Benefits of bfing over ffing?

[you]

Okay I'm writing this on the back of reading the bfing thread in aibu but putting it here as I'd really like it to not turn into a gunfight if at all possible please :)

With regards to the risks of formula feeding an otherwise healthy term infant in this country, and presuming all other environmental and social factors are the same, what are the risks, really? I've rad the leaflets and been on a UNICEF course and am totally pro breastfeedibg, however I can't help but think a lot of the benefits are emotional rather than physical especially as the child gets older.

I've read a lot of research but a lot if it does show extra factors to be involved such as making up bottles indifferent.

So, IF a mother makes up the bottles correctly thus vastly reducing her chances of gastroenteritis, feeds baby in arms rather than with a bottle propped up against a cot side which seemed contribute to most babies ending up with ear infections, feeds on demand as would a bf mother etc what is a baby in this country really likely to end up with, risks wise? I believe the allergy link is pretty poor evidence wise so all were really left with is 3 points worth of iq and of course the not insignificant lack of antibodies, so more coughs/ colds pressumably but anything long term?

I really am interested so please let's not turn this into a debate as they all go the same way are boring :)

And sorry for any silly typos am on my iPod and the spell check is dire.

Who tells women that they 'should' breastfeed in real life? MWs?, HVs? underinformed nosy parkers? some may and loads do not. Some who tell women that they should breastfeed provide no useful information with which to carry on successfully. That isn't support, that is undermining.

Really I thought the aim of support was to provide information with which women make an informed choice.

Genuine support does not tell grown women what they should or should not do.

No I was simply pointing out the issues with siblings analyses and as you wanted highly scientific evidence suggesting what the gold standard would be

FWIW - if a sibling analysis showed a difference between BF and FF I would still cite those differences (and the fact that BF infants are less likely to be neophobic and so on)

A lot of clued up breastfeeding supporters hate 'breast is best'. Because it is just not true. Breastfeeding is just the normal way to feed babies with no inherent benefits or advantages to it. Just like how there is no advantage to using one's own pancreas to make insulin. The next logical question then would be to ask where then does that leave formula feeding?

so can I use the analogy that it is normal to breath air then, with one's own lungs?

so breastfeeding is the normal way to feed a baby. formula feeding is an alternative method with which to feed a baby, non?

exclusively pumping breastmilk is another alternative way of feeding a baby.

getting exclusively donated breastmilk and wetnursing are two other alternatives.

I don't understand why have your hackles raised so high when I asked where does it leave formula if breastfeeding is the normal way, with no advantages, benefits, bells, whistles or medals to feed a baby.

And we should not be telling mothers that they must breastfeed. We should be giving women information with which to enable them to carry on regarding how they have made up their own minds if we are going to treat them like adults, no?

There is a whole other thread post to be written on the guilt factor and another one about health care professionals who know just enough to be dangerous or at least unhelpful and I don't have the time this half term to entertain the topics, tbh.

Foxytocin - that leaves formula feeding as a perfectly acceptable alternative with a combination of risks and benefits. Reframing the question using semantics doesn't change it. If you look back at the OP the question was "what are the risks of FF in a healthy, term baby in the UK when formula is correctly prepared?"

Yes it is a perfectly acceptable alternative in the absence of human/mother's milk. Going back to the OP as you remind us, it will have risks just as anytime we deviate from the biological norm in anything has risks and we balance those risks against their benefits, so formula, in the absence of human milk is a risk worth taking when the alternatives may be cow's milk or death.

Timely, evidence based and sensitively presented information is what mothers need and want to support decisions which they have made. Not a pointless mantra which manly women internalize and express as guilt.

The risks of formula feeding seem to extend into teen years and adulthood so that is well past the more immediate risk of improperly prepared formula. breastfeeding is no guarantee of long life or perfect health, indeed there are formula fed babies who are healthier than breastfed ones but over whole populations the outcomes for those who are formula fed are lower than those who are ff on blood pressure, otitis media and obesity. There is evidence that early feeding experiences teach babies how to regulate their appetites which will will set life time behavioural patterns into motion. So it isn't just about what is eaten that is significant. Are you familiar with the Dundee Study?

Now maybe that brings us back to the worn discussions about the limitations of observational studies so I am not going there. At some point we decide for ourselves whether the evidence we have reviewed is robust enough to accept and make our peace with it as it will never become definitive. The maternal desire IMO over rides most women's interest in proof and statistics or what some crabby/ smug / bossy enter own adjective will say to her. Societal mores, hormones, and acculturation has already largely determined how she will want to fwed her infant and the role of the midwife is to facilitate that decision. With limited training, time and staffing, many not surprisingly are falling well short of this reasonable IMO expectation.

Yes rollit - BF babies are less likely to be neophobic which might be a confounding reason why BF babies are a healthier weight as toddlers. See I can see confounders perfectly well

As for your insulin argument. Well actually - around 2 - 4% of people in the UK are diabetic (or at least are diagnosed) and therefore have faulty insulin mechanisms in some way.

Estimates are that between 0.2 to 2% of women genuinely cannot produce enough milk

So therefore the insulin is more common.

Of course a much higher percentage of women struggle with breastfeeding but that is down to society, lack of support etc etc etc

one more thing, breatheslowly, let the nhs stop talking about 'breast is best' and change it to 'formula has risks' and stand back to watch the shit hit the fan.

Ff has risks might lead the NHS to actually releasing some proper studies and stats rather than the patronising leaflet with the large blond woman on the front. Turned me right off bf that leaflet did. Speaks to you like you're moronic. Ack.

rollit, my last post was to the comment that talking about risks instead of benefits was all about semantics, blah blah. well, changing the official nhs tagline to 'formula has risks' would go down as well as a shit sandwich would. if you pardon the expression, dh said it the other day for a certain situation at work and it seems to be applicable here.

"It may well be that some women that struggle with bf do so because of "society and lack of support". That is rather a neat way of shifting 'blame' not that it is warranted, away from those that do struggle. IME women struggle with bf because it can be painful(sometimes), draining and for some just too much."

btw, It is not understating or shifting blame IMO, as you pointed out the FF support thread shows that that society does not support breastfeeding despite assertions to that effect. There are tons of meaningless platitudes but genuine support is thin on the ground. Breastfeeding can be less painful, less draining and not 'just too much' for many who throw the towel in if our culture (medical, familial, work) was better set up to support them.

"Plenty of women choose to ff, of choose to stop bf, because they want to for many many reasons. handwringing about 'lack of support' is not going to change that."

And more power to them. Women feeling secure in the choices they have made is the goal of support. I dislike the use of hand wringing to undervalue what I have written before which comes across as a put down instead of a response to what I have set forth previously.

"The point that has to be answered is whether any of the pressure, express or implied, to bf is warranted."

Pressure, whether expressed or implied to breast feed or to formula feed is unwarranted if the information to support the mother's choice is unavailable.

night to y'all. I'm off to meet up with some folks.

'IME women struggle with bf because it can be painful(sometimes), draining and for some just too much.'

Precisely! If we knew how to breastfeed from seeing others and having others on hand to help us it would reduce how painful it can be. If we got to sit on the sofa and have everyone else bring us stuff, look after housework, cook us nutritious meals etc etc it would not be as draining.

I talk about lack of support (and not through hand wringing thank you) because that is what many women say.

I am sure that part of thse reason people stop bf'ing is because so many people think the solution to all problems is a bottle. Eg, baby not sleeping through the night = give them a bottle; baby cries a lot = give them a bottle; baby just seems a bit colicky = give bottle with a bit of gripe water. I am 3 months bf'ing DS2 and already have been asked on 4 occasions when I will give a bottle. EAch occasion it has been because of some minor problem. Definitely culture of people thinking a bottle is the answer to all problems.

Whilst I agree with foxytocin that formula is an alternative breast feeding and is not actually poison I do think people that don't know very much about breast feeding are always very quick to suggest formula instead of actually thinking of ways to work through a problem which will enable a mother to continue to breast feed.

No-one will ever be able to say definitively how much better breastfeeding is, however, it is the way that nature intended and therefore I am inclined to believe it is better for the baby (also once one perfects certain positions it is far more efficient - for example I am typing this post whilst breastfeeding).

How are the coughs and colds stats measured? My children were some bf, some ff - all started bf but some longer than others (one only for 7 days then formula). I was bf and so was my brother. We are full of allergies, my kids have none. My children get colds but not many and nowhere near as many as their exclusively bf cousins. All anecdote on my part obviously but I wondered how the colds and coughs theory is evaluated when presented as 'evidence'.

By the way, if I had been able to sit on the sofa and been brought stuff I think I would have cracked bf. Too many other demands didn't help.

Coughs and colds isnt included in the evidence as far as I am aware - it is bigger bugs like gastroenteritis, bronchiolitis...and then diarrhoea, wheezing.

Collected through things like infant feeding survey, other large research projects, doctors records etc.

Yes - I can imagine how gastric stuff might be easier to unpick. Presumably with things like wheezing the location is taken into account. I read 25% more children have asthma in inner cities for eg - which would sound likely. And kids on farms have the least allergies.