Breast feeding enthusiasts- answer this question!

[jocesar]

Hi

This is a hypothetical question but I am trying to guage how important bf really is.

OK, which scenario is better for your child?

1. To be bf for up to 2 years but then fed a not particularly healthy diet such as sugary cereal for breakfast, crisps for snacks and ready pepared meals with squash to drink and perhaps an outing to McD's once a week?

or 2. To be formula fed from birth but then fed a healthy mostly fresh produce diet?

Just curious for your answers, I am hoping to bf for 6 months and then hope that my son eats a healthy diet- obviously this is the ideal, but if I only had the two options above i think I would have to plump for 2.

Sorry but I dont think you're going to find out what you want to know from the first scenario.

The first scenario is just not realistic IMO. What mother would bother to breastfeed for 2 years then give their child crap to eat?
None of us just have the 2 options above so what's the point in asking the question?

neither obv

Your scenario makes no sense.

If you want to discover how important breastfeeding is then look for evidence based studies and research into the impact on childrens' health don't pose ridiculous questions on here.

It's a silly question and doesn't actually measure anything about "breast feeding enthusiasts'" attitudes towards breastfeeding.

I am a militant bf and I would do neither
sorry but I dont think you have managed too hit on a good way to gauge what you want to find out

But there aren't only two options available to you, so your question is meaningless and ridiculous.

The risks are not really comparable.

I think I might rather option 1 SO LONG AS the child was active and happy and had a good relationship with food, eating, cooking and their body image.

In my eyes this better than children being induced to be neurotic about their weight, things being organic etc OR eating a 'healthy' diet and still getting fat because they aren't active enough.

BF has long-term benefits we have no idea about, and may in fact protect children from the effects of suboptimal diets later in life, whereas there is a bit of evidence to suggest that the risks of formula can't be ameliorated by the 'healthiness' of the later diet.

If you want to give yourself the best chance of bf success, go to a baby cafe, read some decent books, get the number of your local BFCs, go to as many classes as you can and stay on MN .

But don't a) beat yourself up if it doesn't work out or b) think that giving formula is as good as bf 'because you'll feed him proeprly later'.

Wow guys, don't shoot me down! I did say its a hypothetical question! If the question irritates you, then there's no need to answer it. I'm not trying to annoy people.

Just trying to see what most people think is better for a child.

But it's a silly question and tells you nothing. Neither of those scenarios are relevant to my life or my breastfeeding relationship so answering it would tell you nothing. Why not just ask people who have breastfed what importance they otherwise attach to nutrition and gain a fair picture of true attitudes.

but why do you care 'what most people think'?

there is rock-hard peer-reviewed scientific evidence out there if you look for it - why trust a bunch of amateurs on the internet?

neither

I think most people would think it was best for a child to have the best nutrition possible. It's not always possible for children to be breastfed and where that occurs, formula is an acceptable alternative.
Most people are aware that ready meals and maccy d's are not going to have a good ratio of nutrition to calories/salt/fat/sugar content and people who have chosen to breastfeed for a long time are generally well informed about how to feed their children.

jocesar - are you really so ignorant about food and nutrition that you have to ask either of those 2 questions?

You posed the question in such a way as to only get the answer you want to hear ... I understand your urge - it is due to the unavoidable guilt that a lot of mothers feel (including me) about every little decision they make which may impact their child. If you only want to BF for 6mths then so be it - it is none of our business.

Though if you are planning to start solids at 6mths as per the guidelines and simultaneously give up BFing then that could be a lot for your DC's little digestive system to take on in one hit I would think.

neither.

silly question really.

moderation in all things, a varied diet is just that.

Neither is better for the child, you cannot fail to be aware of that.

And I repeat: the two options you present are not the only options, so hypothetical or not the question is pointless.

What do you actually want to know? If you ask us a question we can give you a reasoned answer to, we will answer it gladly. But this question does not lend itself to a reasoned answer.

the scenarios are like those survey questions they put in mindless magazines.

[takes punt at formulating op's q]

does it matter if I only bf for 6m if I promise to feed him brilliantly afterwards?

ok, so maybe the question i'm trying to ask is what is the relative importance of good nutrition. Is is more important to the childs health to get optimal nutrition in the first year or in later years?

also when women are made to feel bad about ff, does it really matter if they feed their lo's very healthily afterwards

Wondering why mnetters are so easily offended today. This forum has been a huge source of help and advice to me up until now. Quite suprised about how rude peple can be. Surely would be better to ignore my post rather than give a rude reply!

Mrs Badger

I'm proud that i'll be bf my ds for 6 mths. Should I feel bad about not continuing longer than this?