Please tell me exactly why breastmilk is so amazing..

[Sheeta]

Was talking about this with a friend the other day, we know that BM is best for baby etc, but it struck me that I don't know exactly WHY..

I know it boosts the immune system, but don't understand how. I know it can provide everything your baby needs, but don't understand exactly.

I know I sound like a bit of a muppet here, but can someone please just give me the facts about the benefits of BFing?

here it is

Schulte: "Re; CPfrom what I have read the mother's antibodies get passed on in the womb, NOT through breast milk."

That is inaccurate. Please read posts further down this thread. In particular, posts from NoHotAshes and pooter explaining to me how antibodies and immune components in breastmilk are absorbed through the babies' gut.

It is also explained earlier on in this thread how a breastfed baby can also get CP, though the incidence could be milder and baby recovers earlier due to the protective immunological effect of breastmilk.

As regards anecdotal evidence, both my dcs were extended bf-ed and attended ft nursery from 1 year old. My dd did not succumb to repeated CP outbreaks at nursery until she was 5 and already in school. Ds got it from dd. I won't say that this is entirely due to being bf - but it is my experience, so there you go.

Haven't read the whole thread (sorry) but there is also something else to consider. The charts used by health visitors are based on formula fed babies.

WHO (Also UNICEF) recommend exclusive bfdg for at least six months and non-exclusive bfdg (ie with food) for at least two years. WHO has produced growth charts based on babies who are exclusively bfd.

Try this:

www.who.int/nutrition/media_page/en/

I can only wholeheartedly recommend La Leche League (did not use NCT so have no experience).

Also Jack Newman, The Ultimate Breastfeeding Book of Answers

Naomi Stadlen, What Mothers Do (Even When it Looks like Nothing) (general support)

IrishMaeve

IMO, expressing is not a good measure of how much milk you are making. Different pumps suit different people, but it's not exactly easy to try them all out till you find one you like! Even if you do like your pump, a baby is still more efficient at getting the milk out than a machine. I pumped on occasion for my baby (on the very odd time I went out, yay!) and sometimes i'd only get 2 ounces after an hour (early-ish days, about 3 mo.). That said, another time I sat down with a book for half an hour and the ruddy thing overflowed and milk got into the mechanism (this when DD was approx 9 mo, so I was producing more). So just trying to say don't rely on how much is in the bottle after pumping as to how much your baby is getting, it is at best a proportional indicator, but not an accurate volume measurement. As a previous poster said, rely on the wet and poopy nappies instead. And best of luck missus!

Oh as a P.S. just incase anyone's thinking of trying it... Gina Ford's method to increase milk supply in contented baby book? Rubbish. Made me feel super crap and unnatural about feeding my DD and I just packed it all in after 4 weeks. Drink more water instead.

One of the reasons why I find bfdg so amazing is that it is tailored for your child. As soon as the child puts its mouth on your nipple, this tells your body what your child needs (something to do with the saliva and receptors) so your body detects what to put in the milk.

one more thing: instead of giving formula, has your HV suggested offering more breastfeeding opportunities to your baby instead?

seems a lot easier and wiser than to switch to FF or to express.

Hi this is a really interesting thread and contains a lot of really amazing information, thanks to all who have contributed.

for interest on the CP front: my DD is 11 months and in nursery FT and is one of only a few children in her room not to catch chickenpox in a recent outbreak. I tend to put this down to immunity passed on from me in the womb as she was only BF for 2 months. Also i was under the impression (perhaps wrongly?) that babies are understood to retain immunity from the mother for approximately a year and that is why some of the jabs are delayed until then (although the higher risk ones, in terms of transmission and consequences, are given earlier)

Totally agree with most of the benefits of breastfeeding mentioned here. But one frequently used reasons really pisses me off to be honest. How often do smug breast feeders turn round and say 'I couldn't be doing with sterilising/faffing with bottles/mixing in the middle of the night etc etc'. Actually I would have preferred all of those things to crying with pain when ds latched on the severly cracked nipples in the middle of the night, or the burning pain of thrush in my nipples for 6 weeks, or the mad engorgment pain when suffering with massive oversupply. Yes breastfeeding is best/normal, but breastfeeders need to stop trying to sell it as the easy option- it is bloody hard work, and to increase rates people need to realise this in advance and know where they can receive help and support (and help and support needs to be available.

Sorry, not much heplt to the OP

To Jennifer

There was a recent spate of articles about Dr Kramer (WHO bfdg expert) allegedly saying bfdg benefits overstated. In fact not what he said.

But Dr Jack Newman responded to the original article as follows:

Jack Newman wrote (The Times, 20 July 2009, I think):
"Most people are missing the point, including Dr. Kramer. Whatever the formula companies say, formula and breastmilk are completely different biochemically. The question thus is not "Is breastfeeding better than formula feeding". The question is, given that breastfeeding is the normal, physiological way of feeding infants and young children: "Is formula as good as breastfeeding" and it's never been shown to be. The onus of proof is on the ones that say formula is fine. How many times do we have to fall for this "industry can make better products than nature" before we catch on?

On the other hand, we should not be promoting breastfeeding if we don't give the mothers the tools, the help, the advice they need to succeed and in most countries, the "help" mothers get in hospital is more likely to help them fail at breastfeeding than succeed. That is a cruel joke to play on mothers and babies."

Breastfeeding can be difficult, indeed extremely so, without the proper support. I say that as someone who is still breastfeeding a two year old, who went through fights with hospital staff about giving dd formula, thrush in milk ducts misdiagnosed (not my usual GP) etc etc...

It is hard work because it is all on you. Somebody else can do sterilising, make up a bottle, do the feed. Even if you express so someone else can feed, you still have to sit there and do it (and IMO end up with worst of both worlds, bfdg and sterilising)...

BUT the benefits at least IME are clear and worthwhile.

If people knew where to go in advance it would make a huge difference. I found things out through perseverance and stumbling around.

Sorry, long post.

btw The Independent did a follow up with Kramer. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/press-twisted-my-words-says-academi c-in-breastmilk-row-1766147.html

Apologies to tiktok and stigaloid (and others) have just had chance to read back and can see that you have already referred to Kramer and The Independent article.

Told myself not to look at this thread as would be too upsetting but here I am...DD is 10.5m and never managed to bf and it broke my heart (mainly due to botched labour, failure to bond, milk never ever came in and crap support at hospital - being told after a week of no sleep in hospital that unless DD fed either by breast or bottle, we wouldn't be allowed home. I cracked and gave her a bottle)

However we have used the bf 'techniques' eg fed on demand, never worried about her weight as long as she was happy, wet nappies etc and she's always been below 25%ile and we also weaned via BLW - a godsend to my recovery.
Like Jennifer I totally agree that bf is best and if we have another baby, I'll try again but I also agree with her that whilst some mums are lucky and bf is a dream, for most it seems like very hard work and we need to prepare new mums for this and give them the support they need FFS.
I never had any faffing around with boiling, mixing etc as we bought ready made ff from day 1, only cost about £4 extra a week than powder, so ff was dead easy and DP shared all feeds, so i got full nights sleep in early days and he got to bond with our DD. I could go out at night without worrying whether she needed a feed.

Not supporting ff but having gone through it, I realise why so many mums switch to bottle and I just wish our society was set up to support new mums through all the ups and downs of bf.
10.5m on and I still have issues with the staff at the hospital and DD's birth - I truly believe it buggered up our bonding and feeding.

imoascarsmum - you are almost certainly right that the hospital have a lot to answer for. It's lovely you have found some comfort from 'bottle feeding as if you were breastfeeding' which is a great way of meeting your baby's needs for a sound, emotionally-healthy start to life

How about writing to the hospital and telling them how they went wrong? It could do some good.

I don't fully agree that 'some mums are lucky' - any 'luck' is something that can be totally messed up with poor support at the start, and the 'luck' depends on whether you are lucky enough to have knowledgable and informed and skilled midwives and others.

Isn't it awful that something as important as this can depend on your 'luck' with hospital staff?

haven't read whole thread but hasn't some Canadian research undermined some of the bf orthodoxies?

I'm an enthusiastic bfeeder but this study implied that some of the bf claims are unscientific, as are the claims for formula

It only allowed for the benefits of bf in decreasing incidence of gastrointeritus I think?

personally I think one of the chief benefits is psychological and it ensures mother/baby bonding has a good solid chance.

If an inexperienced mother always has her baby snatched away from her every feed by every grasping mother in law, mate and needy aunty, to have a hold of the ickle dolly, I think mother can miss out some seriously important full on uninterrupted access. Sure dad should feed the baby and mil when mother needs a break. But I think there is real truth in the mother child bonding thing and the mother who is breastfeeding can pull rank much more easily and do what she needs to do in terms of dominant access to the baby.

harrumph!

lowlandlady - no, there is no Canadian research showing this. Canadian boffin Prof Kramer was widely misquoted in the newspapers a couple of weeks back and has done an angry interview explaining just how wrong they got him :

c-in-breastmilk-row-1766147.html

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/press-twisted-my-words-says-academi c-in-breastmilk-row-1766147.html

This is the link, sorry.

Not a good phrase, I agree, LeninGrad

I have already come across people outside mumsnet who think there is 'new research', and that it 'proves' breastfeeding is no better than formula, and I suspect the take-home message from the Times (and the Daily Mail, and other papers) is likely to be a lot stronger than the Independent on Sunday's

jenniferturkington, I don't think anyone is arguing that BFing isn't hard work. DD is seven months and right now I desperately want my body back. I haven't had a night out or a normal poo since she was born and I have generally had an easy time of it (my nipples are STILL sore from being chomped on regularly and for the first month I was sure my right boob was going to explode any minute and it ached for about three months so of course that one was DD's favourite, but at least they didn't crack/bleed/thrush/etc). I won't even start on how having an infant at your boob all day affects sexytime with DH. I'm still going to keep BFing through about 12 months for the entirely selfish reason of wanting to have a guaranteed way to comfort DD on tap.

But, being a new mum is also hard work. I used disposable nappies for the first couple of months because I didn't want to have to wash cloth. To me it seemed like signing up for YET ANOTHER layer of work when I was already strung out. IME, sterilising and all that 'faff' was exactly that, another, entirely optional layer of work on top of what I already had. For someone who is unable to BF obviously it isn't optional.

I suspect women need to be told, as my mum/MIL/SIL all told me, that BFing is rough on your body for the first few weeks but that will pass (IMO not as rough as PG on the body and that isn't seen as nearly so optional). The NCT class I had focused a lot on the mechanics of it, but very little on the actual experience of it other than to say it releases hormones that make you feel nice (bollocks, did nothing of the sort for me, just gave me evil cramps that brought me to tears for the first several weeks)

It was much easier for me to keep with it when I knew from a bunch of other women that it WOULD get easier.

**disclaimer: I really am not talking about women who were unable to BF. This is strictly women who choose to FF. At the end of the day it's their choice, so no judgey pants here. Just sayin there's a real lack of straight talk about what to expect from BF and a lack of support for the inevitable hiccups along the way (like that those lanolin products are the devil).

IME the word 'retard' does not have the same pejorative context in the US (and I am supposing here Canada) as it does in the UK. I still don't like it but...

you're right, pseudoname, it doesn't. It's not good, but it's not insulting by itself (unless called out on the playground obv), especially when used by someone over a certain age.

"spaz" is another one that isn't nearly so bad in NA. In the US it means someone who is hyperactive/silly. I didn't even know it could be insulting until Nintendo recalled a game here in the UK for including it.

People (obv not all!) who breastfeed often suggest/imply/say that they think it is the easy option whereas FF is hard work with sterilising etc. I also would like to add that I am not judging people who want to bf but for whatever reason end up not doing so- it is these people who are being let down by the system- lack of support definately, but IMO a lack of preparedness about just how damn hard bf is. Breastfeeders need to pass on the reality as well as the 'ideal for baby' info.

imoscarsmum- totally feel the same way. Due to a number of reasons (own health problems mainly) I gave up bf with both dds after a few weeks.
When you announce pregnancy loads of people tell you hard pregnancy is, labour is, sleepless nights are, toddlers are, teens are. Not one person ever told me that bf ing could be difficult.I was fully under the impression that you just stuck the baby on the boob and that was that. Never in a million years could I have though it was hard work and something you had to learn.
I am pro bf and feel bitterly disappointed I couldn't continue but I think there should be a bit more preparation/support for new mums who end up feeling like failures if they can't bf.

Have loved reading about the actual research behind BF but wonder whether anybody is aware of any research into mixed feeding? Imagine possibly a difficult area to research but very pertinent given a mixed approach is used by many. I BF DD for 13 mths and became a feeding/expressing machine given he refused to take any solids whatsoever until 10.5 mths (I had returned to PT work at 9 mths). Late night feeds and expressing after midnight left me knackered and thankfully he eventually accepted food. Now I am 27 weeks pregnant, I am thinking a bottle of formula each evening for the next one might be practical and keep options open. That said, as a slightly twitchy pregnant woman during swine flu season, I would like to understand any implications.

agreed... also, when you sit around a group of mums they all pull out the childbirth "war stories" and film/tv shows always have some woman screaming the hospital down () during labour to the point where it's a complete cliche.

no one talks about BF "war stories" and women are never shown BFing on tv or in film (saving the exposed tits for the sexy parts I suppose?). They are definitely NOT ever shown crying as baby latches on because it reallyreallyreally hurts.

So IMO women are ready for the work of childbirth because all around them are portrayals of the very hardest/worst parts. With BF, IF you see it represented at all it's only the beatific vision of the serene mum and perfect baby, perfectly latched and content. So women feel that if their BF experience isn't THAT then they must be doing it wrong. All the women in my life were really quick to point out that BF is really tough for the first few weeks but totally worth it. A good friend of mine had no clue until she saw a BF counsellor 2 weeks post that BF was allowed to feel awful for a while. Going on about oxytocin is NOT helpful IME.