Formula vs Breastfed babies in the long term

[shewhocannotbenamed]

I'll probably get a lot of hate for this but I've been wondering recently whether breastfeeding is really as beneficial as we are led to believe. I've read all the NHS pamphlets, listened to all the midwives etc and did exclusively breastfeed my LO for the first 4 months of his life. I've found it super difficult, not just in terms of an inconvenience to me but also my baby was not gaining sufficient weight, crying constantly, getting coughs and colds on a weekly basis, he had jaundice for like two months and generally wasn't a very happy child.

We switched to formula two months ago and what a change - turns out baby has grown to be on 98th centile in length, chubbier (back on his centile from birth), happy, smiley, doesn't get any colds now, very sociable. Whinges here and there but nothing like before.

I was talking to my friend about breastfeeding the other day and she was very proud she's managed to exclusively breastfed her youngest up until she was six months, she "never had a drop of formula milk" while her firstborn was combination-fed. Then it struck me that she'd also complained previously that her daughter (now 6) is underweight and underperforming academically whereas her son is a bit of a golden child and succeeds at everything he sets his mind to. Obviously I don't dare to suggest this is just down to the feeding method in their early childhood, but just wonder.

Just wonder what are your experiences with this? Is it always "breast is best" for their long term development?

www.phdinparenting.com/blog/2009/5/14/the-scientific-benefits-of-breastfeeding.html

Here is a person who set out to look at peer reviewed data and evidence from western world- so not countries with less hygienic water etc. Here is an excerpt...

"There are a number of health benefits to the breastfed child, some of them are significant and others are less significant.For full term infants the benefits include:

Acute otitis media (middle ear infections): Babies that were ever breastfed had a 23 percent lower incidence of acute otitis media than exclusively formula fed babies.

Atopic dermatitis (type of eczema): In families with a history of atopy, exclusive breastfeeding for at least 3 months was found to have a 42 percent reduction in atopic dermatitis compared with breastfeeding for less than 3 months.

Gastrointestinal infections: Infants who were breastfeeding had a 64 percent reduction in the risk of non-specific gastroenteritis compared with infants who were not breastfeeding.

Lower respiratory tract diseases: There is a 72 percent reduction in the risk of hospitalization due to lower respiratory tract diseases in infants less than 1 year of age who were exclusively breastfed for 4 months or more.

Asthma: Breastfeeding for at least 3 months was associated with a 27 percent reduction in the risk of asthma for those without a family history of asthma and a 40 percent reduction for those with a family history of asthma.

Type 1 Diabetes: Breastfeeding for at least 3 months results in between a 19 and 27 percent reduction in incidence of childhood Type 1 Diabetes compared with breastfeeding for less than 3 months (findings confirmed through multiple studies, but some cause for caution in interpreting results).

Type 2 Diabetes: Found a 39 percent reduction in risk of Type 2 diabetes later in life for people that were breastfed as infants (some cause for caution in interpreting results).

Childhood Leukemia: Breastfeeding for at least 6 months associated with 19 percent decrease in risk of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia and a 15 percent decrease in the risk of acute myelogenous leukemia.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS): The meta-analysis found that breastfeeding was associated with a 36 percent reduction in the risk of SIDS compared to not breastfeeding. Another study completed since the meta-anlaysis was done found a 50 percent reduction in the risk of SIDS as a result of breastfeeding."

Actual data over anecdata every time.

We also see what we want to see so our happiness affects our outlook. Maybe people who struggle with BFing see that time more negatively? Also children are all different. My four are very much different health wise. The healthiest is the one who was completely unvaccinated until she was 13. The others all had baby jabs etc. I doubt anyone would suggest I was right if I said her good health was due to not being vaccinated?

Yes, it is much better for your baby to eat something that is mass produced in a factory rather than breast milk. You can stop feeling guilty now and enjoy your chubby baby

I dunno. There's too many other factors at play relating to health and intelligence. Would be impossible to make it a fair comparison.

Oh bloody hell. In my opinion. Breast is not best it is simply normal. The biologically determined way to feed a human child. I breast fed all three of my kids and never used formula. I don't consider this an achievement except in the fact I was made to feel at times that I shouldn't do it beyond 6 months or I shouldn't do it in public and i shouldn't carry on when I had mastitis. I was too lazy to arse about with bottles and formula. I introduced cows milk at 12m in a sippy cup and kept feeding till the kids were 2+

What worked for me wouldn't work for everyone. I couldn't care less about evaluating lt benefits it is all good. Formula if you need it/ prefer it ... Wonderful. Breast feeding if it works for you ... Marvellous.

Support for whatever challenges you face with establishing a suitable feeding schedule - that would be marvellous too.

I was going to write something extremely sarcastic, but instead I'll just second the point about 3 children being far too small a sample size to tell you anything meaningful.

On a population level there are significant health benefits - that is not to say that BF babies never get ill or that FF babies always get more illnesses. But if you add it all up then BF babies are less likely to get certain minor illnesses etc.

Plenty of peer reviewed studies. But also take a look at breastmilk for prem babies and incidences of NEC. The stats are again quite interesting.
I found a study that suggested that exclusively BF babies in the NICU were slower to gain weight but tended to be discharged earlier than those of a similar gestation who are FF. Also some evidence that long term BF has some neurological benefits for those in NICUs (esp those with IVH/brain bleeds). The first (that FF babies are heavier but are discharged later) seems to be borne out in the NICU we were in.
Of course the whole expressing faff adds an extra layer of pressure to already traumatised mums in NICU/SCBU.
My consultant did say that in his 25 years he had less than 5 babies with NEC who were exclusively breastfed (and those babies had other complications as well).

"Literally I'm not trying to offend anyone"

I am offended at the use of 'literally' in this context.

I breastfed my kids for the health benefits but found this article on how much of the science is rubbish fascinating nevertheless
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/04/the-case-against-breast-feeding/307311/

Totally generalising from a couple of examples.

Like saying "my grandma smoke 60 a day and she's still alive"

Don't deflect the fact that you've changed your mind into now feeling that Formula was the best decision.

It's good your baby is doing better. That most likely would have happened anyway.

Oly5 that article was really interesting - thank you

Systematic review for the WHO that lists benefits for breastfed people, looking at non-communicable diseases especially.

That article was only cited 1200 times. It seems like a lot of other scientists found it credible.

Rather than worry about BF or FF... I'd like to see more women get what they want. A huge number of women want to BF but don't succeed -- and then feel bad about it. Those women need more support to get what they want.

From the article i posted earlier re that other article

"When she wrote The Case Against Breastfeeding, Hanna Rosin claimed to have plowed through the studies on breastfeeding and found that the benefits were scant at best. Unfortunately, a lot of people read her article and I have seen her claim now stated over and over again as a fact. The truth is that Hanna Rosin only read a select few studies on breastfeeding, in particular those that would support her claim that perhaps the benefits were scant. She did not do a comprehensive review of the literature on breastfeeding like the one that I cited above.

In my post on the Economics of Breastfeeding: A Cost-Benefit Analysis and the follow-up to that post, I mentioned a study called Maternal Employment, Breastfeeding, and Health: Evidence from Maternity Leave Mandates that claimed that "increased breastfeeding duration has had no effect on overall physical or psychological health outcomes of either children or mothers". That seemed like a very loaded statement that contradicted much of what I had read elsewhere, so I dug into it. A better way to phrase their result would have been this:

Extending maternity leave rights in Canada led to women taking 3 to 3.5 months longer off of work on average.

Most women in Canada breastfed both before and after the change in maternity leave policies.

Despite most women initiating breastfeeding, both before and after the change in maternity leave policies few women in Canada met the recommended duration of breastfeeding.

The change in maternity leave policies resulted in women breastfeeding for, on average, 1 month longer than they did before the leave policy was changed.

It also resulted in an average increase of 1.5 months in the length of exclusive breastfeeding.

This increase in the length of breastfeeding did not show improvements to the physical or psychological health of either children or mothers using data collected about mother/baby pairs for which the children were aged 7 to 12 months old and 13 to 24 months old at the time

Basically, this doesn't look at the difference between formula feeding versus breastfeeding. It doesn't look at significant increases in the length of breastfeeding. It doesn't look at long-term results of breastfeeding on the child or the mother's health.

While I support continued research on this topic, we need to be careful how the results are thrown around and be more specific about what was actually found."

I have no idea if they developed any different because they were breastfed. But I do know that I didn't have to get up in the night to make up bottles, I didn't have to pay for milk and I only had to take a couple of nappies and some wipes when I left the house. I've also reduced my chance of getting breast cancer significantly. That's good enough for me.

lljkk That study includes third world countries with worse access to clean water etc.
Maybe a huge number of women want to breastfeed because they are told how essential it is. Maybe, if they were told it doesn't matter, then they would happily formula feed.
I think a lot of this is similar to the debate about 'natural' birth, drug usage in birth and CS - women are being made to feel guilty about choices that make no difference except based on flawed or out of date studies.

If I want to breastfeed and can't, then help me.

I get help and still can't, then help me not to feel guilty.

I've always thought that there is pressure to show that breastfeeding is better simply because it's only the mum who can do it and it lets the dads off the hook! Just another way of trying to keep women in their place.

I am sure I will get flamed for that now...

I can't help thinking that is the food choices made later in life that play more of a role in health.