"Formula as good as breastmilk"

[GhoulsAreLoud]

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6942427/Breastmilk-no-better-for-baby-than-formula-scientist-c laims.html

I really wish this was true but doubt it. Seriously dreading b.fing DC2

You know there is no law that says you have to breastfeed.

I wonder who funded the study!

If you're dreading the feeding Ghouls then how about seeing a breastfeeding counsellor before having the baby. There's also lots of help and pointers here as well if you want them.

breastfeeding my second baby was a much easier experience that breastfeeding my first.

Thanks chaps.

We managed ok with it after a fairly rocky start. I just hated it and I don't think I'm likely to enjoy it second time round either.

`ghouls... i hated it with dd.

it got a bit easier after 6 months but i still never enjoyed it much.

feeding my second and third babies though was completely differant... i was easier, i felt more confidant and relaxed, they were better feeders.

it was a fantastic exeriance with both boys (still is with ds2) and i'm so glad the awful time i had with dd didn't put me off feeding ds1.

formula won't lower my chances of getting breast cancer though, will it?

Sorry but total utter crap. I wonder who pays him?

Ghouls I've got two friends who had a really lousy time with bf first time round and switched for ff pretty quickly. When their second babies came they were way more confident with mothering in general and they had got to know quite a few bf mums (realised we weren't militants - just mums) so asked us lots. Do talk to a bf counsellor now. I totally respect any woman's decision not to bf because she doesn't want to but think it's sad when a woman doesn't because she thinks she can't. Good luck.

LOL at the last line "in Britain women are recommended to bf for 6 months"... err, no, actually the WHO advises bf for all babies everywhere for up to 2 years and beyond with complementary food after 6 months.

Why is it "total utter crap" exactly?

And "I wonder who pays him"

Why is it every single article however spurious extolling the virtues of bf is worshipped and endlessly quoted but any article which challenge such views are immediately slammed and questioned.

I thought it was interesting and an area well worth researching further.

Um, what am I supposed to be asking a breastfeeding counsellor exactly? They can't make me enjoy something I don't enjoy!

No, I don't think I will. But thank you!

I think the article should have the appendix:

"Companies cannot make any money if women breast feed so we really want you to feel it is wrong to breast feed your child. Please ignore the fact you are a mammal and buy this product so we make lots of cash. Although truly this product is unecessary for a lot of women."

Bring back wet nursing I say!

If you hate it, don't do it. Formula is not poison. I didn't BF (though I did want to but for a whole long list of reasons I couldn't) and it has done DS no harm.
Also, neither I nor my brother were BF as it wasn't common in the 60s, and we are healthy and robust too.

So any piece of research that questions the claims re bf should have an appendix stating the author wants to make lots of money just because they question some of the claims made-how utterly ridiculous.

To never ever question or put research into questioning an established line of thinking would be dangerous and smacks of a police state.

If there is proof that bf is not as beneficial as it's claimed to be we need to know NOW then thousands of us mothers who hate bfing can just get on and enjoy their babies without having to endure something that makes them unhappy or feel needlessly guilty.

here is the summary of the research article in question I cannot access the full article right now, but should be able to at some point, but I find it VERY hard to imagine how the journalists got from that summary to such claims.

And actually, it is pretty important who pays for research. Researchers are supposed to declare such conflicts of interest. If your study and future work you might do are funded by someone who has an interest in a particular outcome, the neutrality of your research can't be guaranteed.

But the original article is published in a credible peer-reviewed journal, it seems, I just suspect it has been horribly misrepresented.

Fantastic! You can all relax now, one less thing to be nurotic/smug over. Formula milk is as good as breast, never doubted it. My two v clever robust boys proved this to me.(didn't grow into juvenile delinquents as I couldn't bear the thought of them on my breast.. yuk).
Ps Breastfeeding councellor?! For gods sake!

.....and why shouldn't Nestle and other companies make money from their fantastic/nutritious meticulously researched formula milk products? Women who can't beast feed- what would they give their children without them? Giving up your fume filled 4x4 would be more beneficial to your baby and less harmful than anything Nestle could put in their little bodies.

@ realworld.

I am another one who Does Not Enjoy BFing, but that does not change a single thing about its benefits and the fact that large companies spin information to market a largely unnecessary (in the West) and downright dangerous (almost anywhere else in the world) product.

What unpleasant posts realworld, what's your problem exactly?

Mila and realworld - may i refer you to the excellent book bad science by Ben Goldacre?

This is another example of poor science reporting. That abstract does NOT say any of the things reported in the telegraph article.

'....and why shouldn't Nestle and other companies make money from their fantastic/nutritious meticulously researched formula milk products?'
lots of reasons really, it is not so well researched as you might think, well promoted yes! But mainly because it leads to ill health and sometimes death in thousands of babies around the world (yes, even in the UK).

That's the paper?!

I can't even begin to express how little relation the Telegraph article bears to either what the study was designed to investigate, or what it found. Wow. Just... wow.

I've been searching like mad to find the research in question since reading the headline earlier. I cannot believe that these headlines are based on that after reading the abstract !!

Makes me so .

I would recommend 'The Politics of Breastfeeding' to read to anyone who associates the words 'fantastic' 'nutritious' and 'meticulously researched' with Nestle.

Sorry - to clarify.

The actual study found that women with high levels of testosterone (and related hormones) at 25wks PG were less likely to be breastfeeding at 3 and 6 months.

Errr... that's it. Literally.