anyone ever wondered how benefical bf actually is?

[robinredbreast]

i mean i know the nhs info says helps reduce the chances of say diabetes for example
but they information never states by how much

like never says reduces the chance of getting asthma by 20 %

because if the chances are v v v small like less than 1%
it would be v interesting to know

i know there is lots of other benefits before but all kill me
but im talking about purely health benefits for baby

Cool, this will do, there isn't anything on tele >

I don't think they could quantify it like that though, it just wouldn't be possible without testing on human clones!
It's like eating fruit and veg makes you healthier, but you don't know how healthy you would be without it IYSWIM.

why does the benefit have to be scientifically and accurately qunatifiable? if it is better, it is better, whether by 0.5 % or 100 %

it would be exceptionally difficult to accurately quantify as you;d have to take into account how long the child was BF for, the family medical history, where they live and all sorts of other huge factors

Does it really matter? It is natural, there are benefits, regardless of the %.

I have no idea the difference smoking 1 cigarette makes to smoking none, but none is still the best option.

breastfeeding has no benefits. it is the normal way babies are supposed to be fed.

i did however like that dd only pooed once a week for a few months and that the poo never reeked.

and that i can still pop her on my norks when she needs a snack when we are out and about.

breastfeeding has no benefits? eh? don;t quite understand

it has benefits at least in comparison to formula feeding or giving cows milk, no?

Plus it would be increadibly unethical to quantify by research as it is a known beneficial act.

For me it wouldn't matter the percentage. I wanted the closeness, the bond with my baby etc. Obviously the health benefits were a bonus but even if there were no differences between b/f and f/f I would still have tried to b/f and as it's natural I believe it is best.

*However! I am not against f/f dd2 is 13 wks and has just went on to f/f for various reasons. dd1 was exclusively b/f for 7mths.

lulu I think the point was that if breastfeeding is the physiological norm then it can't be said to have 'benefits' - it should be phrased that not bfing has risks.

it doesn't have any benefits. it should the standard by which other feeding methods are measured. to speak of bf as having 'benefits' is to portray another feeding method as the norm.

i see MrsB
but surely that in itself means that it is inherently beneficial as mother nature has designed this to be the best way to feed your infant?

surely the fact it has benefits makes it stand out as the norm, with everything else compared to BF rather than something else being the norm?

bf is the norm because that is the way babies and mothers evolved, not because of what we have done in this society.

But the very definition of a norm is that it doesn't stand out

I agree with Kis

fine, i wasn;t disagreeing, i was trying to understand the point !

I have never thought to qestion it TBH,And THAT is really bad.
i jst took it for granted that it was good because of research blah blah blah,
it was a decision i made early on in my pregnancy and felt right for me so i did it.
you are right to question, i think that it is probably very important to question and not just accept things as they are.

Lulumama - everything is relative and there are obviously health benefits regardless of % Again it depends on too many factors to quantify it like that. i.e. you could have a breast fed baby who is given poor nutrition after the weaning phase and alternatively a ff baby who is given excellent nutrition after this, so which factor causes obesity for example? Is it the ff or poor nutrition? If both children are obese. Or is it genetic?
It is well known that mothers who have asthma or eczma are more likely to have a baby with these conditions, bf may help but the percentage difference will not always be the same.

i know tori, that is kind of what i said in my first post.. was trying to get my head round what kiskidee said.. which i understand now !

Was it some figures like this that you were looking for, robin?

for instance it states that

"Breastfeeding your baby exclusively to four months and beyond reduced the risk of a child developing asthma by 28%."

I agree for what it's worth about formula feeding carrying risks rather than breastfeeding being protective. However the page I have linked to gives the answers as robin has asked for them - expressed as percentage of risk reduced by breastfeeding

hi f and z yes thats just what i was after
v intresting

After posting I read it and found there were not too many more specific stats like that, but it did at least answer the asthma question

you know if it was only protective in terms of less than 1 %, they wouldn't be able to measure it / prove it. Breastfeeding does have a hugely beneficial result for the mother and the baby - or rather, formula feeding does carry risks and negative effects.

The nature of the health benefits that breastfeeding provides risks that formula presents to babies, is such that it's very hard to come up with a single accurate difference statistic for any type of health issue (leukemia, diabetes, gastro-enteritis, tooth decay, whatever). Because genetics, environmental and lifestyle factors play a big part, too - plus even how long a baby is breastfed for and whether they got colustrum,e tc. So you would need massive studies to maybe come up with the definitive answers RobinRB is asking about.

Easier to say something descriptive, like relatively big jump in risk for tummy bugs and leukemia for FF babies, and relatively small but generally consistent rise in risk for many other things.