Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Infant feeding

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

Have I spoilt his virgin gut?

35 replies

ag123 · 08/04/2012 09:36

I will proudly announce to anyone that my ds (now 3 m/o) is ebf. However this isn't strictly the case...he was born by emcs and I was quite poorly afterwards due to an infection. It took about 4 or 5 days for my milk to come in,and because he was 'such a big baby' as the midwives kept telling me (11lbs) there was a question raised as to whether I had had gestational diabetes all along (which I of course didn't-he is just big and perfectly in proportion). So the midwives started insisting that I 'top him up' with formula as he was so unhappy and obviously hungry. I strongly resisted,but by about the third day a paediatrician came in and told me what an irresponsible mother I was being and ordered the midwives to take his sugars,which had by that stage dipped just below the safe levels. So anyway, we did finally give him maybe 3 cup feeds before my milk finally came in,and obviously not again since. Anyway,I have recently come across some articles about the 'virgin gut' of an ebf baby, and how it will be much more conducive to just producing the good bacteria in the gut. So is it once ruined always ruined,and could I just as well be giving him some formula now (of course not that I want to,but would it be the same effect?) (and I obviously realise all the other benefits of breastmilk and have complete confidence in it)

OP posts:
WantAnOrange · 08/04/2012 09:41

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Is your baby growing, healthy and generally happy? Then you are doing a Good Job. Stop worrying!

dyspeptic · 08/04/2012 09:43

it restores itself over a few weeks, his gut bacteria will be like that of an ebf baby as a result.

CherryBlossom27 · 08/04/2012 09:52

Honestly I don't think you should worry about a couple of formula feeds. You're breastfeeding which is better for the baby, but all the formula feed babies have survived too :)

SteepApproach · 08/04/2012 13:49

I wondered about this too when I came across the (unhelpfully named) virgin gut idea for similar reasons, but later read that ebf for several weeks will restore it. I just found an article on the Alpha Parent blog which has a sensible take on things and which I hope will reassure and perhaps help you feel better about what happened in hospital.

ag123 · 08/04/2012 14:31

Thank you for that. It has made me feel a bit better, although that very interesting article does say if formula was given in the first 7 days it may never be repaired :-(

OP posts:
WantAnOrange · 08/04/2012 21:11

You need to look at any article you read critically. Who wrote it? What is their background/ their qualifications? Where are they getting their research and data from? And (I think) most importantly, Do they have an agenda? I.E. what are they trying to prove or achieve? This will either intentionally or unintentionally create bias.

For example: the research that says dummies reduce cot death was conducted by a company that sells dummies. This immediatly reveals an agenda and would make you look more closely at the data, in which case you may find it's been interpreted in a biased way and therefore not actually true.

Would looking at the article you read in this way help you see it from a more logical and balanced POV and therefore not worry so much over what it says?

In this case, is it written by a group/person/company that has a strong interest in promoting breast feeding or against formula feeding? In which case, the results of any study may be exaggerated to be more persausive, in order to support their case (for example, using guilt "you will damage your baby's gut").

Doesn't mean it's NOT true, I just wouldn't take it at face value.

IslandIsla · 09/04/2012 14:12

I was in a similar position to you... my baby was small at 6lb 4oz and born after a traumatic EMCS. She had low blood sugar levels at birth and the paed recommended she be topped up with formula for her first three feeds. Even worse, that the formula be given before breastfeeding. It was my first baby, I was pretty out of it from painkillers and I just agreed. This is perhaps my biggest regret - that I didn't discuss it further with the doctor (I am still unsure as to how necessary the formula was) and also that I let my baby be bottlefed instead of cup feed. Three years on, I am still gutted that her first feed was given by the midwife with a bottle. However - after those first three formula feeds, I woke up and fought for my right to breastfeed, and from then on DD was EBF and has never had another drop of formula (I ended up feeding her for over 2 years). But I feel it made establishing breastfeeding pretty difficult and we struggled with positioning and latch etc for a good couple of months.

I also read about the virgin gut and it made me feel even worse about it. I never found a definitive conclusion about whether the virgin gut was restored by EBF, but we do know that each day you continue to breastfeed will benefit you and your baby, so take comfort in this. At the end of the day you cannot take that formula your baby had away. I'd say look to the future, and continue to enjoy your breastfeeding relationship with your baby.

For my second baby, I've had a much better start. Although my baby was still small (another 6lb 4oz-er!), I had a VBAC and not a doctor or any formula to be seen. I wrote into my birth plan that I was to be fully consulted if doctors thought formula was was needed and bottles were not to be given if formula was deemed necessary.

ag123 · 09/04/2012 14:39

Thank you for that. And going off on a slight tangent, it still absolutely ASTOUNDS me the advice we are given from these professionals at our most vulnerable time in our whole lives. I just wish there was some way to make women aware of this fact before it's too late.

OP posts:
youngermother1 · 09/04/2012 15:16

Have to say that, until someone shows me some peer reviewed evidence then this 'theory' is a load of worrying, unnecessary b***ks.

I do not have the figures, but a lot less than 50% of babies in the UK are EBF, so if this was an issue, it would effect the majority of babies.

There is a lot of research that suggests late weaning can increase allergies, so it would be surprising that early introduction of 'non breast milk' would cause the same problems.

dyspeptic · 09/04/2012 19:39

There is lots of decent info available about the gut flora of an ebf baby. It is different from a ff or mix fed baby. That can't be a surprise bm is the most effective probiotic and is unrivalled in its ability to create an environment that facilitates gut development whilst excluding pathogens. This is a big part of ebf babies being less likely to be hospitalised due infections along with the continuous environmental specific immune antibodies. The immune systems of bf babies are more effective than those of ff babies, they have for example a stronger response to immunizations and this maturity is part induced by the way that bm and an immature gut interacts.

Even the milk board will allow that babies fed milk are more likely to show cmpi, and they are over represented amongst coeliacs and diabetics. The evidence on ebf being generally protective against allergies is scant but their is no sound evidence that late weaning means more allergies. The studies are often contradictory on this. there is however no evidence that anything other than bm is needed or better than bm for the overwhelming majority of babies. sadly whilst nhs and hospital policies reflect this practitioners are often not models of best practice when it comes to supporting and informing mothers. babies not ebfd do have short and long term health differences, there are lots of stats on this. happily we are a healthy nation supported by good nutrition, vaccination programmes etc and the influence of a bit of formula likely to be an insignificant factor over our life times

incidentally AFAIK the evidence is pretty sound that the flora restores unless there is a complicating factor. in terms of health outcomes mixed fed babies are advantaged in comparison to ff babies, a dose responsive outcome can be seen in some research and on premises babies too. this would rather imply that a bit of formula doesn't usually do anything significant.

Finallygotaroundtoit · 09/04/2012 19:51

ag123, your concerns are understandable but you rightly took the medical advice you were given at the time. All the bm he's had since then counts a lot more towards his gut health.

Low blood sugars may have caused your 3 day old DS more of a problem than a couple of formula feeds (although there is now greater understanding of when low sugars are and aren't a problem for healthy term babies).

Just more evidence that all Mat Units should have donor milk available, not just for prems but for term bf babies.

youngermother1 · 09/04/2012 20:20

dyspeptic Could you link to some of this research so I can read for myself - Thanks

nannyl · 09/04/2012 20:27

i remember having a massive google and reading every article ever written about virgin guts (DD now 7m)

It was the ONLY thing that made me never give my DD formula... (when in those middle first few months i was finding BFing so difficult)... anyway i do remember reading that if they only have BM for 4 weeks, then the virgin gut is restored to near complete virgin levels.

I really wouldnt worry... you are doing the best for your baby, and even though he may have had a small amount of formula, the breast milk you are feeding him is SOOOO superior to any artificial cow milk you could choose Smile

dyspeptic · 09/04/2012 22:22

Have read it from many sources over many years, I access sources via uni so if you want to find them ou'l have to have a search. Digests would be available. Tis all there...

Cheeseandbiscuits · 09/04/2012 22:25

Would you have preferred your baby to have become unwell from low Bms?

Agree, just adds weight to the argument for donor milk rather than evil doctors forcing formula into babies.

youngermother1 · 10/04/2012 01:33

I understand BF is better than formula, but formula is not evil. there is so much pressure to BF, that mothers that are unable suffer terrible unnecessary guilt.
This rubbish perpetuates that guilt.
Only 52% of babies are BF (not necessarily EBF) at 2 weeks, reducing to 28% at 4 months here. These rates are higher than previously. Therefore if there was any relevance to this theory, it would affect the vast majority of children.
Yes, promote BF, but not using lies and scare stories.

nannyl · 10/04/2012 08:45

youngermother its not rubbish....

its how our bodies work.... simple as..... not lies or scare stories, just basic biology....

Longtalljosie · 10/04/2012 08:52

The body repairs itself. It is made to. It deals with a lot worse than a few cups of formula. You are doing fantastically and giving your DS the best start in life. Don't worry yourself about a couple of cup feeds.

dyspeptic · 10/04/2012 09:08

Youngermother is that aimed at me and an answer I gave to explain why a ff is unlikely to be a problem or to have changed the gut flora significantly over a longer time?

I have no interest I promoting bf, I would never call or deem formula 'evil' or think any mother should feel guilt at ff. Accurate information is important though, it isn't shared to create guilt. There is only one person who can make any individual feel guilty...

ag123 · 10/04/2012 09:20

I agree, I think it's really important to be well informed with accurate information so that you can make decisions you feel happy with,but cheeseandbiscuits you're right, if I was in exactly the same situation again I probably would still do the same as I certainly wouldn't want him to be poorly (although if I end up needing an elcs in the fitter I'll def look into colostrum harvesting)

OP posts:
organiccarrotcake · 10/04/2012 11:42

"There is a lot of research that suggests late weaning can increase allergies, so it would be surprising that early introduction of 'non breast milk' would cause the same problems."

No, this is not accurate, or at least it is misleading. There is some contention around whether babies who are at a higher risk of coeliac disease should be offered wheat earlier or later, and there is evidence either way with research ongoing. But this is a specific issue and not "a lot of research that suggests late weaning can increase allergies". Actually for MOST babies later weaning is considered safer if the baby is exclusively BF and for A VERY FEW babies there is some discussion of ways that food should be introduced.

OP, you are right, the evidence on the introduction of formula in this way shows that it can trigger problems and this is why it is important WHERE POSSIBLE to avoid any formula, especially after a CS because the baby isn't populated with the mother's bacteria as during a vaginal birth. However. or rather, HOWEVER. No matter what we do we balance risks. As has been pointed out, if there was a low glucose problem then this did need to be treated and therefore formula was given as a medicine. Like all medicines there are the potential for side effects, but the risks of the side effects are generally considered lower than the risks of not treating and in this case it's very likely that the medicine (formula) meant that more serious problems were avoided.

The general understanding is that it takes about 2 weeks to repopulate after one feed of formula (or other non-BM foods) but yes, it's more likely to be a problem in the early days and I'm not going to back away from that. But, what you have done is taken a difficult start and done the only thing realistically possible (treated the low blood sugar with the only treatment you had) which can cause very serious problems if left untreated, then moved on from that and done one of the single most important things that you can do for the life-long health of you and your baby. The risk from the formula given is, honestly, tiny. Really small. The risk of not treating the low glucose, if a genuine low glucose problem, was high.

The paed should have suggested donor milk and hopefully people reading this will learn that this is an option (www.ukamb.org if they are in this position. Informal donation from a friend or relative is also possible (your baby, your choice). This would have resolved the risk of the introduction of cow's milk protein. But the effect of cow's milk protein can be cumulative, meaning the more that's given, the worse the risk so the risk here is TEEEEEENY.

I think you should continue to proudly announce what you have done. :) :)

youngermother1 · 10/04/2012 13:31

My response was to cheeseandbiscuits comment 'evil doctors forcing formula into babies'.

Apologies for my comment without any links but this suggests early weaning can be preferable.

All I know is that there is a lot of conflicting research, and suggesting common beahviour, such as mixed feeding, harms children is the worst scare-mongering.

LurcioLovesFrankie · 10/04/2012 13:40

DS was small for dates (born at 41 weeks, weight 5lb 9oz). Heel pricks before and after his first feed suggested low blood sugar, so he was tube fed in addition to my colostrum until milk came in at 5 days (ELCS because of his size).

I am very very glad my health authority is following best practise on this one: see
www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/09/nhs-blunders-babies-brain-damage for what can go wrong if the risk of hypoglycaemia isn't taken seriously (and high birth weight is also a risk factor). So personally I put my faith in peer-reviewed literature (but then I'm a scientist myself, albeit physical sciences rather than medicine) rather than internet waffle about "virgin guts" (just the name brings me out in hives - some sort of ritual purity c--- going on here, methinks).

Katiebeau · 10/04/2012 13:49

Cheers loudly for Churcio. Low blood sugar can be dangerous. Medics do not recommend top ups simply to be bastards to new Mums and deliberately knacker virgin guts Hmm

Op you are doing a great job EBF but perhaps you have to gain perspective on why medics try avoid hyperglycaemic events to overcome this issue you have. It was the right thing to do given the negative effects if a hypo develops (can be swift in a newborn).

Katiebeau · 10/04/2012 13:50

Lurhio? damn iPhone.