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.

Yes,it so reassuring,when your babies are small,to always have food for them,wherever you are just handily attatched to your chest!
Made me feel very free.

Actually I would throw your argument back at you for the studies that show exclusive and pro longed breastfeeding is associated with poorer outcomes...mainly because those with a genetic risk are more likely to do so. Which yes I realise also supports your point (which I actually agree with)

So yes. There is no 'proof', there is unlikely to be until we have large scale numerous RCT's. Just a lot of suggestions, theories and plain biological sense why FF will pose health risks (and again I stress risks not definitives).

Am amused at you suggesting I have a look at the studies though. I know the limitations - just that paper and a few others is a good summary and yes does give the negatives (as any good scientific paper would)

Mamadoc - why not present a more balanced view with the risks of each clearly presented and allow people to make up their own minds. The promotion material is of pitiful quality. There are risks of BF - mastitis, blocked ducts, cracked and bleeding nipples, thrush, early weight loss due to poorly established BF leading to hospitalisation. Yet the information provided is of smiling mothers and thriving babies.

Equally there is a need to present research in a clearer format for mothers - for example in Ruby's link the section on gastrointestinal risk lists 3 studies suggesting that FF are at about twice the risk of infection than BF babies, but there is no indication of what the baseline risk of infection is. If 1/100 BF babies gets a bout of D&V in 6 months, then it would be 2/100 for FF, but if 25/100 BF get it then the risk would be 50/100 for FF - this information is crucial to make an informed decision.

Yes that would be great breatheslowly

alright rollit lol i didn't get it from google lol and do you really think it is biased useless crap?! do you really think so? why on earth would these people bother to put together studies that are not meaningful?

Ruby - those people have an agenda "protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding" so of course they are going to attempt to support their position. Otherwise can you imagine the meeting:

"Well, that's it, there really isn't anything in any of the studies that aren't flawed to suggest that BF is better than careful FF."

"Yeah, not quite what I expected, but you can't argue with the evidence."

"Well shall we stop and disband the organisation then?"

"Hmm, it seems a shame to have devoted 20 years of my life to protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding, but I suppose we may as well call it a day. Nice to have known you."

This is a bonkers argument.

One may as well 'debate' whether insulin is better from your pancreas or injected regularly.

Clearly one option is worse than the other and should only be chosen if you couldn't produce the insulin yourself.

If it makes you feel better to pretend that there's no difference, why partake of the discussion at all?

There are few RCTs because, ethically, researchers cannot randomise mothers into groups and ask them to feed their babies something that is not as good as breastmilk. You will not get your definitive study because, in a sense, the argument has been won, and won some time ago.

This isn't a bonkers arguement at all. Fine, there is a difference, but what, to the best of our current knowledge, is it?

It really is a question of risk. We all take some risks in our lives for various reasons. For example smoked and cured foods are linked to cancer, but many people choose to eat smoked bacon. Mothers need to know the actual risks that they are facing to make a decision.

So, as the OP asked, what are the risks to a healthy, term baby being fed correctly prepared formula in an appropriate manner in the UK?

if you actually think that feeding a baby formula rather then breastmilk which has stem cells and antibodies in it is the same in terms of the risks associated with it then no amount of evidence to the contrary will make you think otherwise.

can you please link to some studies that actually back up your position. i would be fascinated to see them .

Considerably higher than eating bacon sandwiches.

Other posters have stated the risks. There is an increased risk of transmitting bugs even if the formula is immaculately prepared. Bf babies are less likely to get ear infections and tummy bugs. They are less likely to be obese in later life... Etc. You know this.

The risks are there, there is good evidence for them.

You will not, however, get the solid gold double blind randomised trials to prove this conclusively because, as I said, it would be impossible to do it ethically.

What you do and what you feed your baby is your own business but that choice should be made with a clear awareness of the risks.

Preparing formula has inherent risks which are minimised by following the guidelines: the powder meets hot water, feeds aren't stored, washing hands before preparation, etc.

These reduce the risk of transmitting bugs but this risk cannot be eliminated even if you follow a perfect sterile technique.

If that makes you feel better, fine. I still wouldn't use formula unless I absolutely had to.

How do you feel about it? Are you happy with what you gave your baby?

If you are, then that's all that matters.

Also, It doesn't matter if there's any benefit to bf. One could certainly argue that there are none, since it is the default option.

There are downsides to formula feeding. Perhaps you'd be best off disproving those.

Depends what you mean by randomised.

Taking a group of pregnant women and splitting it into one of breastfeeders and one of formula at random is not something that's been or should be done. But that would be the only way to get the sort of conclusive answers you want.

Leonie - I am actually wondering if some of the funding bodies feel the same way after seeing comments on some rejected grant applications recently.

Thankfully there are good journals such as Breastfeeding Medicine emerging

Rollit - but as novel as the Belarus study is, it didn't randomise breastfeeding did it - only promotion.

What we need (but are unlikely to get) is to find a huge group of first time pregnant women, and split into two groups

1. Formula from birth
2. BF til 6 months

But even then you would have lots of confounders such as whether than BF was exclusive, when they introduced solids etc etc. We would ideally need loads of groups.

Would love to do the study but ethics would not let anyone near it! And even if they did only a select group of mums would sign up to it - those who were not bothered about breastfeeding but on the other hand would bf until at least six months...

I just want to say this... Without being anti. That is not the point. What we are discussing here is whether those tudies actually prove or do not, which it would seem they either do and the risks are minimal, or they do not (in most cases) because one cannot see any causality.

To all those who believe that there is no money to be gained from BF. Maybe not from the milk itself, but if you want to express (when you go to work and want to continue which should be a right), there are bottles involved, also teats, and breastpumps. All those that are connected with BF like lactation consultants, writers and publishers of books on the matter. All the breastpads, nursing bras, nursing vests, cushions, etc etc. And do not say they do not make you want to believe that you do not need them. Our ancestors did it without all of that, with corsets even, but now everyone needs those special things... I would not say that that industry is not worth a lot of pounds either, worldwide. Only in a different shape, but same money.

I am still looking for a link on that obesity thing, but I can't seem to find one anymore. I came to it one day during my surfing, but I can't remember what I typed into google at that point.

"There is evidence that BF is beneficial from a health perspective. However equally there is evidence that it is not."

Equally? Equally? The evidence that breastfeeding is not beneficial from a health perspective is equal to the evidence that it is?

Really?

We have evidence to show that breastfeeding is not beneficial, equal to the evidence that it is beneficial?

Is there any evidence at all that breastfeeding is not beneficial?

Note: in individual cases, individual mothers and babies may not benefit. But speaking generally, and yes, in the UK and other developed countries, I know of no evidence at all, let alone equal evidence, that breastfeeding is not beneficial.

Rollit - please quote me any study at all that backs up your opinion.