'why bottle might be better than breast' - GMTV this morning

[babyignoramus]

Hasn't even been shown yet but can't imagine it's going to go down too well here!!!!

Anyone else going to watch - it's going to annoy the arse off me but I can't seem to tear my eyes away......

Well, since you ask swallowedAfly, yes.

"i am also dubious about those studies on bf - a child who has been bf in those studies has other factors in their favour - a child of a mother who chose to bf (in this apparently ignorant climate), was willing to go through the difficulty possibly of establishing that to completion (possibly with good support), was willing to take part in a study and mature, committed enough to not drop out and to keep up with reporting be stable enough in her life and circumstances etc to continue with the research programme for many years has already got considerable other likely advantages that feed into their good health on top of having breast milk and i wonder if these were really taken into account in the study. such a mother is likely to have many other benefits to a childs health development than just her milk."

Any properly designed, peer-reviewed study will look for different health outcomes after all other considerations - such as social background, educational level of parents, and so on - have been taken into account.

I am unaware of a single study showing that ff babies have better health outcomes on the whole.

swallowedafly

Luckily for me, I have been able to take a long time out of work to look after my children and, although I occasionally use a childminder, I would not feel comfortable about putting my children into a nursery when they were very little. Perhaps it is partly 'luck' that has enabled this to happen but we've also had to make a lot of changes and compromises along the way, including buying a house in a cheaper area so that we wouldn't need my salary to make the repayments. That's not possible for everyone though and I don't have any opinion on those who do work or use nurseries, it's just not what I chose to do. Perhaps it will be discovered somewhere along the line that children in nurseries actually do much better than their peers who are at home with a parent, and then I'll probably feel a bit peeved, since I would actually quite like to be working! A totally different debate though and I've probably opened a can of worms with this!

"incidentally is everybody here who is so concerned about the 'risks' of ff also not working and not using childcare since that also has been proven to be damaging to babies by many studies?"

Personally, I am concerned about the government's drive to get as many mothers as possible out to work and into institutionalised childcare ASAP.

The only resaon I tend to talk about the "risks" of ff is because I see bf as the norm and the supposedly "better" health outcomes associated with bf to be, in fact, the normal outcomes for babies, if that makes sense.

I'm all for informed choice. Sadly, it seems that many people are poorly informed (or fully misinformed) about the risks/benefits regarding infant feeding choices, and poor support often means that they are, in any case, unable to exercise any meaningful sort of "choice" when incorrect or misguided "advice" or "help" means that breastfeeding is never properly established in the first place. (I'm talking here about situations where the mother probably could have breastfed her child, given the right sort of support, and not about the small - but signifiant - number of mothers who are truly unable to breastfeed.)

It's saddening to hear so many stories of mums who have receive little or no BFing support, but it is not all that surprising to me

When I had DD, I managed to BF and did have some (limited) support from midwives but I didn't attend any BFing clinics and never met a BFing counsellor or lactation consultant (didn't know they existed, in fact). I could have done with some advice at around the 6 month mark but I didn't seek it out, really, and the HVs didn't seem too bothered about whether I continue BFing or not.

With DS, I knew I wanted to continue feeding for longer, and despite a horrendous first 3 weeks with a poor latch, bleeding nips and many tears (mine!), I did eventually manage to BF him 'til about 16 months but I know I wouldn't have managed it without the support of BFing peer supporters (volunteers) at a local clinic. It wasn't just the practical support that helped, it was also being able to socialise with other BFers and just chat about different aspects and challenges of BFing. I also discovered kellymom.com (via mumsnet, I think!) which no BFing mother should be without, as far as I'm concerned 'cause it's fantastically informative.

I found help and support but I certainly had to seek it out. Some of my local HVs don't even promote the BFing clinics in our area, which is just bonkers, I only knew about it because I saw a poster in a shop. I can understand why women who are disadvantaged in some way may not have the same ability to access the help they need.

"as i have already stated i am totally convinced by the breast is best conclusions. i merely meant that in those studies the benefits effect may be increased by other factors than milk alone"

But the whole point of an epidimiological analysis is that other factors are taken into account before any conclusions are drawn. Otherwise, any study would be meaningless. So the bf studies show that bf has health benefits even after factors such as social background, family income, age of mother, etc have been taken into account.

What, BF?

too many statistics unfortunately i am really ignorant when it comes to facts, figures and studies (that i nor anyone i know has ever participated in) instead i have drawn most of my knowledge from friends, family and my own experiences. i can't relate to analytical threads as i speak from the heart, as does a lot of mnetters (even if we disagree) . rather that than having a statistic shoved in my face and me having to defend my personal life as it doesn't fit into a certain group and made to be feel like an outcast if i'm not like 10% of the population.

"i'm not convinced that the number who are unable is as small as you think, or the definition of unable as narrow as some think.

or why it concerns others so much to be honest"

Estimates of the number of women who are physically unable to breastfeed vary between 2% and 5% of the population. The 98% breastfeeding rate commonly quoted for Norway would seem to suggest that this is a realistic figure.

Even if we double the 5% figure to allow for women who could only breastfeed with difficuly (after having had proper support to get it established), that should still leave around 90% of women in the UK who could potentially breastfeed their child. Yet the actual figures don't even begin to approach this.

Why are people concerned about it?
Well, it strikes me that anyone who posts on a thread like this must be interested/concerned in some way about infant feeding choices.

Could I emphasise here proper support - from well-informed and supportive hcps as well as from society in general. I know that for many women, proper support sadly isn't there.

swallowedafly If you're asking why BFing is hard... gaaah, lots of factors I think. Going to try and keep this short as friend due here any minute but:

-Cultural factors: many of us grow up not seeing BFing taking place (especially not publicly) and breasts are sexualised in our society, via Zoo, Nuts etc and pop videos. Images of babies being fed with bottles abound, dolls have bottles, new baby cards have pics of bottles on etc... It's somewhat entrenched.

-Expectations: many new mums expect to be able to feed a baby by the clock (e.g. every 2 hours); many hope to be able to get the baby 'sleeping through the night' by a certain age (as this seems to be considered some sort of Holy Grail in raising a child); avoidance of co-sleeping (another debate, I know!) This happens in many cultures and is, IMO, conducive to a successful BFing experience, at least in the early weeks and months.

-Women expecting (and being expected) to return to work earlier: again, not conducive to exclusive BFing

-Women trying to establish BFing without adequate support and advice, especially if they have had a particularly difficult or tiring birth experience.

I'm sure there are many, many other factors but I've got to leave this for a while. Such an interesting debate though and I'll be back later!

The level of support differs enormously. Had dd1 in a large London hospital. There was no BF support and I was advised to give her formula as she was jaundiced. Thankfully an older lady who was a BF volunteer happened to be on the ward the next day and helped me establish BF - happily then fed dd for 11 months.

DD2 born in small hospital in South West. BF support excellent. A senior midwife stayed with me for literally hours - would not leave until dd2 (a prem baby) and I had figured out how to feed. Hard to believe that both hospitals are in the same system.

That's really AvrilH. It's not the epxerieince I had. It would appear that they haven't replaced Rosemary since she retired - and that the Sister who supported me 9and led the breast-feeding initiatives) must have moved on

I had better warn one of the ladies on the Glasgow Local board who had expressed concern about the QM's and had been reassured by a couple of us who had had good experiences there.

Sabire - my son was exclusively breastfed for the first 8 weeks and suffered terribly with digestive problems due to a protein intolerance. He simply couldn't digest the protein in my milk and it caused him agony. He was in and out of hospital and despite being born full term was ill as a result. The minute he went on to his prescribed formula he was like a different child and his stomach settled down completely as the protein was in the formula but broken down already so that his gut did not have to do the work for him.

There is a much higher rate of babies with respitory illnesses due to ceasareans - not all down to formula and for generations babies were brought up on ff and were fine.

I am not saying formula is better than breast - but i am saying that formula works better for some than breast feeding and if i end up going the same route with my second dc for whatever reason i am not going to listen to senstaionalist claims that i am somehow harming my child by opening them up to respiratory illnesses and stomach problems when DS suffered gastro problems from breast milk.

My experience and my opinion.

prettybird - I just joined Glasgow local to respond to her but can't find the thread. I go to baby groups in the area, and the consensus is that none of us would go back to the QMs, even if it were possible. It is in the process of being closed down.

swallowedAfly - DD was slightly prem too, so especially vulnerable. But I don't think the lack of support would have been acceptable anyway. I had to hobble accross the hospital clutching my catheter bag on my first couple of visits to the SCBU. By myself, in the dark, with blood trickling down my legs

Not surprised you didn't find it - it was a on a thread to do with meet-ups here. It was Sadie41 who was asking.

stigaloid - your son's condition is pretty unusual and it's obvious that in a situation like that bf simply isn't possible. It still stands that for the VAST majority of babies breastmilk is a more appropriate and safer food than formula.

I accept that rising c-section rates may have contributed to higher rates of respitory illness in the population as a whole, but that doesn't cancel out the impact of bottlefeeding.

It's also very much the case that statistically, bottlefeeding is most prevalent in the groups which also have the lowest c-section rates.....

It's also not true that previous generations of ff babies were 'fine' and I can only assume you've arrived at that assumption without any recourse to the facts.

And again - I'd challenge you on that use of the word 'sensationalising'. Gastric and respitory illness are the most common reasons for babies to be hospitalised, and they're much more prevalent in populations of babies who are predominantly ff. There is nothing 'sensationalist' about saying this.

'It's also very much the case that statistically, bottlefeeding is most prevalent in the groups which also have the lowest c-section rates.....'
Really sabire? I'm surprised and fascinated by that. Do you have a link to any info on that 'cause I'm interested in reading more on it. Are there any explanations for why that might be the case?

I know where I live is probably not the norm but there is a lactation consultant at the local hospital who positively promotes the view that FF is child abuse. Round here, it's completely socially unacceptable to FF. I have Bi-Polar Disorder and am on Lithium which is one of the few medications which is completely contraindicated in BF. There is a massive relapse rate in Bi-Polar mothers after birth (more than 50%) so I did what I thought was best for my child and stayed on my meds and FF. When I went to baby groups, I was treated like a leper so stopped going and just got really depressed. Everyone is bombarded with the stats about the benefits of BF but what many people don't know is that there is overwhelming evidence that even quite mild maternal depression in the first year of a baby's life is strongly linked with a massive increase in mental health problems problems in the child which can last well into adulthood so if a mother is struggling with BF to the point where it's actually making her depressed, she is probably doing what's in her baby's beat interest by FF. I worked with a doctor who had Bi-Polar and had been stable for many years on Lithium but felt that she would be a social outcast if she didn't BF so stopped her Lithium in order to BF her daughter. When her daughter was 3 months old, she set her on fire in order to give her back to God and then set herself on fire. The baby died instantly but mum survived for 2 weeks in a burns unit before she also died. I know that's an extreme example of breast not being best but it's a real example. In my current job, I do a lot of work in child protection and when you constantly hear about kids being abused, locked in cupboards, starved or just ignored, it makes you realise that not being BF is not the catastrophe that so many people make it out to be. I agree that breast is best in most cases but some BF fanatics need to take their blinkers off and realise that most FF babies do perfectly well and that not being BF is not the be all and end all of being a good parent.