Breastfed babies 'more challenging'?

[Woodlands]

Have just been reading this article (apologies if there's already a thread on this).

Personally I don't have anything to compare with, as my DS was (still is) breastfed, and nearly all my friends breastfed their babies too. Some of their babies are more challenging than others. When I saw the headline I thought it was going to be about breastfed babies needing fed more often/not sleeping for so long, but it seems it's more about them being less happy. Mind you in the comments it says this study was part funded by Mothercare.

What do people think?

The first thing I've spotted in the article is that the data comes from a questionnaire filled in by the mother. When my DS was 3 months, and I was breastfeeding, I was utterly exhausted. If anyone had asked me for an objective view of how happy he was, how much he cried or laughed, how easy he was to calm, I would probably have been quite negative, because I was so knackered by the whole business. If you had asked similar questions a couple of months later, when I'd gone over to mixed feeding and was less exhausted, I'd likely have been more positive.

So I don't know if you can really take a questionnaire filled in by exhausted and sleep-deprived mothers as being entirely objective - if the breastfeeding mums are slightly more exhausted (energy used to produce milk, difficulty in getting dad to share the night feeds, etc) then their replies may be skewed because of it.

I do think that research of this type is interesting as it is good for women to have a full picture of things.

Whether this study is any good / skewed etc I have no idea. I would have thought if the results were skewed by the sponsor they would have found in favour of FF but the article as a whole is a bit 6 of one and half a dozed of the other - quieter baby vs possible overfeeding.

Oh I should add I haven't read the link in the OP I read the story on the BBC earlier so it may have a different slant than OP one

I've read several articles on this today. It has been picked up and given a very differed angle in each case.

Judging by the article on the BBC, the researchers suggested that bf babies were just using the "natural way of communicating their needs to their mother" and the cries often communicated tiredness and so women shouldn't be put off bf if their babies seemed very demanding. The message from that article was that formula babies might "appear more content" but the research shows they may be "overnourished" and so appear serene - so a very pro-bf viewpoint.

When I read the same research printed other places, it focused heavily on bf babies being more difficult and crying more.

So it appears the research was intending to reassure bf parents that their child was not failing to get enough food if they cry (as that is sometimes a reason people give up as they are worried about their baby not being satisfied). But it doesn't read like that in every story.

A "different" angle obviously, not "differed". Pesky autocorrect.

people will read what they want and interpret it the way they want. i really hope no mother sees it, ignores the proven health benefits and honestly believes that it would be better to feed formula feed because they believe that one choice will give them an easier life.

Maybe bfing mothers are more in tune with their babies?

I find the way the headline's always shout out the negative so irritating. Many people won't read past the 'Breastfed babies show more challenging temperaments' etc. to get to the 'Difficult behaviours shouldn't put off mothers ? breastfeeding is still the most healthy form of infant nutrition'.

I'm sure if we all sedated our babies they'd be very well behaved, doesn't mean we should do it, (not comparing sedation to ff by the way!).

Working with mums who do and don't ebf I have found it is more about a babies personality not their feeding method per sa.

It's to do with the language in the article as well I think. "Contentment and happiness" just because they happen to be quiet doesn't necassarily mean they are "happier" Most people wont get past that. It's a bit of a dangerous article in that sense I think. i know certain people, like my mum, who was part of the gerneration where FF was indoctrinated into them, will read this grasp on it and use it in a very much "see, I told you so"

Parental attention intelligence, health, development-there are so many factors that could contribute the babies overall well being and mood that don't think FF or BF can be looked at in this way.

Hmmm I had twins then a singleton,was definitely true for me.I bf until 6 weeks(mixfeeding at the end).It was noticeable after each feed.The singleton ended up in SCBU with dehydration,jaundice so she was obviously happier when the formula started.

Not only were my babies happier but I was too,finally felt I could enjoy motherhood with all 3 once we embarked on formula.I think they picked up my stress at times,I'm convinced alongside being hungry.

I think the study/article was pointless though as it's all about choices and personality of mum and babies. Babies have their own little personalities straight off,they also have different bodies and metabolisms.Having non identical twins you really notice this.Some mums can cope with tiny babies (bfing)better,other with toddlers,teenagers better.This study wouldn't change things for me not one jot.

One of my twins was more fretful than the other 2,he is very skinny and has always needed to eat little and often. The bigger twin ate less and less often but hollered less (kind of squashes their formula babies over eating thing).

I didn't like the inferences re over feeding with formula.It's not rocket science,nobody needs to overfeed with formula if you are able to read and follow guidelines.

I know I shouldn't do it to myself, but I just read the Daily Mail take on this. Is breast really best? Bottle fed babies are better behaved.

Just makes me fume on every level. Starting with the fact that babies are not 'well' or 'badly' behaved. That implies a conscious decision in ones behaviour that they don't possess. Some babies may be easier, but they are not 'well behaved'.

The whole article also implies that a breastfed baby will be difficult, but you should suck it up because it's normal.

I have nothing against people making whatever feeding choice is right for their family. But why do certain elements of the press always, always portray breastfeeding negatively - at the same time as throwing in a bit of guilt for formula feeding mothers as a side dish. Arghhh.

it's about a lot of things, not just what type of milk is in the baby's tummy. is there a difference between sma babies and hipp organic babies i wonder?!
i was a bit surprised at the level of fussiness but wouldn't have said it was due to what/how/when he was fed, a lot of it was down to being a 1st time mum. i wonder how many of the mums in the survey/research were 1st time mums who had unrealistic expectations of things like growth spurts, overtiredness etc?
bf mums also seem to get less of a break because of the nature of bf which i would think would be a big factor in the baby's temperament.

The Times headline - "Babies on bottle-feeds are being 'comfort fed' to ease mother's lives"

I am dubious about this research. As you say OP was partly funded by mothercare. If babies are less happy I can understand why - they have to work harder to get their milk and it because it is much easier to digest they get hungry quicker.

Also, what does having an unhappy baby mean much in the scheme of things? they will get over their unhappiness in the course of time.

They'd be even better behaved on half a bottle of gin.Doesn't mean its a good idea...

GAH at that times headline

Whatever the story is, they use it to clobber evil mummies don't they

doesn't anyone use feeding cues anymore?

Maybe some of the breastfeeding mothers answering the questionnaire were listening to silly advice about leaving them to cry until it's time for a feed? Definitely it sounds like women need to be educated about what a baby needs against how a baby you are forcing into a feeding schedule might be reacting!

Yes messness They're all different like us;our !st DD was quite small and could only take 1 breast at each feed therefore I felt like she was feeding ALL the time. Our 2nd DD was average sized had both at each feed and was more contented as was DS1.

So with no FF at all 2 out of 3 being contented isn't bad is it?

MrsHeffley like you I had twins (nearly 3) and have 12 week old now. Apologies, I haven't read the article - but my opinion (and nothing more, and also based purely on my experience) is that a bottle-fed baby will sleep for longer during the night. That is it. I mix-fed my twins, and they were happy and slept through fairly quickly. They had formula at night.

This baby is EBF, and is truly so happy! Yes, he still wakes through the night, but when he is not asleep or feeding he is generally chuckling away and smiling at me. He is now.

But then again, I don't remember ever having the overriding sleep-deprived and stressed feeling that a lot of people talk about. I slept a lot during the day when the twins were small - I don't with DS3 but as he co-sleeps and I latch him on then drop off again during the night maybe that's it?

Sadly I too tend to agree with the article. I am a great believer in breast is best but find parenting once bottle feeding takes over MUCH more rewarding and calmer. I usually feed until ten months ish but with dd only fed until three - the switch to formula coincided with a complete personality change in her. She went from a squawking unsettled bundle to a calm and contented baby...
I can see the reasoning behind the article but personally feel the pressure to bf is sooo enormous as to be over powering- with my last baby (my sixth at age 40) I hinted to th HV that I'd had enough bf ing at around five months and was strongly poo pooed ...
There should be some happy medium....
I'd LOVE to bottle feed - it would enhance my parenting of a new born beyond belief... But it will never happen

Breast milk isn't produced on a factory line with specific ratios of nutrition and additives to make it identical in composition every time so there are bound to be times when breast milk doesn't seem to be enough or the baby's in a growth-spurt and the mother's supply hasn't caught up yet.

Personally, I found that unpredictability aspect of bf-ing a surprise and more stressful than I expected - it was hard enough having unpredictable sleep, nappies, reflux episodes etc but adding to that the unpredictable feeding and the fear that I was leaving DS to go hungry etc and the certainty of formula was tempting. Some people are able to go with the flow (literally!) and relax about it but if you can't and you want certainty, then bf-ing can get stressful.

One thing I always wondered about with breast milk is: what if the mother has a really awful diet? Does that harm the baby? What if the mother is guzzling McDonalds and double espressos and chocolate cake all day - would the high salt and sugar and caffeine intake affect the baby compared to formula? I always wondered because when I bf-ed, my son did seem affected if I had a bad day and ate too much sugar or guzzled too much Coke to try and stay awake... have there been any studies on the impact of the mothers' diet on baby nutrition?

From what I've read the study relies on mothers' interpretation of their babies' happiness/behaviour. So no independent view of what constitutes 'happiness' or 'challenging behaviour'. It would be interesting to find out how or indeed whether the researchers controlled for maternal interpretation of behaviour. (e.g. are mothers who use formula more accepting that a baby will sometimes grizzle whilst waiting for their bottle? Do mothers who breastfeed overemphasise crying? Is there a difference between first-time mothers and those with other children? etc.)

It's a bit like the difference between asking someone what they're good at and then objectively testing them to see how they compare against a population. Your data is only as good as the reports you're getting from your subjects.

NotnOtter - so did you switch from breast to bottle at 10 months rather than breast to beaker or cup? I would find that so much more of a faff to be honest, though I have only ever breastfed (DS will have a beaker of cows milk too) so can't compare?

My experience is so different, I can't imagine what a massive hassle it must be having to bottle feed, prepare formula, sterilise bottles and so on. I am still breastfeeding at a year old and am so lazy I can't see myself stopping any time soon.