Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

Original poster

Benefits of bfing over ffing?

329 replies

you · 16/02/2011 14:20

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.

OP posts:
MigGril · 19/02/2011 12:25

Ruby - I think to me that is the scarist bit, yet no one tell's new mum's this. Oh feed your baby our lovely new formula, but by the way your taking part in a big experiment. How many mum's would think twice if they new.

breatheslowly · 19/02/2011 12:27

No Ruby - what I am saying is trhat there may be risks but they are not properly expressed. Saying double the risk of this or that is meaningless unless you also say what the base rate risk is. If the risk of my baby being hospitalised rose from 1/10000 to 2/10000 then I am fine with that, if it rose from 1/10 to 2/10 the I wouldn't be happy. I think te reason that the absolute risks are not expressed is that the effects, whilst real, are often quite small in absolute terms.

breatheslowly · 19/02/2011 12:29

Yes we knonw what stem cells do, but why would having the mother's stem cells be beneficial, we don't know!

RubyBuckleberry · 19/02/2011 12:30

that is fair enough breatheslowly. i suppose the difference is that i am not happy with that. because to a small baby who happens to be the 1/10000 or whatever it is 100% their experience of this world and that to me is really Sad Sad particularly if they could have had warm comforting breastmilk and not the hospitalisation had their mum been given good support or decided that she wasn't prepared to risk it.

RubyBuckleberry · 19/02/2011 12:31

no maybe not but i bet you they are worth something, or they wouldn't be there.

breatheslowly · 19/02/2011 12:34

So why not present this information? Allow women to make thosae choices instead of infantilising them? And my DD has warm comforting formula, that is just emotive language.

RubyBuckleberry · 19/02/2011 12:36

I'm sure she does breatheslowly - and you're right it is emotive, because it is, not because I want to judge you, sorry Blush. But to me, it is also the right of the baby not to have that risk of hospitalisation or whatever, if the mother is able.

RubyBuckleberry · 19/02/2011 12:37

are you talking about infantilising women, just to clarify - do you think that is what the leaflet i posted, for example, does???

aob1013 · 19/02/2011 12:41

Too many to list!

breatheslowly · 19/02/2011 12:43

No - not the leaflet you posted, but most of the stuff pregnant women and new mothers are given. But your leaflet still doesn't have the information I mentioned to allow informed choice.

peppapighastakenovermylife · 19/02/2011 12:43

breatheslowly - I understand what you mean. I can find odds ratios for how much the increased risk is but am finding it hard to work out the risk in the first place - which is what you need.

That information would be very useful - so you know whether double the risk means 1 or 2 % or 30 or 60%.

A better choice can be made.

breatheslowly · 19/02/2011 12:46

I was hoping that someone might have that information for this thread, but no one seems to have posted it so far.

RubyBuckleberry · 19/02/2011 12:55

'but most of the stuff pregnant women and new mothers are given' are you talking about NHS stuff? I think it all needs a complete overhaul tbh.

I suppose you could look up each study to find the actual risk?

breatheslowly · 19/02/2011 13:07

I've tried looking up studies to find the actual risk, but mostly could only get abstracts. I think this information should be freely available and published in the type of leaflet you published as well as the NHS information.

RubyBuckleberry · 19/02/2011 13:10

its so annoying when you only get an abstract isn't it!

breatheslowly · 19/02/2011 13:18

I still wonder whether the information isn't more widely available because it would show that the absolute risks are really quite low for healthy, term babies in this country. And would therefore not encourage BF. But of course I can't provide any evidence for that.

peppapighastakenovermylife · 19/02/2011 13:26

Ok...but why would they then continue to promote breastfeeding? There is no real money in it (if it doesnt improve health).

peppapighastakenovermylife · 19/02/2011 13:27

Oh and give me the details and I will see if I can access it

peppapighastakenovermylife · 19/02/2011 13:38

This is a good paper actually. It gives number of cases / percentages of babies who got different health problems in the first 6 months comparing FF from birth, different lengths of BF and BF for at least four months.

Am struggling to read it in full as my EBF 6 month old has a cough and is clingy Wink

However as an example, comparing FF from birth to BF 4+ months.

Had an ear infection: 9.5% v 4.3%

Diarrhoea: 27.3 v 10.1%

Chest wheeze: 36.5 v 22.0%

Respiratory tract infection: 20.2 v 11.1%

Those were all a significant increase in the FF group - controlling for maternal age, education, whether she was back in work, whether she smoked, her BMI and when solids were introduced.

I should point out that the babies were not EBF in the 4+ month group.

There was a dose-response relationship between FF from birth and BF for 6 months - so the longer the mum breastfed for the more the risks reduced.

For example

Ear infections were had by 6.2% of the 1 - 3 months group compared to 4.3% of the 4+ months group. Less than one months BF also provided some protection.

1764 babies in the study.

peppapighastakenovermylife · 19/02/2011 13:39

2011 paper - babies in Southampton UK

breatheslowly · 19/02/2011 13:44

Thanks Peppa - that is exactly the type of information that I wanted and I think it also answer's the OP's question too. I also think that the numbers are enough to make people like me who are fairly convinced that any further DC will also be FF think long and hard about that decision. So why is this information not more widely available?

peppapighastakenovermylife · 19/02/2011 13:56

I really do not know. Only took me two minutes to find it. Much better to see actual figures than percentage increases I think.

For example lower levels of sids, meningitis, crohns disease amongst BF babies. However, thankfully, levels of those in the general population are very low - so I don't think a percentage or so increase of risk will convince anyone to BF who doesnt want to.

Figures like those would produce more sensible debate - they show an increase in risk but not a 'your child will grow three heads, break out in green spots and never ever be able to count to three' type argument.

peppapighastakenovermylife · 19/02/2011 13:57

It also supports the 'every BF counts' argument...that it is better to do it for a bit than not at all.

crazycatlady · 19/02/2011 14:30

I remember posting on here when DD was 8 months and I was considering giving up BF, to ask if anyone knew categorically what the benefits would be of continuing. Nobody was able to answer. I kept going past a year, but only for morning and evening feeds, with a bottle of formula during the day. It changed my life. The relief was huge. I could wear normal clothes and bras again for a start...

I will BF again with DC2, my body makes the milk so for that reason alone it makes sense to be to use it, but I certainly won't be wracked with guilt and worry about doing it like I was with DD.

FWIW, BFing has proved quite expensive in this house:

  • nursing bras
  • a whole load more nursing bras when the first lot proved too depressing and dowdy for words
  • lots of new tops to accommodate BFing in public
  • loads more new tops when first lot proved too depressing and dowdy for words
  • breast pump
  • new breast pump when first broke
  • sterilising equipment for bottles of expressed milk
  • Lansinoh by the bucketload (£14 a tube!)
  • breast pads
  • BFing consultant for emergency home visit when I panicked over DD not feeding

So the 'BFing is free' argument doesn't hold much water with me and is just another one of the many 'benefits' that were rammed down my throat that ended up being a bit spurious...

peppapighastakenovermylife · 19/02/2011 14:40

I guess for some people breastfeeding will be more expensive for others.

I was lucky in that I only ever bought one tube of lansnoh per baby and when it was on offer / on ebay.

Bras and tops were longer term investments - did me for 3 babies.

I bought Hot Milk Bras from the outset Grin

Havent bought special clothes but have been miserable over the limitation on what I can wear.