Bottle feeding = 120 Mars bars by 8 months

[MrsDoolittle]

OOoer

Talking about charts - I would be very interested in seeing the new charts - are they available in NHS clinics or somewhere online ?
Could someone with access to these let me know where I can get one please ?

When I was bf-ing DS as a baby, I used an old one from WHO (based on global stats. on bf babies up to 12 months old) on kellymom.com

Not surprisingly he was always only on 9th centile for weight on NHS chart in the red book, but on 25th on WHO chart ! Woooow, what a boost to my confidence !

belgo - I have boobs on the brain

My bf dd is below the charts for weight they usse here in Belgium, but fits nicely onto the new WHO charts that are based on bf babies. Those nurses at the clinic weren't very impressed when I showed them this!

yellow rose, you can download the new charts from here:
www.massbfc.org/news/growthChart.html

or from the WHO website

belgo - I used to love eating at "belgo's" in Covent Garden ! yuuummm - moule with chips !

Thanks a lot - I will download. I remember being armed with my old WHO one every time I went to see my HV (I gave up on seeing her after he was about 3 months old !) and she just dismissed it with "the NHS ones are correct, no need to look at any others".

She huffed and puffed me out of her room when I said I had bought scales to weigh DS at home and didn't see a need to come to weigh DS in surgery any more ! Silly moooooo !

yellowrose - I'm not being funny but 'anecdotal' evidence is not acceptable on these boards (apparently) I've previously posted my own experiences and got shot down in flames in double quick time! (just to bring you up to date though I formula fed all 3 of my children who seem to have sailed through life unscathed - tonsils and adenoids excepted - (and we don't get colds in this family, well rarely anyway!) we do have an excellent genetic line healthwise though soooooo! Also all are slim and all went to University - my youngest is now 30, so I think I can pretty much say there is no cause for alarm) conversely dd's friend bf specifically because they have a family history of eczema, unfortunately her dd is still quite badly affected but of course in another instance things may be reversed and that is why no-one listens to anything other than scientific data (the fact that the data comes from US seems irrelevant!)

I posted this a while ago

"I'm still looking for all the data that says babies are at risk from xy and z as a direct result of ff.

I'd love to see when the research was done, how many babies were involved, how many ff against bf babies developed certain conditions, if genetics/lifestyle were included in the research etc, etc."

Add to that I'd like to see the research that says 'x' amount of adults who developed 'y' disease did so as a direct result of being formula fed.

Convince me!

I'm afraid 'Charts' leave me cold, they are more of hindrance than a help imho.

Joolstoo, there is a lot of research which answers the very questions you pose, and I have posted many links myself in the past. There are many studies of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of babies, and lifestyle has to be included in the research in some way (by making sure your comparative samples have only one difference between them - the way they are fed). I can't think how genetics would be looked at in a way that satisfied you, though.

I can't be arsed to convince you, frankly - the question of whether infant nutrition matters in the short and the long term (and matters a lot to some babies) is so uncontroversial. Your own kids are ok. Why are you so bothered about it?

I would add that the upper respiratory tract infections that lead to tonsillectomy and removal of adenoids are much commoner in formula fed babies, though, so maybe your kids were affected. Who knows?

I'd add that I'm one of four, none of whom were breastfed for more than a very short time indeed (mother got terrible bf support) and we are all slim, university-educated and healthy, and with kids of our own....all of whom were breastfed, as it happens!

But a small sample means nothing, as we often explain on these boards.

Jools, if you want some fairly rigorous research which takes other lifestyle factors into account, the BMJ website is unbiased, non-sensationalised and comes up with relevant stuff if you search for 'breastfeeding'.

The evidence is there (as someone said,we all know breast is best) but the figures put it all into perspective.

The banging-people-over-the-head-with-a-blunt- -object-repeatedly campaigning tactic might get some results with formula companies and the nhs but it's going to alienate a lot of the mums that breatfeeders are trying to reach.

thank you pointy-dog - there's a lot to look at!

I have just read (and any worried ff mums may be relieved to see ...)

"Breast feeding and obesity -
The evidence regarding its effect on obesity is inconclusive"

I will look at more when I have the time.
Thanks again.

As a caveat may I state (again) that I do NOT contest that breast is best.

Oh, that's ok - I have time on my hands this week! Not that I'm planning to read any more of it. And I saw that 'inconclusive' bit too.

It's not worth worrying about. A lot of women in the UK seem to be brought up to hate breastfeeding and their breasts and all that stuff which is a shame and others don't like it or can't manage it. It's not worth beating yourself up over what is best and what isn't. I am convinced over all breast is best and I was lucky enough to enjoy it but it's not a huge difference in individual cases, just overall so not really worth getting concerned about. Yes, thanks for posting the new charts. The old ones were not helpful for breastfeeding mothers because they were based on bottle fed babies so we were often told our children weren't big enough whereas in fact they were and it was the bottle fed bigger ones who had the problem. Remember all those old fashioned bonny baby competition - fat equal good view which of course is true when a nation is starving. I was amazed to learn last week that more people on this planet are not obese than underweight through lack of food.

Joolstoo - I agree by the way that anecdotes are like someone else said here with respect to opinions "like a**holes, every one has one !" - brilliant line !

That is why I go for the research. Of course research as with statistics can be very very selectively PICKED to back up ones arguments !

But none of the posters here who have said anything about the advantages of long-term bf are talking anecdotes nor being selective in their references.

I am afraid I just don't agree that ff babies are AS healthy as bf babies nor do I agree that they are healthier in the long term. If I had had this personal view I would have formula fed.

I used to work for a cancer org. here in London and there is 100% reliable research that indicates the ability of components in breastmilk to kill cancer cells (both in mother and baby).

This does NOT mean that ALL bf mums/babes stay cancer free. Cancer researchers would be out of work if that were the case ! Cancers are caused by all sorts of complicated things including environmental factors, so bf can not protect against every single eventuallity, what it can do is REDUCE mums/babes RISK of getting cancer and other serious diseases.

I am not trying to convince you, just stating things that are now considered non-controversial in the medical world.

Xenia - yes, if all the fatties gave some of their food to those starving many of the world's health problems would be massively reduced !

I am including myself in the fatties group, excuse me while I munch away on a packet of crisps and can of coke (diet coke, thanks !)

Xenia - 'old' charts are not based on bottle fed babies, at least not in the UK.

I won't go into detail as this is a hobby horse of mine and I have posted before!

But changing the charts in the UK will have no effect on bf support at all (at least not for the first months).

The problem is with the UK chart's interpretation not with the data.

I wonder how they worked out that a formula fed baby gets 30,000 more calories than a breast fed baby????

Also, isn't 30,000 calories also the equivalent of 750 apples? The slant of the article makes it sound as though formula feeders are feeding their babies pureed Mars Bars. Any valid pro breast feeding point is lost in the stupidity of the article.

True, charts will not change bf rates for the better.

The old and I gather the new charts are given out by the NHS like candy - no proper info. given on how to use them and the poor, struggling mother of a bf baby gets palpitations every time she looks at the damned things.

But then I guess the mv/hv/gp's who give them out don't really know what any of the charts mean either, they just assume they are god-given curves that the baby has to follow otherwise, if too low on the charts they recommend formula ?

Platypus - yes but that is still 750 MORE apples than a breastfed baby

Oh the charts are a load of rubbish. Exclusively breastfed BabyDragon has been on 91st percentile since birth. As were her big brothers.

ds is also a big boy, dorn on 75th, up to 91st at 8 weeks, now back down to 75th as weight gain has slowed right down to about 4oz a week.

I assume the charts were originally thought up to keep a check on those babies who weren't 'thriving' as expected? Instead they have become something that people obsess over
( including me)! I wish they didn't exist.
It is obvious most of the time whether a baby is healthy. You don't need a dot on a line to tell you that. I am expecting another in March, will I be given a book with the new charts then? Will I understand them?!!!

They're ok to understand, but TBH I don't take too much notice of those charts anyway!

I look at my little boy and see he's healthy and happy and thriving. Thats good enough for me - all these stats drive me mad!!!

Surely a major point of this article is to highlight another issue that the government and society, if they're serious about addressing obesity etc., should be addressing, given that infant feeding seems to be considered to be linked to the problem? Surely it's nothing to do with comparing choices from the parents point of view, or criticising parents, but to do with highlighting infant feeding as just one issue in the huge subject of how and what children eat. I thought the point of the mars bar analogy was that if we (as a society) are worried about the calories in extra mars bars in older children (i.e. in junk food), we should also be considering the different calories in baby milks, breast and formula. In that context the analogy makes perfect sense - you're trying to use the same unit of measurement for the calories in the two different situations, if you like. If you were relating infant feeding to the issue of calories from fruit at later ages, then it might make sense to give the formula calories in units of 'apples' or whatever, but that's not the issue that's being talked about is it?

Not every article about breastfeeding or formula feeding is rehashing a BF v. FF debate and trying to prove one wins - there are interesting ways in which infant feeding fits into much wider issues and I'd agree with the author that this is one of them.