Breastfed babies are better behaved says study

[crikeybadger]

Link here if you are interested.

Would want to add, that if you look at the DOH infant feeding survey I mentioned, ff mums are more likely than bf mums to report that their baby is unwell, isn't satisfied after feeds, is constipated, is vomiting.

You read this and think - where on earth does the idea come from that ff is always intrinsically easier than normal breastfeeding?

Looking after a tiny baby is stressful full-stop. Bottle feeding or breastfeeding!

Actually a ff SAHM will hold her baby an awful lot more than a working bf mum so not sure how ff= holding baby less.

Lifestyle,parenting,mother's personality dictate how often a mum holds her baby not feeding.

Most mums I know are at liberty to hold their baby any time they wish.

"Errrr mums do hold their babies at times other than when feeding"

Yes. Both breastfeeding mums and ff mums hold their babies when they're not feeding them. But breastfeeding mums always HAVE to hold their babies while they're being fed. Hence bf mums may well spend more time holding their babies. Unless you think bf mums are less likely than ff mums to hold their babies when they're NOT feeding them?

"Actually a ff SAHM will hold her baby an awful lot more than a working bf mum so not sure how ff= holding baby less."

Not necessarily. I went back to work early but co-slept with my baby in order to keep breastfeeding going. She was pretty much on the boob the whole time I was at home - making up for what she'd missed while I was out!

Not that many women go back to work before 4 months though do they? Now that mat leave is longer. Just saying like

I'm also not sure about this calm baby + calm mother = likelier to BF so maybe that's why thing.

Is it true that women who are not calm (whatever that means) or have babies who are not calm (ditto) are less likely to BF? I had heard that socio economic, education etc was the biggest indicator. Are women who BF less likely to be suffering PND I wonder (I have no idea of the answer to that!).

Of course ff mothers hold their babies. To feed, cuddle, soothe, play whatever.

But it is perfectly reasonable to say that bf babies - in general - get more holding by their mothers, especially in the very early months when there is a lot of feeding and probably less actual playing - in general - which is the period of time this study is looking at , because - in general - they feed more often than ff babies do.

I am well aware that for some people, their bf baby fed 5 times for 5 mins a session whereas their friend's ff baby fed 12 times a day and took 90 mins every time.

This does not negate the general fact that ff babies feed less often.

I suppose I'm interested because I had a hellish time generally with depression/anxiety type stuff, and DD1 screamed for hours every evening when she was small, and I can't be that unusual in BF under those conditions IYSWIM.

What about people with no arms, eh? How bad must they feel.

I think personality is what counts here.

I was never one for sling wearing,hours of cuddling etc when my 3 were tiny babies,this when they were both bf and ff. I'm far better with older babies/children.

However I know a lot of touchy feeling ff mothers who like holding newborns and bany gazing for hours,don't get it myself but there you go.

:o Hully

Breastfed babies = more likely to have mc/educated mothers = more likely to be well behaved.

FFS

Another bit of research for the University of No Shit Sherlock.

Next week: shock study shows fat people are fatter than thin people

TheBride - they controlled for this aspect. As you suggest, it would be stupid not to.

"I'm still amazed that people think FF babies aren't held as much." Who actually says this though?! holding a baby to feed it and just holding a baby are two separate things!!

I held DS pretty much constantly for the first 12 weeks because he fed non-fucking-stop. however, once he was on the move, I hardly seemed to hold him at all, excpet when feeding him. he was on the move far too early for my liking at about 5 months, and walking by 9 months, and HATES being cuddled now. A friend's DD was FFed and loves being cuddled by her mum all the time. She was held less for being fed than my DS was, but more for being cuddled than my DS was.

I was FF - and was a very well behaved obedient child.

My Dsis, 7 years younger and born by the time BFing was being encouraged in the 80's, was BF and was much much naughtier!

That said, my BF DD1 was held a lot as a small baby because she screamed blue murder otherwise - she lived in a sling for the first 10 weeks or so. She is very obedient, at present at least.

Did the study control for social-economic background, birth order and all the rest of it? If it is the "being held" that makes the difference, then you could argue that eldests are more obedient because mum only has them to deal with and has more time to hold them, whether they are BF or FF. Younger children have to fit in much more and perhaps get less "in arms" time.

Don't get me wrong, I loved BFing and thought it was great and will definitely try and do the same with DC2 when s/he comes along. But this study just doesn't quite add up to me.

PS I should add that while I was not a cuddly child, my naughty sister was very affectionate and loved cuddles as much as possible!

"Did the study control for social-economic background, birth order and all the rest of it?"

Yes - see my post earlier about this.

Thats quite scary actually

Before adjustment, the difference was 266%. After adjusting it was 30%. What's the real story here?

The 'real story' is that variations in social class and income account for huge variations in childrens' health and well-being in the UK.

It shouldn't be like that. But it bloody well is.

MilaMae, whatever the personality of mums, most babies like to be held a lot.

I'm not a touchy feely type of person at all. Group hug type situations make me cringe and I'm sensitive about people invading my personal space.

But when my babies were newborn they liked to be held, as most newborns do. So I spent a lot of time holding them.

Oh course breastfed are held by their mothers more than formula fed babies, isn't that obvious? They feed more often, feeds last longer, they feed more and for longer at night, no one else can feed them, you have to hold them while feeding.

Spud not all newborns.

My 3 are just like me,hated being meddled with.

Great you liked to hold yours for hours, I didn't.Many mums work,many have siblings to care for or have multiples like me.

The fact is feeding choices will have very little impact on how much a baby is held compared to the various other reasons.

The most interesting aspect of this for me is that it's based on the parent's perception of their child's behaviour (I know this has already been discussed a little).

Are women who breastfeed (I presume for a reasonable length of time to be included in this report) more disposed to be forgiving of what others may deem "bad" behaviour? Eg are they more patient or laid-back than FF mothers? Unless the research points were very precise eg "how many times does your child wake during the night?", Rather than "is your child a good sleeper".

I've primarily FF 2 babies btw so am not anti formula at all!

I have to say also I enjoyed holding mine more when ff as holding them didn't equals pain. I also found they didn't smell the milk.I avoided picking mine up at times when bf as one whiff and the stereo mewling started.

I've not managed to read the whole thread yet, but got to admit I did swear at the TV this morning when it was on the BBC, especially when they asked new mums at a BFing group what they thought and one said: "I'm not surprised really". Really? Well, that's bloody judgemental of you and what the f*ck do you know? And with them ending with the line "The Royal College of Midwives said that mother's who can't breastfeed [their emphasis] shouldn't feel guilty, but once more the message seems to be that breast is best" (or something very similar). I hate reporting of this kind.

Ok, deep breath - will go back and read the link and thread...

Quick question though - what does this mean for mixed fed kids?