is far from being as clear cut thankfully. Co sleeping promotes continued breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is marginally safer for baby (IE small increased risk of SIDS found with FF). Co sleeping can be done perfectly safely. Whilst the set up is a tiny bit riskier than separate beds it is probably more than compensated by the fact that it supports continued breastfeeding. And of course sleeping separately has the indirect risk of the parent one day struggling putting baby back to their own bed and therefore co sleeping or falling asleep in a manner that is dangerous for baby.

@Blossomtoes I'm pregnant and breastfeeding my 2.3 year old. Why is it ridiculous please?

I'm happy, she's happy. I thought it was all about respecting people's choices?

There are some countries, where breastfeeding and cosleeping are ingrained in their culture, where SIDS is relatively unheard of. The rise in risk in this country is because we have a culture that includes smoking, alcohol and drugs. Deaths that occur as a result of falling asleep on a sofa or armchair for example, are all grouped together with other cosleeping deaths, which also include alcohol related deaths etc. As a result, the statistics are highly biased. If parents learn about, and follow safe cosleeping practice, the risk of SIDS is not considered to be increased at all.

Personally I find cosleeping the most natural thing in the world. Neither of my babies wanted to sleep in a next to me cot by themselves. Both were much happier in the bed next to me, I was happier too. We all got much more and better quality sleep. I think it’s awful that women have been taught that something so natural is dangerous. Dangerous if you are drunk,
Smoking or on drugs, sure, but otherwise, I don’t buy it.

Didn’t cosleep as DH and I are restless sleepers. DT’s were in a cot in our room for six months and then into separate rooms as they were waking each other up. We had a sleep consultant for a week when they were about six months and she got them back into a good routine which timed well as I went back to full time work when they were six months.

We cross posted, @Bizawit!

[quote EarlGreywithLemon]@Blossomtoes I'm pregnant and breastfeeding my 2.3 year old. Why is it ridiculous please?

I'm happy, she's happy. I thought it was all about respecting people's choices?[/quote]
I have every respect for your choices. You can feed her until she’s 21 as far as I’m concerned.

@Blossomtoes best not use the word ridiculous in that case. More people than you might think breastfeed when pregnant.

This topic always turns nasty. We should be questioning why do many people have trauma and baggage when it comes to infant feeding and why we are being pitted against each other

[quote EarlGreywithLemon]@Blossomtoes best not use the word ridiculous in that case. More people than you might think breastfeed when pregnant.[/quote]
Nothing I’ve said has anything to do with pregnant women breastfeeding. This all began with my taking issue with someone saying that the natural age for weaning is 4 to 7 years. I think that’s ridiculous.

@Blossomtoes Why is it ridiculous though? What is the appropriate weaning age in your opinion then? In your grandmother's case, it's not like she would have been feeding 6 newborns. I fed my older one through pregnancy and until he was 4.5, by which time his feeds were down to a couple of minutes at bedtime and every so often if he was upset or had really hurt himself. It wasn't that taxing

Why is it ridiculous?

By the time a baby is 1, the feeds are far fewer than when they rely on milk as their sole source of nutrition.

By the time a child is 3 or 4, it will just be minimal feeds - probably just at night time.

Just because you wouldn’t do it, doesn’t make it ‘ridiculous’.

Many people who breastfeed in this day and age will be pregnant and breastfeeding (you scoffed at this idea a page or so back - it’s there in black and white) at the same time.

Regarding women getting periods back when breastfeeding - I've always suspected that in the olden days when

• women were more likely to feed on demand
• there were no dummies and bottles
• there was not the quality nutrition we have nowadays
• co sleeping was (and is!) the biological norm (milk supply is said to be more abundant at night) meaning close proximity to breasts would encourage more feeding,

it was more unusual for a woman to get her periods back, and therefore fall pregnant, straight away.

In my circles it's certainly unusual to get period back before 6months but obviously happens (a few people on this thread have said it happened to them) and it's usually more like 12-18months.

it was more unusual for a woman to get her periods back, and therefore fall pregnant, straight away

It seemed to be pretty usual if you look at family sizes and age gaps, say, 100 years ago.

@ParadiseLaundry, I agree. It's the same in my circles of friends/family too. It took me 12 months to get my periods back after each of my 4 children.

I agree too about women in history. Although the comment above about family sizes and spaces is interesting too. I would say that this is because wet nursing was common at this time amongst more wealthy families. And it would be the wealthy families who would be more likely to be remembered/recorded for history purposes.

You are all EXTREMELY LUCKY! My periods came back after eight weeks, and I EBF and carried on breastfeeding and cosleeping until DD was nearly 2 and a half!

My only hope would have been that I might not have been ovulating, but I am very glad of proper contraception!

Breastfeeding gives you a respite from periods - but 12-18 months seems far-fetched to me.

Surely, in days gone by, women has more kids closer together, than by modern standards.

It’s no good going by one’s own circle - that’s meaningless in the grand scheme of things. As I say, I EBF’d for 6 months + (breastfed for longer) with both DC and got my period bang on 5 months both times. Also co-slept with DC2 (was too terrified to with DC1, and more chilled with DC2).

@SpaghettiNotCourgetti

You are all EXTREMELY LUCKY! My periods came back after eight weeks, and I EBF and carried on breastfeeding and cosleeping until DD was nearly 2 and a half!

My only hope would have been that I might not have been ovulating, but I am very glad of proper contraception!

I win lol mine came back at 6 weeks with DC1 despite EBF.

4 weeks to the day after my post partum bleed finished 🤦‍♀️