To think that "97% of women can breastfeed" is a load of crap

[elliejjtiny]

I've been seeing this phrase a lot over the years, about how 97% of women can breastfeed and all the rest of the people who say they can't just need support.

I would guess that 97% of women can probably produce milk (although I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower) but there is so much more to breastfeeding than the mum producing milk which never seem to be mentioned. Mums with disabilities/medical conditions, babies with disabilities/medical conditions, babies who are born prematurely, mums separated from their babies and mums on medication that means they can't breastfeed.

When people gaily spout that 97% of women can breastfeed I find is so annoying and inaccurate. It's usually the same people who want the number of c-sections reduced as well and think that everyone can give birth with no interventions, they just need to stay mobile and ignore the nasty doctors.

https://www.ivi.uk/blog/rise-infertility-rates-uk/

I always took these statistics to mean that sadly there is so little support for the 97% that physically COULD breastfeed that the ACTUAL UK rates for breastfeeding are so shockingly low.

I liked breastfeeding and found it easy and not painful. Breast fed both DC til toddlerhood.

Given that other northern European countries have 90%+ breastfeeding rates, I can see that 97% might be a realistic to aspirational rate purely based on physical capacity. I think unless there is some specific genetic quirk that means British women are less capable of BF naturally, the reason for low take ups are socio-economic, cultural (the monolithic view of tits as sexual) and the dreadful quality of NHS antenatal and postnatal provision (the latter probably being the biggest factor.)

The c section rise is a problem because on one hand the rates are staggering, on the other any push no matter how slight for ‘natural birth’ seems to result in horror stories about passed away babies and damaged mothers.

The other thing is that the statistics are really misleading!

When you hear of only 1% percent of babies ebf for the first 6 months, it sounds incredibly low. But then you see the stats of any breastfeeding at 6m is 34%, and honestly that's going to be a more reliable figure!

If you've given a single top up with a newborn, even on medical advice, then you're not in the 1%.

You've introduced the occasional bottle of bedtime, you're not in the 1%.

If you had to leave baby because of something unexpected, someone taken ill, being stuck in traffic without baby, and formula is given, you're not in the 1%.

If due to low supply, you mix fed, even if only briefly, you're not in the 1%.

If you started weaning early, either because you're choosing to (many do because it can reduce the risk of allergies, and 4-6 months is common in many countries), or because you were told to by a doctor, you're not in the 1%.

If the day before they are 6 months, they grab a breadstick stick off your plate, you're not in the 1%.

I breastfed my second full two and a half years. I'm not in the 1%. Most of my friends breastfeed for 1-3 years. Only one is in that 1%.

We make it out that it's incredibly rare, it's not. The criteria for assessing it is brutally inflexible. A baby's intake could be 99.99% breast milk, but it wouldn't make it into that 1%. So it gives misleading impression which discourages women.

Also agree with this - 1 top up, at any time, means you do not fall in this 1%.

This is why I’ve never really believed the 1% statistic - out of our antenatal group of 8, 5 were still breastfeeding by 6 months. Either we were an incredible statistic anomaly (don’t believe this - average area, average age mums), or the stats are recorded v badly

Mmm, and I wouldn't be surprised if our prehistoric foremothers also had 1% ebf rates at 6 months using those criteria. Even just babies nicking, being administered sneakily by a sibling or whining their way into being given early solids probably happened back then too!

The rate would be almost 0 in the 90s because weaning age was 4 months, and my mum considered me ready at 3 months as I was a big baby (I was breastfed other than this)

I actually felt more pressure to formula feed. I was the only one on my ward breastfeeding and most friends formula fed. I never had any explicit encouragement to breastfeed, from anyone. I had to wait hours in hospital for someone to help with latching, during which time my baby was the only one crying. Midwives are not great at assessing latch or tongue tie, both of which have significant implications for breastfeeding. Or that was my experience anyway.

There are some women who just don't want to breastfeed. It doesn't matter what their reasons are for not wanting to do it, their views about what they do or don't do with their own bodies should be respected.

I fully support those who want to try for a natural birth. But I’m also very lucky to have had 2 water births (1 at home). I have friends who were not as lucky with their vaginal briths, some with long term consequences.

I don’t think there’s an easy answer, and you can’t guarantee the women you’re denying a c-section won’t have a 4th degree tear/prolapse, which you could argue is worse than a c-section!

The local bf-ing support is brilliant where I live. I know that’s not everyone’s experience so I am really grateful.

Wow yes. It sounds bad!

Thanks for sharing.

My mother had her first in early 90s. Also in for 7 days with nurses bottle feeding. When I was having difficulty with a screaming baby due to reflux she kept telling me; it’s probably just your milks dried up. Mine dried up at 6 weeks. Blah blah blah. No convening of the facts was helpful. But she can be quite unsupportive and difficult at the best of times.

Was interesting when my partners sister gave birth. My mil is very warm and amicable kind of person. Yet she was also saying to sil that it’s probably her milk is dried up. There was nothing wrong with sil breasts. Her kid was 90 percentile! In reality SIL had post natal depression and a useless partner so was finding things overwhelming having to feed, wind, settle etc. and needed an alternative explanation for a baby crying 😢 very sad as I know she wanted to breastfeed exclusively until 1 year prior to giving birth. She stopped completely at 4 weeks.

It's no more 'crap' than the fact that most people have 2 legs. Some don't. But must do.
Maybe spend more time reading and understanding statistics before getting cross at them.

I don’t know why I’m posting on this thread, as breastfeeding was probably one of the most stressful experiences I’ve ever had, and I just know comments on here will make me upset. I thought I’d got over it, but I’m pregnant with #3, and I’m aware that I’m about to go through it all over again.

I just wrote out a massive post about my specific breastfeeding experience, but I have deleted it because I know people will just tell me I’m lying.

Something I found really distressing when trying to make sense of my breastfeeding experience was that I was constantly told it was impossible to experience what I was experiencing, and then told more than once when asking for help online that posting about my experience would put other mothers off and therefore I should keep quiet.

And I’m sorry to say it, but the idea that breastfeeding is natural therefore must work 97% of the time is mad. Nature is very often cruel and nonsensical! Each of my grandparents had several siblings die, though they were hazy on the details. But my grandmother in particular remembers her mother weeping and desperately trying to feed one of her babies things like condensed milk (my grandmother says she wasn’t aware of them having access to formula, I’m not sure when that became available commonly in the UK).

I also remember my dad, a farmer, laughing at the idea that it was natural and should work. Oddly, my best breastfeeding advice came from my dad extrapolating his experience with sheep onto me (I’ll note that apparently he kept trying to talk shop with the midwife when my mum gave birth to me, telling them what he’d do if I was a lamb. I’m not sure anyone appreciated that much).

Also, I saw someone talking about high rates of breastfeeding in Norway and the supportive culture. I’m very fond of Norway but… supportive? Are you sure? 😅 incidentally my Norwegian friend looked at me like I had two heads when I told her how devastated I was during my breastfeeding difficulties. It was alien to her that anyone would feel so much emotion about it. I think combi-feeding is extremely common in Norway.

FTR despite three intersecting difficulties, I combo fed my first up to 7 months about 50/50. With my second, it was more like 80/20 as she had zero issues latching leaving me with just two of the three issues to deal with so it was easier. So I think I did very well actually.

I think I’d probably be classed as a mother who could breastfeed exclusively but didn’t. I think my first baby probably would have limped on until weaning age. But God he was so thin. He was a big, incredibly long baby, and he’s continued to be very tall. So his weight was never too bad in and of itself, but he didn’t put weight on for weeks and weeks. He was so thin. I remember he was about two months old and just sobbing to the health visitor saying “look at him, that’s not right is it?” God, I was desperate for someone to tell me to just formula feed him entirely. But of course they didn’t. They reluctantly agreed that it would be alright to give him 1-2oz a day of formula, but made noises about how I was risking my supply (which was basically non-existent anyway. Yes I am certain of this before anyone tells me I’m wrong. I paid more lactation consultants than you’ve had hot dinners and also had it confirmed by a hospital consultant.). Anyway, at about 3 months I cracked and for a week or maybe even two just entirely formula fed him. Even after day one he was a transformed baby temperament-wise. After a week he’d put on weight and he looked a lovely colour at last. After that week (or two, I don’t recall now) I felt sad about having stopped BF and luckily it was very easy for me to reestablish it. Despite not having much milk, I do seem to produce milk for absolutely ages after stimulation stops. Anyway, my point is that MY baby would have survived on breast milk alone perhaps, but he was very clearly not thriving.

When I had my second, I had the same community midwife team. When they asked me my plans for feeding, I said I’d most likely be combi feeding. The midwife sighed and said something like “I’m so relieved you’ve said that. I so desperately wanted to tell you to start formula with your first baby but we’re not allowed to”. Mental.

The 1% statistic in the UK is also from 2015 - more than 10 years ago! There's been a huge uptick in breastfeeding rates since then, it's not a reliable stat to use anymore, but it was still used in my NCT, no idea why

I breastfed all of mine. One for 8mnths, one for 14mths and one for over two years. I would never pressure anyone to BF as I still remember the pain. It was intense. I also got mastitis at one point and that was no worse than the usual pain. I have no idea why I continued. Bloody minded I guess. And eventually the pain did stop and then it was convenient. The one benefit I have noticed is my kids teeth are exceptionally straight and the one who was breast fed for two years has teeth that always surprises the dentist that she never had a brace. One has extreme allergies which I think came from my diet. I knew not to eat nuts but there were other allergens I did eat.

They recommend that you eat all allergens- including nuts- whilst breastfeeding as it reduces the risk of allergies, so you can let that guilt go.

I do remember the midwife guiding my baby’s head very gently. But I was allowed to hold my own boob😅

Generally people had bigger families so quite likely someone’s sister, neighbour, friend would be lactating and be able to feed another woman’s baby as well as their own.

I've a large plexiform fibroma on my breast and nipple, I begged the NHS to remove it and they refused as it was classed as. "Cosmetic". It severely impaired my ability to breastfeed, same NHS told me off for not having it removed prior to pregnancy.

Absolutely!

97% can lactate. That isn’t the same as having enough milk to feed their baby. My understanding is 80-90% of women can produce enough milk to sustain their child(ren) fully, which is still most but given 10-20% of women can’t exclusively breastfeed due to supply issues it is hardly rare.

Of course there are some women who don't want to, but that's not what is being discussed.

My baby was in NICU and the medical staff actually wrote in my hospital notes that I had low milk supply and was struggling to breastfeed because of it, when it was just that my milk hadn’t come in yet. They put my baby on a drip, entirely unnecessarily, and refused to remove it until “I could prove I could breastfeed”. This was their concession because I refused to formula feed, against their advice.

They watched me feed her every 2 hours to judge whether I was getting it right. I had to grit my teeth through a bad latch because I didn’t want to show them it wasn’t going perfectly. By time she was out of NICU my nipples were bitten to shreds and bleeding a lot.. it was excruciating.

Do you want to know what was actually going on? My baby was 2 days old. My milk hadn’t come it. I was feeding her perfect colostrum, which anyone with even the most basic knowledge of motherhood would have known. On night 3, when she was out of NICU, my milk came in and my breasts were engorged and spurting everywhere.

The reason my daughter was in NICU in the first place was due to a suspected infection, nothing to do with feeding difficulties. I was stubborn enough and fortunate enough to have not had my breastfeeding journey cancelled by the doctors, but whenever I hear of women who “can’t” breastfeed it usually turns out to be that some completely ignorant medical expert has shamed them out of it through bullshit reasons like I was given.