who *isn't* ashamed to admit using formula?

[LookingForwardToSummer]

feeling crap after reading the 'exclusive breastfeeding' thread! i find bf really hard and have set myself the target of 5 months, i intend to feel very proud that i went that long and then use formula happily! i can't be the only one! all the stats show low bf rates - so where is everyone?

i just can't imagine going through what i went through first time, with another child in tow. that's why i think i have to make my peace with what may or may not happen in advance.
and it wasn't an olive branch , that's been my position all along, i've never deviated from it.

No no - you've capitulated.

lol, are you on drugs?

Ah. Good old semantics.

It's current until such time that further research replaces it. Then that further research will be the current. Does that help?

Until such time as studies have finished, and they take quite some time and with such things are also often ongoing, we go by what we have discovered already.

Since formula manufacturers arent keen to divulge the exact content of their formulas it's difficult to know if they are better or worse than they were. Which is even more reason to not allow them to promote their "fab, brand-spanking new ingredients that are purportedly like (but not the same as) some ingredients in b/milk which are said to help development of brain, eyes, immune system etc."

Formula is an adequate substitute. But, it isnt and never will be breastmilk - natures own invention.

To imply that lack of recent evidence of effects of formula makes any previous research less worthy is a foolhardy exercise, and one without an awful lot of relevance, IMO.

As an aside, apparently there is research going on to determine the necessity of dairy products in our diet, and, whether in fact it causes other health issues (allergies, IBS, Crohns etc) in adults and older children. Must have a look for that link.

Aitch, stop bowing at my feet, for goodness sake - you are in the way and I need to climb up to my pulpit (see other thread).

Hero worship is sooooooooo inconvenient for the hero

No - I prefer my fans to kiss my arse, not lick my boots

i don't hero worship you, dearest tiktok, but i do reserve the right to think you know more about this subject than someone who admits they don't know very much but is picking holes for sport.

Still no-one who can help me on the 'is it better to feed a baby less, but exclusively breastmilk, or run the 'risk' of formula and have them develop at a relatively normal rate?'

To be specific, so we don't get into any hairsplitting, I'm talking about say, allowing a baby to fall from above the 50th centile at birth to below the second, and then allow it to continue along the second, while giving other indications such as crying and feeding very frequently.

I think the latest research is pointing to the fact that it is a bad thing for babies not to have optimum nourishment, in terms of amount as well as quality.

well in my case i took the decision that it was better to top-up as my scarce milk alone was causing dd to become ill, and the medics were absolutely firm that it was the only course of action to take so i'd presume (perhaps wrongly) that would be backed up by some research.
why, is there data out there suggesting otherwise?

I was only talking from my own experience, that bf contributed to my PND with dd1 because it made me truely miserable and dd1 was never satisfied and was completely unsettled as a result. As you know i am now bf dd2 and am happy doing it because she is satisfied by bf. The only point is that each child is different and just because nutritionally bf is the best thing, it isn't necessarily best psychologically. Each circumstance is different. I just don't like people being berated for ff and made to feel like it is the food of the devil, even though I am bf I am not against ff.

where is it written that formula is the food of the devil, tori? i think people see things that aren't there, tbh.

No one can give a general answer, a one size fits all, response to you, red.

Weight is only one part of a health assessment. It may be that a drop even of this unusual size is physiological for that baby - each baby would have to be checked out for other signs all was not well. Crying and feeding frequently don't mean much. A baby who was miserable (despite frequent feeding), or showed other signs all was not well, and who did not improve even with more access to breastfeeding, might well need a formula supplement, and it would be a judgement call how much and when.

There is a lot of work needed to be done to help professionals and parents make a good decision in these cases. Artificially 'making' babies bigger than they ought to be is not good!

It's like any other clinical intervention, really - tailor make it to the individual baby.

I understand, tori, but your first post did not make it clear at all you were talking 'from your own experience'.

No, Aitch, what I meant was a less extreme scenario where the baby is not in immediate danger - the undernourishment is only seen it the behaviour or the charts, not actual illness.

What I mean is, what differentiates a baby who drops through the centiles due to low bm supply, but the mother is encouraged to continue exclusively bfing, and a baby who exhibits exactly the same type of weight retardation but in the womb, which is acknowledged to be a bad thing, with longterm repercussions for health?

Why is it ok for a baby to not gain well once it's outside the womb? What fundamental difference is there beween say 39 weeks and 43 weeks?

Exactly Tiktok! And why is it that people think it's ok to give tell mothers to ignore hv's advice to supplement. That in no way fits with what you've just said. As a BFC, do you think that advice is appropriate?

dunno red, it seems to me unlikely from what i've read on here and ime, that a mother whose baby was falling through the centiles would be encouraged to keep exclusively bfing. quite the opposite, tbh, i see people on here all the time getting pressured to top up when they don't want to.
so it seems like your example is a particularly arcane one, and therefore as tiktok suggests, that these things should be better dealt with on a case by case basis.

I just think women need support and help antenatally and postnatally to breastfeed - I just don't think threads like this are helpful, they end up being so negative, and sometimes upsetting. think it would be better to concentrate on the positives of breastfeeding really.

actually, red, i've never done that and i know for a fact that tiktok is rigorous about babies falling through centiles being worthy of investigation, because i've seen her say it many times. but an hv going off a chart (possibly the wrong chart) isn't further investigation.

very true, dinny, this whole thread was started from a bogus position in any case.

red - many HCPs - I mean many - will tell a mother to supplement without doing the careful assessment I have described. They also tell a mother to supplement without informing her that this intervention has risks, and may affect her long-term choice to breastfeed.

Heck, many of them tell mothers to do this without even suggesting she breastfeeds more often, or uses breast compression, or 'switch nurse' (going from breast to breast and back again several times), or expressing and supp'ing with ebm....they suggest supplementing with formula at the drop of at hat when many babies either i) do not need it or ii) have not tried improving the breastfeeding first.

Personally, I don't tell mothers what to do, in real life or on here. I do suggest they speak to the HCP who has told them to supplement and discuss fixing the breastfeeding, or feeding more often, or whatever, or ask more detail of the HCP if the reason for supplementing is not clear.

It is very common for babies to be supplemented unnecessarily,

I have never, ever told anyone to 'ignore' what the HV says (unless it is truly preposterous, and sometimes it is!).

The research on IUGR (pre-birth poor weight gain) is a different clinical area than post-natal weight gain - most babies with faltering growth postnatally are actually just fine, and the risk is that you intervene unnecessarily and mess things up (not to mention the parents' confidence). I think the study I read recently said it's only 5 per cent of babies who present at hospital level with faltering growth actually have anything 'wrong' - they just recover spontaneously with no ill effects. Obviously, you need to be able to spot that 5 per cent, and not worry the bejabers out of the other 95 per cent...and treat them, if at all, by watchful waiting in the community without sending them to the paeds.

I disagree that my example is an arcane one. There are loads of women in that position posting on here. it happened to me and other people I saw at the HV clinic.

I'm also not saying that Tiktok says that (read my lips ), BUT I do think that as she is the resident expert I am entitled to ask her opinion.

Happy to answer your Qs, red...have my answers helped?

Actually, when this thread started it was I believe more of a tongue in cheek response to that very long (and not at all smug) thread about "Our kids have never had formula. Aren't we all great?" It's all the people that took it so seriously that were bogus imo!

aitch - thread was not bogus. please read op - it was what i thought. most women use formula at some point and i wanted to hear from them in a friendly way. why is that a problem?

i shouldn't think that there is a woman in the uk who doesn't know that bf is nutritionally best - but that's not the whole story!! life is complicated - and can be very hard.

Also shocked at your aggresive language - is that how you speak to people in real life? think you should appologise.