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.

OK, I get that all the research that's been done may or may not prove that BF is best but I can't think of a reason why so many scientists would be trying to prove that BF is better than FF. There are certainly no financial reasons, there's no money to be made from women BF. What other reasons could there be? Genuine question, not trying to be difficult or anything.

there aren't really benefits as such to breastfeeding (in terms of a child's health) as breastfeeding is entirely the normal way an infant should be fed. there are however, risks to using formula that quite a few babies, if they could talk, would tell you are a pain in the arse. literally.

also you can take your boobs anywhere without sterilising packing a bag.
you can breastfeed in the dark, without getting out of bed.

as for if bottles are made up correctly as per your OP's original question, did you know that if you breastfeed your baby and they need a kidney in later life, you are more likely to be a match, as are any other siblings you may have breastfed. So FF is pretty risky in that you may not be able to help out your child if they need a kidney, and neither will their brothers or sisters.

no i don't have a study but it is to do with the fact that breastmilk is literally living cells and literally builds your baby. pretty cool .

www.wcrf-uk.org/research/cp_report.php

For every year a woman breastfeeds she reduces her risk of getting breast cancer by 4.3%

Women who were breastfed as infants have 25 per cent lowered risk of developing breast cancer compared to women who were bottle fed as babies.

Just another few to throw in.

See, it seems to me that it's like this.

Take each individual benefit of breastfeeding/risk of formula feeding (however you prefer to present it) and that in itself may not mean enough. Take all of them together and it adds up to a great deal. It's not just about gastro bugs (which can of course be very severe and as I've explained, can't be necessarily stopped by good hygiene and well made up formula). Each benefit/risk can be considered by each parent and they should then make their own decision. From there, it SHOULD be that those who choose to BF are given all the support they need to be able to, and those who choose to FF are given all the information they need to do so as safely as possible. I see no benefit in trying to persuade someone to do something they don't want to do. I do see benefit in giving people the information to make that choice.

It's mentioned quite a lot that compounding factors aren't taken into consideration. But of course they are in a good study. Now, there are good studies and there are bad studies, but UNICEF, WHO, etc are quite capable of working through which are which, and making their recommendations on the basis of the best scientific evidence available.

It's been argued here that this evidence is not presented fairly to the public. I disagree.

How to best present advice to the public (in every area, not just public health) is an ongoing problem and there is no simple answer to it. Too much, or too little information is going to cause misunderstandings, and when a recipient of information isn't interested in spending the time reading endless research in great detail, it's really only the headlines which are going to get across. "Don't die of ignorance", "5 a day"... they put across an incredibly simple version of the message which they then hope will get the public looking into the real information that is presented behind it.

There is loads of information available to anyone who wants to research any public health message. You can't expect any HCP to sit and explain all the detailed scientific proof about BFing, or anything else, unless you ask, so just putting across the basic points is the only thing that they CAN do. If you want more detail than "it halves your risk of X", then it's down to you to find out what the risk would be in the first place. For everyone it's likely to be different.

There's nothing perfect about any public health message, and certainly the BFing ones have a long way to go to make them much better, but the reaction that HCPs or BFing supporters are out there to "make people feel guilty" is to me quite bizarre. How many people are there who have the time for such a strange and cruel hobby? How does this concept match with the equal (or greater) number of complaints that there's not enough help for those who WANT to BF? If a BFC or peer supporter tries to help a mum in, say, hospital, that mum may be grateful, or may feel they didn't help enough, or may feel that they were there "to make her feel guilty". Same BFing supporter, different mum. .

I do my best to help where I can, and where help is wanted. I'm not perfect, no one is, and of course I'll make mistakes or say the wrong thing sometimes. But to be accused of trying to make someone feel guilty? Just daft.

No I am not stroppy just fed up with journalists reporting on things they do not understand.

The paper I listed says clearly in the abstract

'Non-breast-fed infants had 50% more family doctor contacts up to age 4 months (P = 0.005).'

I have read the probit studies before - thank you. However the ones I am thinking of are either a) a trial of an intervention to increase BF which subsequently did increase ebf (not the same as simply assigning to groups) and b) a study that assigned mums to something like ebf for 3 months versus 6 months.

I completely agree with your point - without an RCT we simply do not know. However most decent BF v FF studies now do control for age, education, income etc although I realise that is far from perfect. The other point is that the Probit study is one small group of papers - no one paper alone proves anything.

I didnt think I had to explain what the link said - I presumed people would read it if they were interested. I thought I linked t the abstract which included conclusions .

Saying all of that - I dont know what the answer is. I cannot see personally how something replicating breastmilk (and missing vital ingredients) can have the same effect as something designed for babies.

Personally I do not know whether BF has long term benefits over and above the mass of other environmental influences. I think during the first year it does serve to keep babies healthy (ier).

Science, nature, and common sense tells me breast milk is best milk for an infant. Because it is. There is no two ways about it. Breastmilk was designed for babies, it's perfect in every way.

Nah, not convinced.

'I dont think scientists in general do 'try' to prove that BF is better. (One would hope not) However some are less than forthcoming about the limitations of the methods that they use, which are usually based on observational studies.'

Do you think that this is because the general public are becoming more savvy about research and are now more likely to go looking for those academic papers but perhaps not fully understand them?

Years ago it seemed that scientific papers were the domain of scientists and the odd government officer who read them. Scientists would read the studies and know the limitations etc because they were trained in them. These days they are open to a far wider audience - who might not have the same level of understanding - yet the researchers are still writing for a scientific audience?

By the way - I think the general public reading scientific journals is a good thing, not that they should be kept the domain of science and spoonfed to others.

I know myself writing in journals now - a clear message for health professionals reading the article is usually required e.g. 'What does this mean for practice?'. Maybe things need to go further and for a clearer message to be written for those without scientific training who are reading them - I dont know.

I really don't think there is any dispute amongst the scientific/research community about the relative health benefits of breastfeeding.

However, as this thread shows, there is a lot of passionate debate amongst mums at present - usually alongside a related debate about guilt/pressure to breastfeed. I think this is an unsurprising and natural reaction to disappointment over breastfeeding. Here's why.

Following several years of breastfeeding promotion, most mums only naturally want to give it a go - about 75% now initiate breastfeeding, which is an increase on previous years. Yet many don't get the support they need, and so there is a lot of drop-off: and surveys also tell us that 90% of mums who stop breastfeeding before 6 weeks had done so unwillingly. That equates to an awful lot of hurt and disappointed mums.

Some mums will get over the disappointment and move on quickly, but it's just basic human psychology to suppose that others will react by saying "well, breastfeeding isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway. My DC is fine, so someone must have exaggerated the benefits."

MigGril - you make a v good point about the environmental impact of modified cows milk used as formula. Plus the impact of plastics, sterilisation kits etc etc.

Exactly theboobmeister - sadly the government just seem to want to tick the box that it was initiated. Ok so colostrum probably has the most benefits on a day by day level but more women give up in the first 6 weeks than don't start in the first place.

Decision to BF or FF is pretty much decided by the time you are pregnant. I think the promotion and any money behind it should be spent on helping those mums who actually want to do it to continue rather than trying to get those who do not want to to give one feed at birth.

If more mums then breastfed for longer due to this help then breastfeeding would be more common - less stigma, more acceptance, more knowledge meaning that more mums would want to try and initiate in the first place....

In my ideal world anyway

I think that there is a dispute still in the scientific/research community about the health benefits of BF as otherwise they wouldn't still be researching the issue. There may be a consensus that there is some benefit, but certainly not a full picture.

The benefits are only benefits when compared to any other way. So in some ways they are not benefits - its meant to be like that. Its the whole breast is best thing - it is not best, it is the normal, physiological way to feed a human baby.

I think there is definitely space for some 'marketing' campaigns on how breastfeeding works, what is normal, ordinary, just what happens. Women should get the support they need to enjoy this process. What the formula companies should really do with the billion(s) profits they enjoy each year is contribute to this process, rather than undermine it, try to emulate it, manipulate it with freebies and offers of grants for midwives, spend millions on researching and marketing it, and selling a product which apparently, biologically, we are entirely capable of making ourselves.

That would be the right thing to do in this situation but they don't. They LOVE the breast is best message because it means that formula is normal, it's ok, it's acceptable, and this makes them pots of money - when really, for many women and babies throughout this century, it is not/has not been acceptable, it has been rubbish.

That is why I don't like the formula companies very much.

Also definitely benefits the planet (in many many different ways), the cows, and other human beings (those who could be fed through the land that instead feeds the cows), just in case anyone cares...

There is not a dispute in the scientific community about breastfeeding which is the physiologically normal way to feed a baby. There are disputes about a few factors that are touted as benefits on insufficient evidence (e.g. brain development 'benefits' disappear when socio-economics factors are controlled for) but feeding your child the milk of their own species is not a scientific controversy.

Boobmeister I'm not sure I buy that 90% of mothers who gave up breastfeeding early on did so regretfully. I know that some people really struggle to bf, but , tbh I've seen quite a bit of wilful ignorance about bfing from people who really didn't want to do it in the first place, but felt pressure to do so. They end up giving up because of lack of supply when the real problem was that they just weren't putting the baby to the breast often enough in the first place. The most basic amount of reading about bfing, or a simple call to a helpline, could sort this out.

I trust in evolution,I don't see how anything could be as suitable for a human baby as human milk.But that aside,ime only,my long term bf dds did get far less colds and tummy bugs than their ff peers.This may be due to something else (neither went to nursery for instance) but it was a noticable difference.

It continues to amaze me that there can even be an argument about the fundamental fact that human milk is best for human babies. Are we really so arrogant as to think we can improve on nature? Actually, that's a silly question. We are that arrogant, which is why the human race is in such a blardy mess.

hellymelly - that is where I think the benefits really are - in the day to day protection against smaller bugs. So less likely to get a tummy bug, cold, cough (or get them far less severely).

When you start looking at the bigger illnesses and cognitive development it all gets so much more complicated. Firstly because things like meningitis etc are thankfully rare and when you start looking at cognitive development there are so many other factors that affect that.

That is not to say at all that BF does not affect those things positively - and some studies to suggest that - but I think there is more weight in those early day to day things. This of course is very very important but less likely to be taken into account when looking at your four year old and deciding whether they are 'ok' or not.

And garlicsheep - precisely. As good as they make formula it is still based on cows milk protein which is there to grow baby cows. Apart from the obvious difference between babies and cows, cows have a totally different growth pattern, can walk from birth etc.

This thread keeps on veering away from the OP's question. Yes human milk is evolved for human babies and is therefore the most desirable milk for them, but the question is:

What are the risks of FF a healthy, term baby in this country if all of the guidance on correct FF is followed?

This is an important question and needs a direct answer.

breatheslowsly I think it is a good question. Unfortunately I don't think studies have been carried out on this so no hard and fast answers.

However, worth considering that:

• The most important reason why breastfed babies have lower rates of infection is because breastmilk contains live immune factors (ie antibodies) whilst formula does not. Chances are that breastfed babies are exposed to nearly as many infections as bottlefed babies, but they are less likely to succumb because breastfeeding actively supports their immune system.

• The health risks to FF babies in the UK don't only arise from incorrect bottle preparation. The higher rates of infection seen in FF babies also include chest and ear infections. Plus, babies can pick up tummy infections from plenty of other places apart from their bottle. Finally, the health risks relate to other things apart from infection (e.g. allergy, obesity, certain types of childhood cancer) although of course some of these risks are very small.

rodformyownback That 90% figure comes from the UK-wide Infant Feeding Survey carried out by the government. You can see it here on page x. In fact I underestimated: it's actually 90% of mums who gave up in the first six months say they'd wanted to breastfeed for longer.

rollittherecollette the answer is still yes, I'm afraid.

But that doesn't mean that FFing mums can't do anything to reduce the risks. Of course they can. Correct preparation, skin-to-skin contact and sensitive, baby-led feeding are all good things to do and likely to help.

this pretty much spells out the risks