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.

"I have been reading a book about TTC and toxins in the environment. It's worth bearing in mind that the average human being in the West has literally tens of thousands of chemicals in their bodies which wouldn't have been there in a "clean" world and which aren't "natural". There aren't going to be these in formula."

Actually, they are, given that the cows eat grass which is exposed to the same chemicals as we are - it's all part of the same food chain.

Fortunately, BM binds with toxins ("dead" chemicals as well as "live" bacteria and viruses - and pre-cancerous cells including within the breast which is partly why it has a preventative action against breast cancer) and flushes them out of the baby's body. Not all of them, of course, but many.

Um, cows are full of toxins too, donchaknow.
These are minor considerations in the UK unless a chemical factory explodes next door to you, for example.

I have to say I think a lot of the anti-ff arguments make more sense in second and third world countries, and we have it lucky over here with fresh, clean water and subsidised formula should be need it. That having been said, if more women were aware how blinking lazy you could be if you bf that might tempt them across a bit more.

Oh Lord. No I don't work for Aptimil. Which you well knew already.

There are undeniably thousands and thousands of toxins in the food chain which have entered our bodies, mercury for example, which many people ingest through fish eating. They are in mine and in yours. They are also in your houses. They are in your clothes, your furniture and in the products you use. They are in the cells of your bodies. All I am saying is that thatour bodily fluids, including breast milk, are not quite are pure and untainted by the outside world as some people would like to think, and certainly not as much as they were pre-Industrial Revolution. If you think this makes me sound like I am working for Aptimil then there's not an awful lot I can do about that.

As for FF bs BF, I have no opinion.

Cow's milk intolerances seem to be fairly common among babies, and once on formula being intolerant to your only food source must be pretty awful for a baby. I know there are synthetic formulas available once this is diagnosed, but apparently they taste pretty disgusting! Being tasty and digestible must be a significant benefit for bfing.

you - I wasn't talking about risk, just making the observation that the little chap would maybe have been more comfortable and/or got the 'digesting' bacteria, from BF rather than FF.

I've done both - BF and FF dtws at the same time. IME BF was a lot less hassle and a lot cheaper.

Apart from filling up on the cakes fuel for BF. I put on way more weight after the dtws were born.

Christ almighty. When will people learn that your feeding method of choice a) is not interesting to anyone beyond your HV, and probably not her either, b) has almost certainly no measurable effect on your baby and c) is not a substitute for a hobby . I rather applaud the OP's desire to have a non-emotive debate on the subject but seriously, as long as women will use the slightest tool to feel superior to other women it's going to go on and on and on. The whole debate is no more profound than feeling smug because you don't have a bundle of twigs with fairy lights on in the corner of the room/eat organic/in 1994 snogged Darren McFlynn in the changing rooms before that bitch Emily got her claws in him.

Umm, cows will also have modern-world chemicals in them (and more!).

Of all the FF babies I know, none are usually demand-fed and none of the mums make up the formula according to the latest guidelines (using cooled water is the norm). And thats well educated intelligent mums without major time or financial restraints.

But japhrimel, I wasn't saying that FF/cows' milk was "cleaner" than BF. Just that whatever you put inside your baby nowadays, there will be some stuff in there you would prefer didn't go in. Which is truly sad.

Meanwhile, I am laughing at Japh's implication that poorly-educated women must feed their children formula made up from water piped in from REgent's Canal...

"has almost certainly no measurable effect on your baby"

Premature babies fed formula are around 5 times more likely than those fed BM to develop necrotising enterocolitis (NE), and of those who develop NE around 1/4 of those babies die.

That's measurable.

Next.

Yes bloofer because there are literally thousands of academic studies on the benefits of twigs in your living room versus not aren't there...

That's absolutely fascinating Organic. Perhaps you could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it? Thanks.

Re: chemicals in the environment and in your body - so what? They are only a danger to people at certain dosages. Of course mercury is present in the environment and in the human body - it is only at certain quantities it would become a concern. There are many laws that govern pollution and human exposure to chemicals at dosages that would be considered toxic.

You may be surprised to hear that we are made of chemicals including the ones you might call "toxins"

As for the industrial revolution - I'll take a wild guess and imagine that children born today even in the 'west' - have far better mortality rates and health outcomes than their pre-industrial revolution counterparts for all the fluoridated water and tinned tuna.

My 4 dc were all ff. They rarely had coughs/colds and have never had an ear infection. They are all bright. Ds1 is in the top 5 of his year in grammar school. They have no allergies that I know of.

If you are too daft to understand or unwilling to accept that there are more man-made toxins in the environment, in the food chain and therefore in us than there used to be, I won't bore you further. Terribly sorry and all that.

Crocky - thread is not about that and of course FF does not mean you will get certain illnesses - it just increases the risk not determines it.

Disclaimer - I am not comparing formula to smoking just an analogy - lots of people will smoke and not get lung cancer. Many will live into old age. It does not mean that smoking is not a risk factor.

Formula increases the risk - this means you have to balance that risk against the rest of your life and needs.

TBH bloofer, if it was your baby, you'd want to know. Fortunately some PCTs actually fund milk banks so donors can give their milk to preemie babies whose mums are struggling to make enough.

I spend a lot of time promoting this and going on about it coz it saves babies' lives. I happen to think that matters.

But that's all. I'm not going to be trolled into ruining the purpose of this thread :)

@ Aries

Only upon reading the hysterical oestrogen-pumped MN debates did I think to ask my Mum how I was fed. I am awe-inspiringly talented (no! really!) and healthy as a young heifer. I was born premature and to all intents and purposes dead (I was in the SCBU for a while). I was BF. My Mum was startled to have been asked and had clearly not given it a moment's thought either then or now, having considerably more interesting and pressing things to think about (none of which included giving a flying fuck how other women feed their children).I hope one day to emulate her.

Interesting thread. Jafrimel my DD is demand fed formula and it is made up to the latest guidelines (actually I am too lazy and it all comes from cartons, but same difference). Peppapig's link indicates that there is no impact on cognitive performance, so the IQ point difference is not supported by evidence.

I think that the difference should also be split between term and premature babies, as there may be more advantages to premature babies.

blooferlady, I really don't think you're helping the OPs request for this not to turn into a bunfight. you have added nothing to the discussion except antagonism towards organiccarrotcake and twisting japh's words out of all recognition

for me it was a matter of human milk is made for human babies....and by that token it must surely be superior. However, my first was only BF for six weeks, but I am not beating myself up about him getting an inferior product as it was the most nutritionally suitable thing for him at the time given our circumstances.

Thank you CrispyCakeHead!

My point was that you can't really take making formula up "incorrectly" out of the equation. Some people might argue that the less educated are less likely to make it up correctly (and we're talking about hot water and correct storage not using dirty water!) but IME almost everyone who FF does.

Cross-posted on the cows in the food chain thing...posting whilst feeding (fwiw DD is now ebf but was mix-fed after a scbu start - I am not totally anti-formula!).

To paraphrase Homer Simpson Aries

It's not that I don't understand that there are more manmade chemicals in the environment it's just that I don't care unless they have been specifically proven to have adverse effects on health.

From the papers I have read, it's not the small, even miniscule amounts nor the individual components that cause the concern, but rather the accumulations over a lifetime and the combinations, particularly for meat eaters at the top of the food chain. It's the same issue they worry is causing lowered resistance to illnesses and reduced fertility in other mammals such as seals. DDT for example is still rife in the environment even though its widespread use was banned many years ago. Marine creatures are by law treated as toxic waste in many parts of the world and have to be disposed as such. Of course I understand, before anyone points it out, than human beings are not marine mammals, but you could justifiably say that we are exposed to far more than they are because of the products which are found in our homes and offices and gardens and fields. I'm afraid it is naive to think that legislation protects us from adverse effects on health - food production is very carefully monitored, but in other areas, the same amount of care is not taken. Cover ups can and do occur.

Of course I would not be as fool as to suggest that formula is better suited to babies than human breast milk. Or deny that ultimately in the grand scheme of things that breast milk is not overall the more favourable choice. Of course I wouldn't. But you often have posters here who are very keen on women having all the information before they make their choices. And this is some more information. All I take from it is that if for any reason I cannot BF then I will not beat myself up about formula being harmful and BM being entirely pure and untainted and as exactly as nature intended. There is more in it than just breast milk.