If you have an arsey comment about breastfeeding

[SunglassesPolarBear]

come and say it here please, let's get them all out in the open and in one place.
So far today I have seen a comment along the lines of "don't know why you bothered" to someone who was please to have reached 6 months of excl bf, and an incredibly rude and unhelpful comment on a thread started by a woman who was worried that her supply would be affected by her DH giving their 10 day old a bottle of formula. Snotty comments (whether to bfers or ffers) are NOT WELCOME on those sorts of threads, so go on, offload here.

Oh, before we start, some myths I'd like to bust:

• Improved health outcomes of bf babies are not down to social class - that has been accounted for
• People bfing past 3 weeks / 6 months / a year are not doing it just for their own sakes
• It's not only OK to bf in public "if it's done discreetly"

erm..sure more will come up

gabygirl, maybe you would be so very kind to link to the research. I have searched and unable to find it. Mind you, I am unable to find the 3 studies I remember reading when this was pointed out to me before on MN.
I can't find that old thread either.
I do remember reading 3 studies. One of them in Sweden, I think. The study was of young children, under 7 I guess, with early onset type 1 diabetes.
Not type 2 which is obviously a totally different kettle of fish.
But none of the 3 studies, I felt, gave a significant proof, i.e 55%...... this proves that formula etc etc.
It was interesting, but inconclusive, I felt.
And believe me I am fascinated with anyone being able to provide me with a reason for my early onset of diabetes, so I was looking / hoping for the proof.
Forgive my ignorance if things have moved on adn the evidence is now overwhelming. Please enlighten me.

Oblomov, Hope this helps you
Link to Risks of Formula Leaflet with references

Summary of my link

Study one "concluded that breastfeeding for the first four months prevented the production of antibodies and could have a preventive effect on the development of Type 1 diabetes."

Study two concluded that "Breastfeeding was found to reduce the risk of Type II diabetes.

Study three said "The results showed that exclusive breastfeeding for five months and total breastfeeding for longer than seven or nine months are protective against diabetes."

Riven, The links were posted for Oblomov who requested them.

I am sorry but these are the things that make women unable to bf feel bad, so formula fed babies are going to be unhealthy, fat and stupid how encouraging. In my opinion bf might help prevent type 2 diaabetes, but if a person who is bf chooses to eat rubbish and is morbidly obese than they will still be at risk of type 2 diabetes bf or not.

these studies make me feel ahhhhhh. I have heard of ff children of parents on these forums to grow up to be healthy clever adults.

piglet - but someone asked for the links to the research. What's the answer to that, eh? 'No, sorry, can't post in case someone feels bad.' They can read the research and then decide if it is strong or not - in fact if they read it like a grown-up they will see that research does not say anything like 'your formula feeding will make your baby unhealthy, fat and stupid'. And to interpret it as that is, well, a bit daft

Your opinion on what causes diabetes is irrelevant. There are people whose job it is to test hypotheses and to assess the role of infant feeding in ill health. Opinion can then be based on some decent information!

Tiktok i know its just my opinion on studies, i know that someone asked for them no probs but these stdies in general make me feel ahhhhh. just my OP, this is a ranting thread after all lol

I know about studies, i have studied psychology to postgrad level, they are not always that accurate, nothing is 100% watertight. YOu have to look at the subjects, what type of subjects, any other variables that could influence your hypothesis etc.

so are there any other areas of study you disbelieve? Or just bf?

Yes many others too

not sure if that was to me riven? My question was to piglet.

"I know about studies, i have studied psychology to postgrad level, they are not always that accurate, nothing is 100% watertight. YOu have to look at the subjects, what type of subjects, any other variables that could influence your hypothesis etc."

With respect Piglet - the research on which the current WHO and NHS recommendations on infant feeding are based has been assessed rigorously by panels of paediatricians, scientists, doctors and epidemiologists and found to be of good quality.

aargh x posts computer so slow!
Which areas in particular? Have you seen the ones in the link BE posted? What flaws did you see?

Riven, Yes, I know your youngest daughter needed to be bottlefed. I have no idea how difficult that must of been for you to deal with, as you were prevented from having any kind of choice in this matter

pigletmania,
LOL, Interestingly I am reading about logical fallacies and your argument is a "Irrelevant Appeals" subclass "Appeal to Pity" Can read more here if you are interested

Riven - no one here is arguing that being aware of the research would have changed the outcomes in your case, so I really don't understand why you are arguing along these lines.

The research has been referred to in response to a comment about the validity of the science on which infant feeding advice is based.

I don't think we can argue with research because we don't like the findings, or find them outside our comfort zone, or for wharever reason.

We asked to be empowered with information for informed choice.
That's not to say I favour blindly concluding one thing - the research may turn up soon to disprove x,y, or z
I think Rivens approach is more..not honest, wrong word, but insightful maybe. The research is essentially irrelevant to her dc as bf is not a factor in the dc's life journey.

I'm a bit depressed we rely on it so much. Research and risk assessments. Both a bit..well..tedious no?

Research helps me make decisions. I've moved house based on research, got my kids into schools based on research, had my mind changed based on research, had my eyes opened based on research.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have breastfed both of mine for much much longer.

Sometimes it makes a difference, and sometimes it doesn't. But whilst there are those who don't know, who would believe the formula ads that formula is just as good as breast milk, who think babies should be weaned at 3 months because that's what their mothers did, then research is vital for informing. Once informed that decision is still yours to make, but at least you make it with more knowledge.

Thats true Rhubarb - and yet it seems to make people feel uncomfortable and under pressure.

I, in profound moments, wonder if we were better off before we had any choices. If things went tits up it wasn't our choice, as we had none. Choice is a burden to be sure. But also liberating. It's odd being a woman these days.

I didn't buy a Chicco pushchair cos my research said it wasn't as good as the yellow colour might suggest. Okay so I'm being flippant but research is useful as long as it's taken in perspective and not used to bully people into/out of things.

"I'm saying that research is unlikely to change the minds of those who cant or those who wont any more than telling people if they eat too many burgers they will get fat stops that happening either"

Most people who 'couldn't' breastfeed, 'could' have breastfed had they had better advice and support. Knowing about the health issues should empower them to expect and demand better help with any future babies.

And I don't agree that knowing about the health issues doesn't motivate more people to try to breastfeed. In my area 85% of women initiate breastfeeding, which is massively higher than 10 years ago, when less information was out there in the public domain about the differences between breast and bottlefeeding.

In my experience, the more people know about the research, the more they want to breastfeed. The less they know the less they think it matters.