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

Yep - me too. Sainsbury's is looking really attractive in the employment stakes at the moment....

I just don't understand BF now. My DS was soooooooo ill in his first year, hospital was our second home, infection after infection. I bleed, was sore, got an infection but carried on as I though breast was best.

Now explain to me before I give up on BF even before DC2 is born why so many of his formular feed pals have never been sick a day in their lives!!!???

OK, someone start that thread and post a link. I would but I don't have much look starting threads, I'm better at killing them

Breastmilk is not the 'perfect' food or an ideal to aspire to. It's simply the biologically normal way to feed a baby.

And without being arsey about it, the research shows that there are babies in the UK who will be hospitalised with respitory infections or gastro-enteritis, or have repeated ear infections as a result of
a lack of breastmilk. We can only go around assuring all women that formula is 'fine' because we have no way to identify those individual babies for whom it's not fine, even though we know those babies exist. I personally would never assure someone that ff was 'good enough' or 'fine' because I simply can't know how it will affect their baby not to have breastmilk. None of us do - it's a value judgement and a speculation, not a statement of fact.

"we have no way to identify those individual babies for whom it's not fine, even though we know those babies exist"

are you talking about allergies??

Would want to add to that - would also not say it 'wasn't fine' or imply that it was like giving their children junk food. The point being - we know that how a child is fed DOES impact on their growth, their health and development in all sorts of ways. You only have to spend ten minutes looking at the issues surrounding the new bf weight charts to see that ff and bf babies don't have the same growth patterns. And that's just one issue (the issue of patterns of growth and weight gain in the first year of life) . There are others that are just as interesting.

y3dmm - snap! I bf my DS exclusively to 6 months, he's now 2 and still feeds a lot and is the illest baby I know (meaning trivial child stuff). He constantly has D&V and had it for 6 weeks as he turned one had recurrent conjuntivitis a few months ago and is currently on pretty much permanent antibiotics (and seeing an ENT specialist) about the fact his eardrums keep rupturing. It's all risks and some babies will be unfortunate!

No - I'm talking about all sorts of health issues. For example, a higher proportion of ff babies will get type 1 diabetes than exclusively bf babies, but some exclusively bf babies will also get diabetes, and most ff babies will not. Therefore we can't take a ff child with diabetes and say 'lack of breastfeeding caused this child's disease'. In other words, we can't generally identify the impact of not being breastfed in relation to individual health outcomes.

"It's all risks and some babies will be unfortunate!"

Well - true. But the evidence suggests that a higher proportion of ff babies will be 'unfortunate' than bf babies, and that, however ill a bf baby is, they would have been worse off on formula.

Yes - I completely agree. But in the same way there's no proof in saying "well my DC were ff and they're all fine", finding a bf baby who's prone to all these things doesn't prove that bf doesn't have any protective effect. It's all about risks, as you say they are different for bf, ff and mix-fed babies. Individual cases prove nothing, they have to be looked at at a population level.

Jacksmama - I daren't. I have some mn balls but they aren't very big. Though I do polish them. [grn] You do it!? I'm not at work though, not till October. Woo Hooo! Will require advanced councelling then though so may do thread then.

you make a good point mrsjammin.

elki - I don't really want to name and shame the hospital because generally they have been brilliant and I have spent a lot of time feeding my dd in the waiting room in the last 3 months without a single bad comment. This was just an isolated incident of one poorly trained staff member. I have complained to the PCT though and once I have their response I may be back to name and shame.

[hijack alert] what was that about bf growth charts? I've been frowned at by HV for having DD only put on 1oz/wk for the last month and her growth arc has dropped pretty low...anyone know where I can see a bf chart?
[end of hijack]

riven 'organic supermarket cafe'...you don't live anywhere near me, that's one thing for certain!!

My sister bf all 3 of hers, dd1 is always coldy/snuffling/covered in eczema/at the doctor's, dd2 and ds are fit as the proverbial fiddles. My dd is ebf, got eczema but very rarely has a cold, neighbour's ds is ff and is hardly ever without a cold but has never once had nappy rash or any kind of skin condition... not saying that proves anything at all but every baby's different and even though the average baby might reap all the benefits of bm, which one of us has an average baby?

Hah! you know when you post something, re-read it and think "now what was the point I was trying to make?" yep...just did that

*gabygirl", I think that lots of things are stated as 'facts', that are not actual 'facts'.
I am a type 1 diabetic, diagnosed at aged 1.5 I have read quite a bit on the studies of early onset diabetes and formula.
But I am afraid that I found the facts, research unconvincing. The population of the study was too small. It showed that many early onset had been ff. But it also showed that some had been bf. Plus, some would of and some wouldn't of, for many other reasons...... family history pre-disposition.
I was willing them, to provide evidence. So that I could say, no research has shown, bf is better, re diabetes. But I am afriad I was just unconvinced. The evidence was not strong enough, for me.

No point in stating individual cases as there are always exceptions but have to say I know two boys who were bf who both have chronic childhood asthma, the one also has eczema and food allergies too. Not even any family history of these conditions.Just really unlucky I'd say......

"but every baby's different and even though the average baby might reap all the benefits of bm,"

Sorry - this is really weird logic.

If you fed a balanced, healthy weaning diet to all children, you'd still find a range of health outcomes amongst them because all children are individuals. That doesn't mean to say that all the children didn't benefit from having a healthy, balanced diet! The variation is not to do with the fact that some aren't benefiting from the diet, it's because some children are less immunologically robust than others, and some are exposed to more genetic and environmental risks. It's the same with breastfeeding. Every bit of breastfeeding a child has will benefit them, whether you can see it or not!

"But I am afraid that I found the facts, research unconvincing. The population of the study was too small. It showed that many early onset had been ff. But it also showed that some had been bf. Plus, some would of and some wouldn't of, for many other reasons...... family history pre-disposition.
I was willing them, to provide evidence. So that I could say, no research has shown, bf is better, re diabetes. But I am afriad I was just unconvinced. The evidence was not strong enough, for me."

Oblomov - the link between the introduction of cows milk formulas and diabetes has been flagged up by a number of good quality studies, not just one. The WHO and the NHS do not make recommendations on infant feeding based on one, poorly constructed single study but after a review of the wider evidence. Research into infant feeding that is considered worthy of attention by the large organisations like UNICEF, the WHO and the NHS takes into account family history of disease as well as other important factors.

TBH I find it puzzling that anyone would be massively surprised that giving a tiny baby good containing cows milk proteins might be linked to diabetes.

All the children I know with allergies - including me - were bf. Mine were mostly ff and have no allergies at all. But I still get the statistical point. Maybe family history of allergy made mothers more likely to bf to try and make up for the genetic predisposition, but although breast milk can make a difference in a minority, in most cases it won't outweigh the other factors. It is a natural food after all, not a supernatural one.

I agree, gabygirl....to find a link (a causative link) between diabetes and formula is not in the least surprising. It makes sound physiological sense. As you say, many good quality studies have found significant results.

gaby what I meant was that not every bf baby will have all the advantages that bf has been shown to give regarding diabetes/obesity/allergies etc. I bf cos I believe it's the most natural way and that formula can't mimic the goodness that my boobs can make without me even noticing. I'm just repeating, completely pointlessly since far more eloquent people have already said it far better than me, that you can't say bf doesn't work because my dd has eczema or ff works cos my dd isn't fat. You also can't take a ebf baby and see what would have happened if they'd been ff...

Tricky one this - but the statistics have to be given the winners medal over 1st hand experience at the mo as we sold our souls to statistics and evidence based practice when we asked for informed choice. It isn't the stats fault if we don't much appreciate the information they give, which we need for the informed choice. Can't have it all ways
I look at it this way, I could smoke and not get cancer, and I might enjoy it too. But I am not going to start nonetheless [was lucky really I never smoked, so I can view it this detached way]. So I take the same approach to feeding.

Now my weight is another thing......

I spoke with a friend not long ago about the diabetes thing and she stated that the link with cows milk protein and it's ability to switch the diabetes gene [as it were] is proven and taken as a given now. She is a lead biochemical research scientist and all round nutritional guru so I'll take her word I do have faith in WHO too [unusual for me!]

Mind you having said that...that analogy [smoking] only works for me.

I don't see women who ff in the same way as women who smoke. But then in all honesty I don't judge people very much at all. I don't know why not, but I am a libran so have the 'seeing both sides' thing down pat.