Still being subjected to the cow and gate ad.

[LookingForwardToSummer]

Grrrrr. It's so annoying! Is there nothing we can do?

I don't think you can assume that when women answered "so someone else can feed my baby", they all meant "it is more convenient for me". Big problem with questionnaires of this type IMO.

"Is FF convenient? "

Yes. If you can get someone else to do it for you.

Sabire smoking in pregnancy and ffeeding are 2 completely different things 1 poisons babies the other feeds and nourishes them. To use that analogy was awful and I'm appalled that you can't see that.

TFM - absolutely. It could help with exhaustion, bonding (because DH has been away fighting in Afghanistan for 9 months or working night shifts) and many other issues.

TheFallenMadonna,

But it is fair to point out that many women who ff on this board have said that they prefer not to breastfeed because it is too time consuming and that they don't have time to sit about feeding a newborn all day? If you trawl back through the many threads on this board that discuss this issue you'll see many comments of this sort.

I think the 'so someone else can feed my baby' IS actually USUALLY (not always but usually) about convenience. We're not talking about women having to go back to work and having to hand their baby over to someone else to care for. The question on the survey I mentioned examines why women chose to initiate or not initiate breastfeeding. It asks questions later as to why women STOP breastfeeding, which is a different issue.

Sabire was not comparing ff to smoking.

She was comparing the argument based entirely on anecdote that one hears put forward regarding smoking - "My grandad smoked 40 a day and lived 'til he were 734" - to that that one hears regarding ff.

The point she was making was that both arguments are flawed and are not based on evidence. Not that ff is in any way similar to smoking.

Good grief - you need to get a serious grip on reality. Not to mention comprehension.

Niceshoes has nothing in her armoury except derisory ineffectual and factless comments regarding tiktok. She's firing blanks. Does she know this?

As for evil formula feeding mothers. They dont exist. Well, unless Rose West happened to use formula? But she'd not be evil because she used formula. Tis but a mere coincidence.

So, yes, back to the point. These pathetically stupid formula companies who earn millions in profit are so pathetically stupid that they spend so much of their well-earned profit on marketing even though it doesnt work at all. How stupid are they, huh? Us clever mums all know better, huh? I mean, how ridiculous to fund a high-profile television ad campaign to try and attempt to fool us clever parents into trying something with our babies that we Just Dont Need. hahahahahahahahaha, more fool them I say. I mean, we're going to use the stuff anyway, arent we? Because we have an explicit need for it, dont we?

anyone ever thought of turning the tv over?

Feeding ones baby(when it's a happy experience) is one of the things most new mothers enjoy the most. No mother wants somebody else to do it for convenience-what planet are you on!!!!!

I had twins so physically needed dp to feed one so I could do the other( and don't lecture me on tandem feeding tried it it was crap). I then had dd when they were 15 months I needed some help then too when they were chewing at my ankles.

I found it very upsetting that I couldn't do every feed. I didn't "get" somebody else to do it for convenience but because I needed help, they were hungry and ill thanks to breast feeding., I was in agony and physically and mentally could do no more.

In the real world there are plenty more mothers like me-I can assure you.

BF mums can turn the TV over - but they can't turn it off - as they are sitting around on the sofa all day feeding their babies.

What would be the point of that nancy? Everything would be upside down then, wouldn't it?

Although that might turn it into an implicit need.......

turning the tv over (well, if we had a remote, seeing as dd has put it somewhere) is of course one option. another is to try to change the situation.

milamae - I can see this heading towards personal anecdote central but 'convenience' is a perfectly valid and often cited reason for wanting to ff imo. are you saying that mums should only give formula if they are physically incapable of bf?

"Sabire smoking in pregnancy and ffeeding are 2 completely different things 1 poisons babies the other feeds and nourishes them. To use that analogy was awful and I'm appalled that you can't see that"

Long sigh.

The reason I used that analogy was this: to make the point that the health effects of the choices we make are not always obvious to us as individuals.

Human health and illness is complex and there tends not to be an obvious cause and affect relationship between what we eat/drink/smoke/do and the outcomes in terms of health.

Many more women used to smoke in pregnancy than do now (all though even now one in five women smoke throughout pregnancy). In the past women were not told that smoking in pregnancy harmed their baby because scientists were not aware of the links between prenatal tobacco exposure and stillbirth/SIDS/low birthweight. Mothers themselves were unable to make the connection because, like with formula, there is no obvious cause and affect relationship between prenatal smoking and poor pregnancy outcomes: most babies born to smokers are healthy and of normal birthweight.

Can you not see the similarities? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

"the other feeds and nourishes them"

Yes - unless they are part of the infant population that is damaged by lack of breastfeeding: the research tells us that some babies go on to develop diabetes from exposure to cows milk formula in infancy, and that they're more likely to die from SIDS (go to the FSID website to find out more on this). Not to forget the many thousands of babies in the UK who are admitted to hospital suffering from gastro-enteritis or respitory illness.

I'm sorry MilaMae - you don't have to accept the research findings on the health risks of artificial feeding (though I'd respect your views a bit more if you actually knew anything about what the medical literature actually says about this issue), but you have to stop being so condemnatory of people like me who HAVE read it and researched it and have taken it seriously.

I'm not making these things up to make you feel bad: the concept that there are health risks to artificial feeding is common currency among those people who are engaged with this subject in a professional capacity. You really should ask yourself why, when every single hospital in the country will have as part of its infant feeding policy that 'all parents should be informed of the risks of artificial feeding' how it is that so many mothers like yourself believe that choosing not to breastfeed can never disadvantage a child in any significant way......

No I'm not I'm just trying to illustrate how fraught many new mums are, the vast majority of which just want to do their best.

It is unfair to infer that many of us do it just for convenience sake. Convenience is an unfair word to use and yet again another example of how negatively ffeeding mums are portrayed. There are many many reasons why ffeeding mums do it, to lump many of those under the convienience umbrella is unfair.

Wanted to add Milamae- that nobody is condemning YOU personally for the choices you made. We all love our babies equally, and we all do the best we can based on what we know and what we are able to do.

Cross posted

But did apologise for the 'convenience' remark and admitted that there are many other reasons why women choose to ff.

I know that Sabire

Cross post.

You're right and I appreciate that.

Don't know about you but I'm off to bed, will more than likely be having a 7am start

no-one is condemning anyone for their parenting choices....it's the money grabbing law flouting formula manufacturers that are being condemned...always has been on threads like this, always will be.

Research findings are exactly that: findings, not definite science.

Respitory/Gastro/Diabetes can be caused by many other factors - many of them sociological, rather than physiological.

.

"Research findings are exactly that: findings, not definite science."

Sorry - but that sentence is completely meaningless.

How do you think medical researchers discover the links between lifestyle choices and disease? By doing lab experiments?

A most of what we know about the links between lifestyle factors and higher rates of certain diseases is discovered through the use of epidemiological research.

"Respitory/Gastro/Diabetes can be caused by many other factors - many of them sociological, rather than physiological"

And if you knew anything about research into infant feeding you'd understand that the impact of social factors is taken into account when studies are designed - in other words they are 'controlled' for.

Please - just go and do some reading.

I think you will find I am right in what I say - you are just very blinkered.

'If I knew anything about research into infant feeding' - interesting, and a very sweeping statement. You have absolutely no idea what I do - and what expertise I hold.

Just have to add, that there are no controls for life style, if you knew anything about science you would know that any questionnaire that accompanies or is wholly a scientific experiment is always known to be flawed because people lie, and also people believe one thing to be healthy, and another believes another. Unless you are suggesting that a person is kept in complete isolation from birth to adulthood, and every ounce of food, life, air, emotions are controlled and recorded!

Also all scientific data is covered in out liars (not the kind that dont tell the truth the kind that dont fit) and are removed so's not to disrupt findings, this in itself is enough to discredit your statement about social factors are taken into account, but it all depends on what you believe, you want to believe the findings as being correct then fine, but I could pick holes in it and discredit it, thats science it evolves, and it is flawed.

Please go and do some reading!

Sorry - right about what?

That epidemiological research isn't 'scientific'?

Or that a range of social factors need to be taken into account when you're assessing the impact of infant feeding?

I'm quite happy to say where I get my information from on breast and bottlefeeding: I read widely around this subject, including up to date midwifery textbooks and specialist journals and texts. I've also attended training in understanding the research on which the current government recommendations on infant feeding are based.

Where do you get your information from on infant feeding?