Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Childbirth

Share experiences and get support around labour, birth and recovery.

Breastfeeding pressure overshadowing labour worries

123 replies

BeedeBee · 28/01/2011 17:31

Is anyone else feeling overwhelmed by the pressure to breastfeed, esp so soon after delivery? I don't want to breastfeed but after lots of pressure from DH, NCT and local Children's Centre, I've agreed to 'try'. Now I can't stop worrying about the horrible time I'm going to have after birth, especially overnight on the post-natal ward when my DH will have gone home, trying and probably failing to do something I really, really don't want to do. It's really getting me down. I can't imagine having the mental strength to deal with any BF-related bullying on the post-natal ward.

This is my first baby.

Am I alone?

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
CarolinaRua · 31/01/2011 09:59

No - what part didnt you get. Was it me telling you not to pressure the OP bit or the weight bit. I stand over the weight bit, it wasnt a reason I bfed but it was a definite perk!

ThePosieParker · 31/01/2011 10:08

I wasn't being nasty....but I could be.

blinder · 31/01/2011 10:12

Nice.

Why does every breast-feeding / formula feeding thread have to turn into a shit fight? Absolutely ridiculous.

CarolinaRua · 31/01/2011 11:24

Posie Why don't you want to BF?
[I find the whole notion of growing a baby inside that you don't want to feed a little weird]
I thought I would try BF and had assumed I wouldn't like it but do it for the baby, it being the best and all that. But it was very natural, felt right and not remotely how I had imagined.
And a huge bottle in a tiny babies mouth does look a little strange.

Wow if this isnt nasty in your book, I would love to see what is !!!!!! The OP stated she had made her mind up, looked for advice and then you said a bottle is strange and the poster is weird. I just dont get that kind of response.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 31/01/2011 11:49

I just came back to add two things

To OP - I realise how stressed and over-whelmed you are feeling. This is just the start of a whole lot of decisions you will have to make as a mother. If you are going to keep your sanity you need to be accountable for the choices you make. To breastfeed or not is YOUR decision - please don't turn it into someone else's or project emotions onto others.

Secondly - someone talked about the BMJ report. It was not a study in itself but an overview of evidence relating to the optimum age to introduce solid food. It WAS NOT a report about breastfeeding despite the popular press's determination to turn it into one - and the unfortunate title. Here it is and here is a direct quote:

"It is important not to confuse the evidence for promoting six months? exclusive breast feeding with that for breast feeding itself, which is extensive and is not considered here ."

ThePosieParker · 31/01/2011 12:05

Carolina....Good God, nasty?

have a Biscuit

breatheslowly · 31/01/2011 12:18

OP - if you are still following this thread, then I just wanted to let you know that the pressure about BF seemed to disappear after we left hospital. And even on the postnatal ward when I was trying to BF I found the staff to be supportive rather than bullying. I get the impression that babies are designed not to need much sustenance in the first few days, so don't worry too much about "failing". Do insist on being discharged to FF if you want to. I found that they didn't want to discharge me until BF was "established" but it really didn't turn out to be established anyway at that point, so there wasn't much sense in keeping us there. I had intended to BF, but it didn't work out and I found everyone I encountered to be fully supportive of my decision to EFF. This makes sense as once you have stopped BF/chosen not to BF there is no point getting het up about it as there isn't a way back. I love FF and would definitely FF any future DC. Good luck with your new baby!

BabyDubsEverywhere · 31/01/2011 12:40

ThePosieParker
Sun 30-Jan-11 18:59:32
Babydubs..... I do find it strange that people aren't enticed to try bf, it's natural.......I did not say bad mother just odd. Not my baby, not my money either.

Er? i have'nt addressed you so not sure what this is, have i missed something? Confused

BabyDubsEverywhere · 31/01/2011 12:47

Doh! i get it, haha, on too many threads trying to update, i confuse easily it seems!I'm a dork Grin

As you were Smile

dikkertjedap · 31/01/2011 13:27

Clearly, how you want to feed your baby is for you to decide and not for the NHS, government, or even your family. I think it is important to prepare yourself as well as possible for what you want. So try to find out about making up bottles, make sure you have formula (you can buy those ready made up packs, I suppose you may need that whilst in hospital, others may be able to tell you), make sure you got sterilised bottles, teats, steriliser etc. etc. Find out for how long you can keep prepared milk (from memory it goes off really quickly, hour or so I believe) so keep an eye on that. This will give you a level of independence, you are prepared, you have your stuff, so you can do what you want to do if after birth you want to do this.

I actually wanted to b/f and I found that the help on the postnatal ward was below zero (you had to keep all curtains open at all times so you had quite an audience of visitors to other women as well, no absolutely no help from any midwives, nurses etc). Clearly where you are it may be totally different. But you may find that there will not be any pressure at all ....

Also, I don't know if you have considered this, but if you want you may also be able to do part breastfeeding and part formula feeding. Some people will say that this is not possible, but it is.

Good luck.

ElsieR · 31/01/2011 13:39

The way you choose to feed your baby is YOUR choice. End of.
Luckily I never felt bullied the ward to breastfeed but by the same token, no one was very forthcoming in giving helpful/useful advice when I chose to bottle feed.

PuraVida · 31/01/2011 13:43

It doesn?t matter what you decide to do, you do what you need to to get through those early days. But I wonder if your subconsciously feeling pressure where perhaps there isn?t as much as you perceive?

I only ask as my experience was the complete opposite to yours, and others I have spoken to have said the same: I wanted to bf and found absolutely no support or help easily available. i was repeatedly told in hospital to give DS formula, i was given no help at all from anyone in hospital, I had to drive 50 miles 3 days after giving birth to access a NCT BF counsellor I spent 3 hours on the phone trying to locate.

being a mother is all about making decisions, make yours when you need to i.e when it actually comes to nourishing and nurturing your baby, until then ignore the million diferent pieces of bullshit advice every single person you encounter will be only too happy to offer

breatheslowly · 31/01/2011 13:50

I am under the impression that you can get readymade sterile bottles of some formula brands which would be ideal for hospital. You also get to choose your formula now rather than in a hurry when you are desperate like I did.

BlackSwan · 31/01/2011 14:02

Yes, SMA make them for consumer purchase (the individual disposable bottles with sterile teats). Aptamil is also sold this way but think you can only get them in hospital.

breatheslowly · 31/01/2011 17:11

sma starter bottles would be ideal for hospital

ElsieR · 01/02/2011 11:06

FWIW, SMA gave DS nasty constipation. Cleared straight away with Aptamil.

BlackSwan · 01/02/2011 12:52

And Aptamil gave my DS runny poos! So we switched to SMA. Try one formula and if it's not right for your baby try another!

Cleofartra · 01/02/2011 14:57

Sorry OP haven't read all the thread.

I think it's probably vastly more common than you think to have 'yuck' feelings about breastfeeding - in cultural terms it's totally understandable because we are so messed up about breasts and bodies in the west. We're obsessed with sex, nudity and we fetishize our breasts. At the same time we rarely see anyone openly and unselfconsciously breastfeeding as we're growing up, so it's reasonable that even the idea of breastfeeding is psychologically uncomfortable for some of us.

Shame though for babies, who have none of these feelings, generally love breastfeeding and are 'primed' to do it by instinct (hence if the midwives put your baby on your tummy after birth he or she will try to suckle). Shame that our fucked up culture denies babies what's best and safest for them by quelling their mothers' natural instincts to feed their baby with their own milk.

And if I was you - I'd feel 'what if' if I gave up on the idea of even trying to breastfeed, without first exploring where those negative feelings and perceptions of what it basically a normal physiological act come from. Just as you would if you were freaked out at the thought of performing any other physiologically normal act: eg, having sex, eating or going to the toilet.

catholicatheist · 01/02/2011 15:36

OP you might love breastfeeding..it gives you a closeness to your baby that is so lovely! I was terrified I wouldnt be able to breastfeed as my mum was a hardcore advocate and fed me until I was three years old. Other than the first two weeks being painful the whole thing has been a doddle and I am so happy to have had the experience. Wait and see how you feel when the baby is born, give it a try and if its not for you then go to bottles, nothing lost then.

@Kikibo, anyone who says ''The only 'proof' there is, is statistical'' is clearly not worth listening to..I hope nobody reading these posts takes any notice of you whatsoever. There is feck all evidence that cosleeping mothers who breastfeed are likely to smother their babies..it has been suggested that women who co sleep with their infants are more likely to hear them in respiratory distress and wake up! Also what HAS been suggested is that breastfeeding adds a protective factor against SIDS!

ZombiePlan · 01/02/2011 17:25

OP, if you're still here, have you considered feeding expressed BM by bottle? Just wanted to point out that you have a third option, you're not limited to a choice between breastfeeding or formula.

Toni2011 · 01/02/2011 21:44

OP I would not be suprised if you had stopped looking at this thread by now. However, if you are, just be reassured that what ever you choose to do will be right for you and for your baby.

I breastfed and loved it, despite some negative experiences such as funny looks in public (despite feeding very modestly), sore nipples etc. My SIL bottle fed from birth and loved it, despite pressure from lots of people (including my own mother I'm not proud to say) to try breast feeding.

Both babies have grown to be beautiful girls with no significant health problems or other issues. Most importantly, both myself and my SIL were relaxed and happy mothers as we were both doing what we thought was best for us and our babies which is the most important thing.

I understand that people have very strong views on this subject, but really, I thought this was supposed to be a place to find support and reassurance when we as expectant mothers are worried about something.

theresapotatoundermysink · 01/02/2011 22:07

I don't think they'll be any pressure on the ward for you to breastfeed. When I was in hospital the midwife was desperately trying to get me to give DD a syringe of formula as she hadn't latched on since straight after birth. They wanted me to go home as the ward was full, but weren't allowed to send me home until they'd seen DD feed. Just giving you a 'horror' story from the other side.

If you don't want to BF that's fine. It's your choice, you're a big girl, nobody can force you. If it's truly what you want, you should feel confident enough in your decision though to not give a shit about the 'pressure'.

kikibo · 03/02/2011 17:29

@catholicatheist:

At one time formula was statistically proved to be better... Sigarettes could not be proven to be bad... I will not say more.

There are numerous cases every year of people co-sleeping (not only breastfeeding mothers) and smothering their babies. I would not call it untrue.

Statistical evidence is easily made and easily discredited, as it is discredited every day.

The only thing I said, is that there is no causal link between the one and the other that is really proven. Only a tendency. I find that a very flimsy argument for a debate like this. And if there is a causal link then really the advantages are so small that they are not really worth considering.

Ultimately it is about choice, not about what is definitely best, but it is a fact that you are really a bit strange if you state 'I do not want to'. That was my mere point.

And I would have reservations about all those mothers in cities who have heavy metals like mercury in their blood and breast milk as well. Because of all the dioxine in Naples due to illegal waste and the resulting increased risk of cancer, people there are actively discouraged from eating any food that is grown there (including drinking milk from cows grazing there and eating their mozzarella) or even breastfeeding as it gives those babies extra of what they do not need. Now, I am not saying that that is everywhere the case, but clearly breast is not always best, nor is home grown food. It would be great to investigate before recommending in general.

And before anyone comes with the China argument (the contaminated formula), that is not Europe.

peppapighastakenovermylife · 03/02/2011 17:52

'And if there is a causal link then really the advantages are so small that they are not really worth considering'

Erm, no.

Findings from a very good systematic review on studies conducted in developing countries [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK38335/ here]

Results summary

We screened over 9,000 abstracts. Forty-three primary studies on infant health outcomes, 43 primary studies on maternal health outcomes, and 29 systematic reviews or meta-analyses that covered approximately 400 individual studies were included in this review.

The association studies of breastfeeding and health outcomes mostly presented results as odds ratios. To facilitate interpretation of the odds ratio, we chose to present these data as a reduction in relative risk, estimated as ?(1 - odds ratio) × 100%,? along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

Full term Infant Outcomes
Acute Otitis Media. Our meta-analysis of five cohort studies of good and moderate methodological quality showed that breastfeeding was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of acute otitis media. Comparing ever breastfeeding with exclusive formula feeding, the risk reduction of acute otitis media was 23 percent (95% CI 9% to 36%). When comparing exclusive breastfeeding with exclusive formula feeding, either for more than 3 or 6 months duration, the reduction was 50 percent (95% CI 30% to 64%). These results were adjusted for potential confounders.

Atopic Dermatitis. One good quality meta-analysis of 18 prospective cohort studies on full term infants reported a reduction in the risk of atopic dermatitis by 42 percent (95% CI 8% to 59%) in children with a family history of atopy and exclusively breastfed for at least 3 months compared with those who were breastfed for less than 3 months. The meta-analysis did not distinguish between atopic dermatitis of infancy (under 2 years of age) and persistent or new atopic dermatitis at older ages. It has been postulated that the diagnosis of atopic dermatitis in patients younger than 2 years of age could be attributed to infectious etiologies, which may be prevented by breastfeeding. However, a stratified analysis by duration of followup found the risk reduction from breastfeeding was similar in subjects with less than 2 years compared with more than 2 years of followup.

Gastrointestinal Infections. For non-specific gastroenteritis, one systematic review identified three primary studies that controlled for potential confounders. These studies reported that there was a reduction in the risk of non-specific gastrointestinal infections during the first year of life in breastfed infants from developed countries. But a summary adjusted estimate taking into account potential confounders could not be determined because the studies did not provide usable quantitative data. However, a recent case-control study from England that took into account the role of potential confounders reported that infants who were breastfeeding had a 64 percent (95% CI 26% to 82%) reduction in the risk of non-specific gastroenteritis compared with infants who were not breastfeeding.

Lower Respiratory Tract Diseases. The summary estimate from a good quality meta-analysis of seven studies reported an overall 72 percent (95% CI 46% to 86%) reduction in the risk of hospitalization due to lower respiratory tract diseases in infants less than 1 year of age who were exclusively breastfed for 4 months or more. The results remained consistent after adjustment for potential confounders.

Asthma. The studies on asthma were equivocal. A previously published good quality meta-analysis reported a moderate protective effect and four recent primary studies reaching mixed conclusions, including two studies finding an increased risk of asthma associated with breastfeeding. We updated the meta-analysis with the new studies. Our analysis showed that breastfeeding for at least 3 months was associated with a 27 percent (95% CI 8% to 41%) reduction in the risk of asthma in those subjects without a family history of asthma compared with those who were not breastfed. For those with a family history of asthma, there was a 40 percent (95% CI 18% to 57%) reduction in the risk of asthma in children less than 10 years of age who were breastfed for at least 3 months compared with those who were not breastfed. However, the relationship between breastfeeding and the risk of asthma in older children and adolescents remains unclear and will need further investigation.

Cognitive Development. One well-performed sibling analysis and three prospective cohort studies of full-term infants, all conducted in developed countries, adjusted their analyses specifically for maternal intelligence. The studies found little or no evidence for an association between breastfeeding in infancy and cognitive performance in childhood. Most of the published studies adjusted their analyses for socioeconomic status and maternal education but not specifically for maternal intelligence. For those studies that reported a significant effect after specific adjustment for maternal intelligence, residual confounding from other factors such as different home environments cannot be ruled out.

Obesity. Three meta-analyses of good and moderate methodological quality reported an association of breastfeeding and a reduction in the risk of obesity in adolescence and adult life compared with those who were not breastfed. One study reported the reduction in the risk of overweight/obesity in breastfeeders compared with non-breastfeeders was 24 percent (95% CI 14% to 33%); another study reported 7 percent (95% CI 1% to 12%). Both of these estimates took into account the role of potential confounders. Furthermore, they also showed that the magnitude of association decreased when more confounders were entered into the analyses. The third study used meta-regression and found a 4 percent reduction in the risk of being overweight in adult life for each additional month of breastfeeding in infancy. Overall, there is an association between a history of breastfeeding and a reduction in the risk of being overweight or obese in adolescence and adult life. One should be cautious in interpreting all these associations because of the possibility of residual confounding.

Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases. Results from two moderate quality meta-analyses concluded that there was a small reduction of less than 1.5 mm Hg in systolic blood pressures and no more than 0.5 mm Hg in diastolic blood pressures among adults who were breastfed in their infancy compared with those who were formula-fed. The association weakened after stratification by study size, suggesting the possibility of bias in the smaller studies.

One meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies reported that there was a reduction in total and LDL cholesterol levels by 7.0 mg/dL and 7.7 mg/dL, respectively, in adults who were breastfed during infancy compared with those who were not. However, these findings were based on data from adults with a wide age range. The analysis did not segregate the data according to gender and potential confounders were not explicitly analyzed. Detailed information (e.g., fasting or non-fasting) on the collection of specimen for cholesterol testing was not included. Because of these deficiencies, the correct characterization of a relationship between breastfeeding and adult cholesterol levels cannot be determined at this time.

One meta-analysis found little or no difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality between adults who were breastfed during infancy and those who were not. There were possible biases and limitations in the studies reviewed, however. Presence of statistical heterogeneity across studies suggests that it may not have been appropriate to combine estimates from individual studies into one summary estimate. Because of these reasons, no definitive conclusion could be drawn regarding the relationship between a history of breastfeeding and cardiovascular mortality.

In summary, the relationship between breastfeeding in infancy and the risk of cardiovascular diseases cannot be confidently characterized at this time and will need further investigation.

Type 1 Diabetes. Two moderate quality meta-analyses suggest that breastfeeding for at least 3 months reduced the risk of childhood type 1 diabetes compared with breastfeeding for less than 3 months. One reported a 19 percent (95% CI 11% to 26%) reduction; the other reported a 27 percent (95% CI 18% to 35%) reduction. In addition, findings from five of six studies published since the meta-analyses reported similar results. However, these results must be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of recall biases and suboptimal adjustments for potential confounders in the studies.

Type 2 Diabetes. In one well-performed meta-analysis of seven studies of various designs, breastfeeding in infancy was associated with a 39 percent (95% CI 15% to 56%) reduced risk of type 2 diabetes in later life compared with those who were not. However, only three of seven studies adjusted for all the important confounders such as birth weight, parental diabetes, socioeconomic status, and individual or maternal body size. Though the crude and adjusted estimates did not differ in these three studies, the lack of adjustments for potential confounders such as birth weight and maternal factors by all studies could exaggerate the magnitude of an association.

Childhood Leukemia. The published studies on childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) were equivocal; a good quality meta-analysis reported a moderate protective effect from breastfeeding and the other good quality systematic review reached the opposite conclusion. We conducted a meta-analysis including only good and fair quality case-control studies identified in the systematic review, since the meta-analysis did not provide methodological quality grading of primary studies. We found breastfeeding of at least 6 months duration was associated with a 19 percent (95% CI 9% to 29%) reduction in the risk of childhood ALL. The previous meta-analysis also reported an association between breastfeeding of at least 6 months duration and a 15 percent reduction (95% CI 2% to 27%) in the risk of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Overall there is an association between a history of breastfeeding for at least 6 months duration and a reduction in the risk of both leukemias (ALL and AML).

Infant Mortality. One study of moderate methodological quality evaluated the relationship between breastfeeding and infant mortality. The study reported a protective effect of breastfeeding in reducing infant mortality after controlling for some of the potential confounders. However, in subgroup analyses of the study, the only statistically significant association reported was between ?never breastfed? and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) or the risk of injury-related deaths. Because of the limited data in this area, the relationship between breastfeeding and infant mortality in developed countries remains unclear. Further investigation is needed.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). We conducted a meta-analysis by including only studies that reported clear definitions of exposure, outcomes, and results adjusted for well-known confounders or risk factors for SIDS. Our meta-analysis of seven case-control studies found that a history of breastfeeding was associated with a 36 percent (95% CI 19% to 49%) reduction in the risk of SIDS compared to those without a history of breastfeeding.

Preterm Infant Outcomes
Cognitive Development. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relationship between breast milk feeding and cognitive development in preterm infants. One meta-analysis reported a five points advantage in standardized mean score and one systematic review identified one primary study that reported an eight points advantage in IQ in preterm or low birth weight infants who received breast milk feeding. In three of four primary studies of moderate quality that controlled for either maternal education or maternal intelligence, the advantage from breastfeeding was reduced to a statistically non-significant level after adjustment. The roles of maternal intelligence and home environment should be accounted for in future studies on breastfeeding and cognitive development. Keeping in mind that cognitive function measured at an early age is not necessarily predictive of later cognitive ability, one should also consider carefully the timing and the selection of appropriate testing instrument in future studies.

Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC). Our meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials of breast milk versus formula in comparing the outcome of NEC demonstrated that there was a marginally statistically significant association between a history of breast milk feeding and a reduction in the risk of NEC (P = 0.04). The estimate of the reduction in relative risk ranged from 4 percent to 82 percent. The absolute risk difference between the two groups was 5 percent. Because of the high case-fatality rate of NEC, this difference is a meaningful clinical outcome. The wide range of the estimate reflects the relatively small number of total subjects in the studies and the small number of events. One must also be cognizant of the heterogeneity underlying these trials in interpreting the findings of the meta-analysis. Examples of which included gestational age that ranged from 23 to more than 33 weeks; birth weight ranged from less than 1,000 g to more than 1,600 g; and some trials included only ?healthy? infants, while others included both ?healthy? and ?ill? infants.

Maternal Outcomes
Return to Pre-pregnancy Weight. Three moderate quality prospective cohort studies reported less than 1 kg weight change from pre-pregnancy or first trimester to 1 to 2 year postpartum period in mothers who breastfed. Results from four moderate quality prospective cohort studies showed that the effects of breastfeeding on postpartum weight loss were unclear. Results from all seven studies consistently showed that many factors other than breastfeeding had larger effects on weight retention or postpartum weight loss. Methodological challenges in these studies included the accurate measurement of weight change, adequate control for numerous covariables including the amount of pregnancy weight gain, and quantifying accurately the exclusivity and the duration of breastfeeding.

Maternal Type 2 Diabetes. Two large cohorts from a high quality longitudinal study of 150,000 parous women in the United States examined the relationship between breastfeeding and the risk of maternal type 2 diabetes. In parous women without a history of gestational diabetes, each additional year of breastfeeding was associated with a 4 percent (95% CI 1% to 9%) reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the first cohort and a 12 percent (95% CI 6% to 18%) reduced risk in the second cohort. In women with a history of gestational diabetes, breastfeeding had no significant effect on the already increased risk of diabetes. Because only nurses were included in the cohorts, generalization of findings to the rest of the population must be done with care.

Osteoporosis. There is little or no evidence from six moderate quality case-control studies for an association between lifetime breastfeeding duration and the risk of fractures due to osteoporosis. In two of three moderate or good quality prospective cohort studies using bone mineral density as a surrogate for osteoporosis, lactation does not appear to have an effect on long-term changes in bone mineral densities. The third study found a small decrease in the bone mineral contents in the distal radius with increased duration of breastfeeding, but no significant changes in bone mineral contents in the femoral neck or the trochanter.

Postpartum Depression. Four prospective cohort studies of moderate methodological quality reported on the relationship between a history of breastfeeding and postpartum depression. None of the studies explicitly screened for depression at baseline before the initiation of breastfeeding and none of them provided detailed data on breastfeeding. Three of the four studies found an association between a history of short duration of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding with postpartum depression. The results were adjusted for socio-demographic and obstetric variables. More investigation will be needed to determine the nature of this association. It is plausible that postpartum depression led to early cessation of breastfeeding, as opposed to breastfeeding altering the risk of depression. Both effects might occur concurrently.

Breast Cancer. Two meta-analyses of moderate methodological quality concluded that there was a reduction of breast cancer risk in women who breastfed their infants. The reduction in breast cancer risk was 4.3 percent for each year of breastfeeding in one meta-analysis and 28 percent for 12 or more months of breastfeeding in the other. In addition, one of the two meta-analyses and another systematic review reported decreased risk of breast cancer primarily in premenopausal women. Findings from primary studies published after the meta-analyses concurred with the findings from the earlier meta-analyses. In summary, consistent evidence from these studies suggests that there is an association between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of breast cancer.

Ovarian Cancer. We reviewed 15 case-control studies that examined the relationship between breastfeeding and the risk of ovarian cancer, and performed meta-analyses in nine studies that adjusted for potential confounders. The overall result from the nine studies showed an association between breastfeeding and a 21 percent (95% CI 9% to 32%) reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer, compared to never breastfeeding. Because not all the studies reported similar comparisons of breastfeeding durations, we had to estimate the comparable risks in five studies. Excluding these five studies from the meta-analysis results in loss of statistical significance for this association.

There was indirect evidence for a dose-response relationship between breastfeeding and a reduced risk of ovarian cancer. Breastfeeding of more than 12 months (cumulative duration) was associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, compared to never breastfeeding. The 12-month cutoff was arbitrary, and the odds ratios were estimated in half of these studies.

Overall, there is evidence to suggest an association between breastfeeding and a reduction in the risk of maternal ovarian cancer. Because of the aforementioned limitations, one must be cautious in interpreting this association.

togarama · 03/02/2011 18:02

Kikibo: Look a little more closely at the figures for the cosleeping / SIDS studies.

The cosleeping SIDS deaths are associated with smoking, heavy drinking, drug use and sleeping on sofas / couches.

Cosleeping in families where none of these factors are present is not associated with a higher rate of SIDS.

Nor is SIDS higher in countries with higher rates of cosleeping. According to some studies, it's actually lower but other differences between populations make it hard to attribute a protective effect directly to co-sleeping.

I didn't intend to co-sleep with our DD but changed my mind when she was born after looking into this in a bit more detail and finding that the situation was not as straightforward as you currently believe.