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?

With due respect, I'm not talking about the HVs who err the other way.

My baby was as far as I know healthy, she had nothing wrong that neede investigating - she just wasn't getting enough nourishment to gain at a normal rate. I don't really want to talk about babies with anything wrong, or faltering growth for any other reason than simple undernourishment. Can you talk about that please. (Not getting shirty -just running out of time here.)

Sorry X post..

Well maybe a bit shirty but have a splitting headache from too much pc time.

Redadmiral, women have posted on here in the past worried about their babies because HVs have told them that they are underweight because they're below the 50th centile.

People have also posted worried because their HV has told them that their child is at risk of obesity and to cut back feeds because their baby is on th 98th centile, when the baby is on the same centile for height.

If you look you'll also find posts where HVs advise top-ups on the basis of slow (but steady) weight gain.

puppy - yes, some people are a bit too serious!! and there is no need for nastiness. thinking about starting a new thread "i give up bf 'coz i wanted to drink champagne every day".

redadmiral,
Two of my babies have gone down from above the 99th to below the 50th centile during the first year, while being (more or less)exclusively breastfed. I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes during my second pregnancy,but only by complete chance while being investigated for something unrelated. I never had sugar in my urine so it wasn't picked up during routine antenatal appointments. All my babies have been 9lbs + at birth, though DH and I have small frames are of average height (actually below average in DH's case). I'm convinced that I had borderline glucose intolerance during my first pregancy that wasn't picked up, and I suspect this is actually quite common. My babies have gradually assumed their 'natural' weights over the first year of their lives, having put on too much weight while in the womb. Both dd and ds1 are now average weight and height. The only one of mine who has gone up through during the first few months was my third. He was the smallest of my three (at 9lbs 3oz) after I followed a very rigid diet during pregnancy to lower my blood sugar. He is by far the biggest of the three children now and the only one of above average height.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that my babies have all fed frequently and have (apart from one baby) gone down through the centiles. They were all exceptionally healthy and robust.

Going down through centiles and frequent feeding were not an indication in their case that they were receiving inadequate nutrition - as Tiktok says - this is one of those situations you have to tackle individually.

i doubt they'd have had the opportunity to fall so sharply without being pressurised into topping up, redadmiral. i can't think of a single example i've ever seen on MN where a child has been falling through the centiles and the mother has been pressurised to keep exclusively bfing. as i said, quite the opposite. were you and the other women you speak of pressurised to keep exclusively bfing? this sounds like an unusual surgery, tbh.

Ne'ermind LFTS - it made me smile!

aitch - i posted on here about my friend whose baby ended up dehydrated and on a drip as mw had told my friend not to use formula. thank goodness friend phoned gp; an ambulance trip and 5 days in hospital saved her baby's life but it was a close run thing. so yes, there is lots of pressure to bf.

Fair point, and I have heard about that, though it wasn't to the best of my knowledge an issue for me, and my glucose tests were all normal.
Ther are all sorts of reasons that a baby may not make the gains one might expect after birth, but there is also the fact that they do so because they are simple not getting enough food, and no amount of breast compression or baby moons or fenugreek can improve the supply. I realise that this is an uncomfprtable point for pro bfers.

it was bogus because you extrapolated from people feeling proud of bfing (as they bloody well should and i wish i was one of them) that conversely people who don't must be feeling ashamed. in fact, your OP suggests they were actually hiding... not true, they just couldn't join in on a thread that was specifically for people who haven't given their child formula.

i think that other thread was fine, you know, as i said it stung me a bit because i didn't manage to anywhere near exclusively bf dd, but that doesn't mean that it was an unreasonable OP or thread. it was just one of those ones that i didn't post on. i don't get why people on here think that everything is about them...

OK, red, then a baby who just seems to be 'not getting enough nourishment' (but is not actually ill) should still be assessed. Is there a hidden organic reason why she is gaining slowly (heart defect, lack of muscle tone leading to poor feeding technique, tongue tie)? When that is ruled out, is the mother feeding often enough? has the mother tried scheduling the baby and has therefore reduced the baby's access to the breast? Is she feeding on one side only at a time? is the baby a using dummy and bf less as a result?

In other words, can we increase the baby's intake of breastmilk in some easy, non-interventionist way?

And how accurate is the weighing? There are papers which show how innaccurate this can be (scales, operator, mis-reading etc ). Is the chart used an appropriate one (after 5-6 mths, standard UK charts are misleading)?

Also, does this baby need to be supplemented now, and if so, can it be with ebm?

All this is so rarely done, and yet the world agrees it is good practice and evidence-based!

We actually don't know if there is a cut-off point in time (how many weeks) or place (the dot on the graph) a baby has to be before you must supplement - this is a judgement call.

You want me to say, 'yes, of course, when a baby has fallen x lines for y weeks, he has to have formula'....and it would be wrong to say it. 'Cos babies, and life, and feeding don't work like that.

LFTS, how old was the child? redadmiral is not talking about small babies, so far as i'm aware.

Aitch - nto being nasty at all, but you don't seem to get my posts. I may well be very unclear, but I kind of menat the opposite of what you are asking. I don't reallyknow what you mean. One HV said top up, one said keep going - both were fine, TBH, but the two or three BFCs I spoke to said that formula was 'risky' and as a result of that I was too nervous to top up when I now believe I should have done weeks before. Whether you think it's pressure only from hvs and gps, my experience was not so subtle pressure applied to my maternal fears by qualified BFCS!

And I see the same 'pressure' or support call it what you will on here. Not from posters here AFAIK.

red, "I realise that this is an uncomfortable point for pro bfers." - eh? Not for me! Or for most properly trained breastfeeding counsellors! Of course we realise that for some people and some babies, excl breastfeeding may not work well enough, no matter what the mum does - you talk as if we have to worship bf as infallible or something....

If you have issues with what you did with your baby, then they have nothing to do with me!

"By redadmiral on Fri 02-May-08 14:14:40
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."

yep, as i thought she's explicitly not talking about children who are in immediate danger such as your friend's child and my dd. perhaps you're still reeling from the shock that i told someone who was being rude and snidey to me to fuck off earlier on and that's why you missed that pertinent fact?

The "ashamed" bit was the tongue in cheek bit though, I think Aitch. And the OP wanted to start a thread that us others could join in in a v.lighthearted way!

And as for some people thinking everything is about them... well bloody hell, there's none of that going on elsewhere in MN is there?

LFTS, you're describing disgraceful postnatal care, not breastfeeding per se.

Thanks Tiktok. that's much clearer. Hit the nail on the head.

Got to go....

aitch - the other thread title didn't sound like it was just for bfers, i though it was going to be a survey of had and who hadn't used formula. so it surprised that most of the posters hadn't used formula when actually most mothers do. at the moment i am bf (and happy that i am able to) but i will change to formula.

Xposts - no criticasm of your conduct on here TT - hope you didn't see it as such.

Aitch, again, I don't ghet youur posyt on ffirst reading. I was taliking about newborn to first couple of months if that helps.

You have completely lost me re the 'fuck off' comment, but I'm suer we were just talking at xpurposes - again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

red - I tell mothers that using formula to top up has risks - why wouldn't I? I don't do it as a finger wagging exercise or with a doom laden voice, I tell her so she knows what the issues are.

Topping up with formula has health risks, and it also risks reducing the length of time the mother breastfeeds for, so she ends up stopping bf before she planned to.

This is the evidence-based scenario I explain to them. They sure as eggs will not have been told this by the HV who told them to top up.

We then discuss the risks of not topping up - that the baby may continue to gain weight very slowly/hardly at all, and what this might mean to her and her feelings about it all (confidence, guilt, whatever) and whether she would be happier if the baby did gain more (given we are not talking about a sick baby here) - formula might make things feel better, and if she does give formula, then we can talk about ways of minimising the risks with it.

But to talk about risk is not to put pressure on a mother - for goodness sake, it's a grown up discussion, between equals.

yes - aitch i am reeling in shock! nobody was being snidey to you, you just weren't listening to them.

but in what way 'risky', redadmiral? risky to your continuing supply? it almost certainly would have been, but you just have to make your mind up as to what you think the benefits would be of introducing formula.

it may be that you made the wrong decision but i don't think anyone can take that maternal responsibility away from you, tbh, you just have to weigh up the info you get (medics, HVs, BFCs, the lot) and try to make the best decision at the time.

so you wish you'd started topping-up earlier, like one of your HVs suggested? well, you didn't, so there you go. you could have done. plenty of women have been undermined by HVs and wish they hadn't been, you feel you were undermined (in a way) by your BFCs and wish you hadn't been, all this does is confirm that there aren't any black and white answers.

although for me, everyone said my bfing was rubbish, so there wasn't much to be done apart from mix-feed, lol. but i wish i'd been given better support and domperidone earlier, i wish i hadn't had PCOS and a failed epidural, morphine top-ups that made me sick and dd sleepy and beta-blockers. but if wishes were horses... all i can do is inform myself and hope that it'll be different next time.

puppy - you have a sense of humour well above the 50th centile - you must have had excellent milk as a baby!