Active discussions

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

Talk
Infant feeding

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

Original poster

My two breastfed dd's are never ill, very intelligent and slim

81 replies

emkana · 07/03/2006 16:32

And it's entirely up to breastfeeding, both of them for over two years.

Grin Wink

(Just felt inspired to start this thread as every time research in favour of breastfeeding is quoted the anecdotal evidence is dug out how it's all wrong wrong wrong - with the so-called breastfeeding "mafia" (how I hate that term!!!) pointing out that research is about likelihood and probability. So today I thought "what the heck, I can do it too" Grin)

OP posts:
SuperTramp · 07/03/2006 19:24

And what about those of us who may have bottlefed and our children now often have colds, are not very bright and a bit chubby? Should we all feel terribly guilty for not breastfeeding? Is that the point of this thread - to make other people feel like shit?

Original poster
emkana · 07/03/2006 19:24

I won't post anymore on this.

OP posts:
chicagomum · 07/03/2006 19:24

Hijack - Dejags, have a confession I brought your maltesers all the way home, and ate the whole bag last night Blush.

dejags · 07/03/2006 19:25

Got it one SuperTramp!

I have witnessed these wars ad nauseum on MN. There is always somebody who feels the need for a little oneupmanship when it comes to breast vs bottle.

Im definitely off now.

Blandmum · 07/03/2006 19:25

Chicago mum, but are you still slim and intellegent ? Grin

Pruni · 07/03/2006 19:26

Emkana, I don't have a gripe with this thread.
But I DO have a gripe witht he way that scientific data is reported in the press.

Have you read the original research?
I only ask, because a couple of years ago, there was a paper out which was reported as "Bottle-fed babies at greater risk of heart death". I got hold of the original paper, and was utterly shocked that not only were details of the study misreported, but also the authors had gone to the trouble of saying very explicitly that not one of the babies in the study had been breastfed, rather that some were breastmilk fed for four weeks and no longer.
That got turned into a big beat-bottle-feeding-parents-over-the-head-with-a-big-smarmy-stick-fest.

The most any journalist could have said was that feeding your baby breastmilk for the first four weeks might help protect them against heart disease. But since obviously no-one had bothered their arse to read the work, ie do research, do their job, it got very badly skewed.

All I'm saying is that if you are going to trust scientific data, you have to read it itself, not read what some journalist has writte, who has read a press release which was prepared by someone who doesn't understand the data and has skim-read the paper. It's not good enough.

This is nothing to do with anecdote and everything to do with bad journalism leading to misguided conclusions being turned into myths and perpetuated by the pro-b/f lobby. It riles me so much because fgs it's not necessary to get it wrong: I am really willing to believe that if the data were dealt with properly, the advantages would be clear.

turniphead · 07/03/2006 19:26

well, if you were bottlefed chances are you'll wake up 10 ton tomorrow

lockets · 07/03/2006 19:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

turniphead · 07/03/2006 19:27

my comment was to chicagomum

chicagomum · 07/03/2006 19:27

Haven't been slim in a long while (but am determined to work on it - once all the evil chocolate is out the house). ERM intelligent - in some areas yes in others no (a diplomatic response I think).

Original poster
emkana · 07/03/2006 19:27

Point taken, pruni.

OP posts:
HRHQueenOfQuotes · 07/03/2006 19:27

I just don't understand and I never will understand why so many people are willing to find their anecdotal evidence more valid and meaningful than proper scientific studies.

Perhaps because our "anecdotal evidence" could have been part of the scientific research had we been included in the study????

turniphead · 07/03/2006 19:28

thats what I said! Grin

lalaa · 07/03/2006 19:29

i know this thread was started tongue in cheek but i just wanted to say on behalf of someone who was unable to breast feed, that, 3 years on, i still beat myself up about it, that i still overreact and am overanxious about dd's eating habits and that i'm always surprised when i read threads like this that it seems to be concensus that someone has chosen one way or the other, and that no consideration is given to those of us who were unable. maybe it's just my stuff kicking in again, and maybe i should just ignore these sorts of threads, but i think it's worth pointing out how it's different for some of us.

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 07/03/2006 19:29

also it must be said that Emkana herself has admitted she missed the bit about the other thread being about bottlefed babies who were weaned EARLY.

starlover · 07/03/2006 19:29

really? NEVER ill?

hmmm

chicagomum · 07/03/2006 19:29

Actually I was mixed fed (quite rare in the **'s - not givng my age away). So perhaps the malteser goblin will give my hips/bum a break.

Blandmum · 07/03/2006 19:30

But even if that it true QoQ, you cannot sensibly extrapolate from an n of one. The larger the sample, in general, the more reliable the data, because it takes into account things like genetic differences between subjects. Your anecdotal eveidence could be (note could be) totaly spuriour.

Every knows someone who smoked all their life and lived to be 80. But the statistics of large groups shows us that smoking is linked to many diseases that shorten life. An n of one can be totaly misleading

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 07/03/2006 19:30

ooops sorry TH - didn't see that Blush!

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 07/03/2006 19:37

but read the (many) threads on this subject - we're not talking about "ONE" person - we're talking about lots of people posting about MORE than one person - sure that can't all be irrelevant??

What if all these spuriour pieces of anecdotal evidence HAD been included in the research - are you telling me the results would be the same???

According to the article linked to on the other thread - "900" mothers and babies in the study - and I'm presuming that as it has "Avon" as part of the name -many of these came from Bristol - which isn't exactly the most affluent city in this country - and "Research" shows that obesity and other health problems are more common in poorer areas..........

Blandmum · 07/03/2006 19:48

If it is more than one person, then the more people, the less like anaecdote it becomes and the close to a chort which can be analysed statisticaly.

But remember that you still have to account for sampling bias for things like age, class, education, etc etc.

In a good, welll designed, clinical trial or analysis, you would hope to have matched groups, so each group would have a similar profile for everything except the thing you are testing. If you have a large group, it become more likly that differences between the groups is greater than differences within the groups....and you can use statistic to see if this is the case.

It is not that an anecdote must be wring, but of itself you cannot say with certenty if it is right or wrong. With a clinical trial you can say that there is an *% probability that the difference was caused by chance. With anecdote you cannot do this

Blandmum · 07/03/2006 19:49

sorry cohort

Original poster
emkana · 07/03/2006 19:52

just have to be untrue to what I said below to say

thank you martianbishop

OP posts:
SenoraPostrophe · 07/03/2006 19:57

like martianbishop says.

plus there's the mother-guilt-cum-chip-on-shoulder effect. not that anyone on mn suffers from that of course.

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 07/03/2006 19:58

SP - you've lost me with your last comment [totally confused look]

Swipe left for the next trending thread