Bust another breastfeeding myth for me regarding comfort feeding

[WhaleOilBeefHooked]

So a friend asked me (not maliciously) whether I thought comforting with the breast is linked to comfort eating in later life? I comfort dd with the breast if she's tired, upset, bored etc, and it's never occured to me. It's more about the suckling than the food though, isn't it?

No it's not in any way shape or form! Non-nutritive suckling is very important for babies - gets their bodies releasing all sorts of important hormones and gets them more milk *and helps your supply! Babies don't equate bfing with food - they equate it with making themselves comfortable, and letting them regulate it is the best way of helping them not to have food issues later in life.

Thank you!

If that was true, dummies would make children comfort as well qwouldnt they?

No, they just like sucking.

asks

I suspect that being allowed their fill of 'comfort sucking' in baby/child hood makes them less likely to need oral crutches later in life.

I have no particular basis for that other than that it seems like common sense to me though.

flamingo - agree with you about non-nutritive sucking. It's part of what babies do.

They are adept at regulating their intake of food, and the baby-led aspect of this is prob. one of the reasons formula feeding has an increased risk of overweight and obesity...it's not just the milk, but the way it is 'delivered' that makes the difference. Formula feeding is less baby-led - the giver of the milk has more of a hand in getting the 'right' quantity in, and this makes it easier for more calories than are needed to go in. It could also be that the baby learns to associate approval and praise with eating a certain quantity of food.

I am speculating, because there is no way this could be shown in any sort of experiment or trial.

But if your friend's suggestion was right, Whale, then we would see more obesity and overweight in people who had been breastfed as children. And we don't. We see less.

Oh yes, let's ban any comforting of our babies because it might mean they learn to enjoy being comforted

Your friend is (with the greatest respect) talking a load of bull.

Great rejoinder, cory!

This concern about not fulfilling a baby's normal needs in case it leads to 'bad habits' lies at the heart of a lot of parental anxiety. I am a breastfeeding counsellor and we often get calls or questions face to face about 'giving in' to the baby, and allowing him to 'get used to' things like responsive feeding, co-sleeping, comfort sucking. These worries are often seen on mumsnet, and they're backed up by some books, and some family members. This worry that babies should not be 'indulged' is very much part of our culture, sadly.

The truth is that a baby who is comforted when he needs to be comforted grows up emotionally healthy, more able to self-regulate (means able to manage his disappointments,anxieties, stresses), and better at offering comfort to his/her own children when the time comes

What's not to like?

Thanks everyone. I knew really of course, but just wanted reassurance.

I agree it's really sad that there is so much emphasis on trying to make babies become independent little beings who shouldn't need comfort. I see questions all the time on Mumsnet like 'Help! My 3 week old will only sleep on me!'. Sometimes I think people just want reassurance that it's ok and natural. Others seem to really want to 'break the habit'.

My sister used to question our co-sleeping, breastfeeding, jumping-every-time-baby-cries type of parenting until she embarked on the adoption process. Since learning about attachment disorders and behavioural problems she now says that she thinks we've done everything perfectly which is a very big compliment from her.

I've been thinking about comfort sucking a lot, because I've been reading about this debate over dummies and cot death. (A few studies have found a decreased incidence of death in babies who use dummies.)

I think the jury is still out as to whether this is a true effect or whether it's a confounding factor related to some other lifestyle risk. But there's enough there to consider it seriously at least.

So what I'm wondering is, could it be that little babies are meant to spend a lot of time sucking? Not just feeding, but non-nutritive sucking too. Could it be that some physical or physiological effect of sucking protects them from cot death?

I'd be interested to hear from tiktok what proportion of babies like to comfort suck. Mine have all been glued to my norks for the first few weeks of life, but I don't know if they're typical.

If babies are allowed to comfort suck, how many do? If lots do, that might suggest that they're doing it for a reason even if we don't know what the reason is.

All babies will 'comfort suck'. I'm a BFC too, and FWIW (no research, though), I think you're right about it being about suckling at night being protective, rather than about the dummies.

We need to stop differentiating between 'comfort sucking' and food sucking.

The fact is, when a baby suckles, it releases a huge cocktail of hormones that includes stuff that makes them sleepy, makes them feel loved, strengthens their immune system, kills pain, removes fear, regulates their hormones, most importantly (wrt to the SIDS issue) regulates their heart rate and breathing rate. Of course, it also stops them being hungry or thirsty if they are suckling at a breast.

The point is, that a baby, especially a newborn, does not have any idea about hunger being any different from any other form of discomfort. All it knows is that it feels 'not right' and it's instincts tell it, quite rightly, that nearly all the 'not right' feelings will be sorted out, one way or another, by suckling at the breast.

He'll get warm if he's cold, cool down if he's warm (because of being close to mum), filled up if he's hungry, less pain if he's got pain, go to sleep if he's tired, stop being scared if he's scared, calm down if he's got cross...it's all good.

IMHO, the differentiating between comfort sucking and food sucking is one of the biggest (apart from poor latch) blocks to successful bfing, because we're so nervous of feeding as frequently as a baby actually needs to. We don't believe that a baby can actually self-regulate when that's what they're born knowing how to do. But people have been scared by all the stuff about spoiling a baby, or foremilk and hindmilk (which doesn't actually exist), or breasts having time to re-fill (not as simple as that), or babies getting too much milk etc. etc.

It's a shame that information isn't more widely known and understood, Jimmy.

I've always been happy to let my children comfort suck - day and night - mainly because, well, anything for an easy life! I've had so many people tell me it's 'just' for comfort, like that's a bad thing. I've also had the suggestion to give a dummy instead.

i've also been thinking about comfort sucking, seeing a lot of 2 and 3 yo at my dd's nursery with dummies.

how would she differentiate by comfort sucking with no nutrition and comfort sucking with nutrition then?

would those create food issues too?

Not sure what you are asking, exactly, foxy?

There is no need to differentiate with breastfeeding. But with dummies, if a baby sucks on a dummy but still isn't satisfied then probably they need some milk, I guess. Is that what you mean?

The question came about because dd hurt herself and I automatically put her to the breast. Then she questioned whether a bf baby would associate being upset with feeding, thus leading to comfort eating in later life. She argued that dummies are better because the child doesn't associate them with food.

People kept recommending a dummy for DD because they felt that she suckled a lot. I resisted until one day she was crying and crying, she'd suckle for a few seconds and then scream but if I put my finger in her mouth she was happy to suckle. I was really upset (and it was it the middle of John Lewis cafe so I was also really stressed). This went on for a couple of weeks and so I thought perhaps that she wanted to suckle but didn't want the milk so I bought her a dummy and whenever this happened I found she'd take the dummy.

A few weeks ago someone posted on here that they'd heard a comment about being a human dummy and they replied that the dummy was a replacement for a nipple. That made so much sense to me so I scraped the dummies and DD has been fine since. She hasn't missed them, suckles away and often falls asleep this way.

I have no idea why she used to get so angry at my nipples but take the dummy but we seem to have passed that now.

Other people seem to have more of a problem with her suckling for comfort than I do.

welliemum, the questions you raise about the protective effect of sucking being somehow simulated with a dummy are raised in the literature and in the bf support world nationally and internationally.

jimmy is right about the false distinction between nutritative and non-nutritative sucking - the baby is not aware on any conscious level of the difference and in societies unlike ours, mothers are not bothered by it either (they may be aware of it, I don't know). Our society is actually quite scared of giving the baby what he seems to need - even right from the start. Books like the Baby Whisperer have feeding regulated and timed from birth (I think Gina Ford gives the baby a week's grace ) with the preposterous claim that this is better for the baby. I speak to mothers in antenatal classes who are very worried about not having a routine, and spoiling the baby.

We are understanding more and more about the infant brain these days, and how responsive care (including feeding) is protective of its development, not simply to make the baby 'clever' but to promote good emotional and mental health.

Don't know if Freud's been mentioned, but I think he said that if during the oral stage they were interrupted, they'd be more likely to need an oral crutch later in life.

So for example if you stop your baby suckling it would make them comfort eat later in life.

I could be talking bollocks though, it was 2 years ago when I learnt about Freud.

That's so interesting, tiktok and jimmy (and others).

When you look at the science about babies, there's a very strong pattern emerging, isn't there?

ie that what babies prefer - lots of closeness and cuddles, breastmilk, demand feeding, sleeping in same room as parents and probably comfort sucking - all of those things have been shown to be good for them, even lifesaving (in the case of sharing a room and cot death).

Yet somehow we've got to a point where the relationship between parents and baby is a battle of wills. If you read a lot of parenting books you could well end up believing that to be a good parent you have to go against not only your own instincts, but your baby's instincts as well, in order to "win" the battle.

welliemum, best book to read on this stuff is Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes the Baby's Brain by Sue Gerhardt.

Thanks for that, tiktok, will do!

Now have baby no.3 velcroed to me for the forseeable and feeding round the clock, so it's nice to think that I'm doing the right thing for them.

Certainly makes a change from all that "rod for your own back" talk.

JJJ, so many babies who use dummies are offered it when they have a bump, for example.

how would the OP's friend extrapolate her wonky reasoning based on what she said about the breast. I don't think she has thought through the implications of what she said to dummy using children tbh and would be shocked to have to consider it if the OP asked her to do so.

It makes me wonder too how these breast feeding theorists who believe a dummy makes a better suckling implement (for lack of a better word) would discuss the fact that when a baby is comforted by a breast, the breast gets put away when the baby has had enough or the mum has to get up and cook tea, for example. A dummy, many times, stays in some baby's mouths for much longer time periods and many times is given instead of say a pick up and cuddle.

I had a daft image in my mind earlier this week of a mum being carried along sideways, (supported by thin air of course ), so that her boob addicted child can hang on while she suckled in a pushchair. You know, instead of a child suckling on a dummy while being pushed along?

No, I am not barmy. Like I said it was an idle thought. I was sitting in the car o/s dd2's nursery changing my shoes and saw toddler in a buggy with dummy. I go to the nursery to feed her at lunchtime as she won't take milk from a bottle or cup.

"the implications of what she said to cover dummy using children tbh "