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.

Helly you, is that you?
(I used to be kat2907, I think I remember you from a support thread we were on)

And if it is you, you, then what are you doing? [fond frowny face]

Well it's a free country and at the end of the day you can believe whatever you like, rollittherecollette

I thought a study was made about the obesity-thing. They had babies fed breastmilk with bottles, formula babies fed, of course, with bottles, and they had a reference group of infants fed with breastmilk from the breast only. The result was that both groups of babies that were fed with a bottle, whether with breastmilk or not, were at a higher risk of obesity than the reference group that was fed only from the breast.

So, it would seem that the practice of giving babies a certain amount of food at a certain time contributes more to obesity than on demand as in BF. So it would not really be the breastmilk itself which is better, but the feeding method, which could be helped.

Interesting thread actually.

Even if formula were identical to breast milk with no downsides I still wouldn't use it.

Why would I pay for something I produce for free?

You can believe what you like rollit but can I ask whether your opinion is based on studying academic evidence in full or just your opinion (which you are obviously entitled to have)?

Mrsgordon - I know . Have you seen the price lately? In boots Aptamil is nearly £10 a tin...then plus the bottles, the teats, the sterilising (however you do it). I reckon it must cost about £50 a month.

I did a rough calculation and even looking at just the first months I worked out I have saved nearly £1000 breastfeeding 3 babies and deserve a shopping spree

Kikibo - do you have a link please? I would love to read that study

rollit - I am not on any side of the debate. After fully reading the evidence I simply disagree with you - but point out you are welcome to disagree with me.

You say you read those few studies. A few studies do not represent the literature.

rollit, did you read the link i posted? not up for round 3 or anything, just wondering ?

Leonie - I don't think that many people find themselves visiting the GP for stomach problems, buying sachets of electrolytes or visiting audiologists as a result of FF. Perhaps statistically a few more than BF, but they are not "normal" costs of FF a baby.

To be honest I don't begrudge my DD the cost of her formula at all. But again - off topic.

I do understand the OPs question but I think the wholw debate is misframed.

Any intervention in the natural order of things needs to prove it has a benefit. That applies to C-section vs vaginal delivery, drug treatments for illnesses etc.

It is for formula to prove it has a benefit over and above breast feeding rather than vice versa and I have never seen any study suggesting that it does (outside perhaps v specialised situations like transmission of HIV).

I will admit I haven't read the PROBIT studies and I am pretty surprised that they could get people to volunteer to be randomised to breast or formula given what strong views people normally hold on the topic. I did just want to say to rollit though that although an RCT is better than an observational study in controlling for bias and confounding it can have real problems with selection bias.

An observational study has the advantage of being more 'real world'. I can't quite imagine who would consent to just be randomised to a decision about feeding their baby and I worry that they might be non-representative of people in general. Hence I don't dismiss the observational data showing benefit.

Leonie - oh yes I know I just couldnt start calculating past that with my poor sleep deprived mind! Was just thinking about the exclusive part only. Must be double that at least even if you dont take into account doctors, time off work etc

breatheslowly - you have misconstrued that completely. I wouldnt begrudge them the formula cost - of course not! It was tongue in cheek about what I can now do with the money. It was a joke that sod the health benefits, I am richer.

And actually - the most robust finding, agreed even by many who dismiss the rest of the findings, is the lower rate of gastroinfections in BF babies ( bringing us nicely back to the original OP as some of these are caused by incorrect formula use)

mamadoc - precisely, and it was in Belarus.

Well a very powerful fact for me is the presence of so much iron in formula that cannot be digested but sits in the gut feeding the bacteria that cause tummy bugs. Plus the fact that all the extra stuff they keep adding to formula is untested on young babies. Considering the absolute outcry over the swine flu vaccine being "untested" I am very surprised that more people are not worried about this. Unless, like me, they simply don't reaslise. I wish I had known both of these things before I resorted to giving bottles of formula to my two DCs.

I found these things out after asking a similar question to the OPs not so long ago. I too thought the risks were mostly down to preparation. But then I also don't see why people find it acceptable for the formula companies to supply powdered milk that is so often contaminated.

Whilst I am on my high horse here although I am all for evidence based medicine/ practices it can be forgotten that a lack of evidence of a benefit is not evidence of a lack of benefit!

Some things are hard to study in controlled trials especially long term outcomes because it takes megabucks of time and effort to conduct such a trial over the very long term. Hence there may be no evidence but doesn't mean it isn't a good thing.

Therefore the only thing that would make me change my belief that bf should be recommended over ff would be if someone showed it was actually harmful and I can't see that happening.

Peppa pig - yes the lower rate of gastroinfections is probably the best finding - but it is still not "normal" for a FF baby to have an infection, most won't.

Mamadoc - I don't agree that formula has to prove it has a benefit over BF. For various reasons many people choose to FF. For those people the risks of FF compared to BF need to be evaluated and presented so that people can make a decision as to whether the reasons that they would rather FF are worth taking those risks for. So for example I have FF my DD due to health problems after birth. My experiences of BF and FF mean that I would rather FF any further DC. If there was very persuasive evidence that BF was significantly better then I could be swayed, but the evidence I have seen means that I am happy with the decision to FF as the risks seem small enough or insufficiently proven for me to be happy to take them.

well OK breatheslowly yours is I'm sure a fair decision and one you are entitled to make but in terms of public policy the lack of benefit from formula is enough to justify the promotion of bf IMHO

Precisely mamadoc. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . It was drilled into me at uni.

A rarely mentioned issue is that although in this country natural disasters are rare and relatively minor,they do happen.My elderly mother was without water for quite a while last year,floods knock out both water and power supplies.If you are breastfeeding,then you are a better position in unpredicable situations,even if just stuck on a broken down train.

Yes I see your point - and I think I have said that somewhere on this thread (all merged into one ). FF increases risk, it is not a definitive.

However the actual question is asking scientifically does it increase risks and the answer is yes.

Incidentally by about 5 times the risk for gastro bugs with a similar multiplier for hospital admissions.

But yes in answer to your point, if a BF baby has a 5% risk of a gastro bug, a FF has a 25% risk

Not that unlikely Helly is it now - take the snow for example. I had friends who were snowed in and couldnt get to the shops for formula.

With the snow this winter plus two major power cuts (we have no gas or oil) I thanked God I am breastfeeding.