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?

What does a better behaved baby mean ? One that sits around/sleeps silently and is too POLITE to wake his parents to be fed/cuddled

I remember my own female GP recommending "just the one" bottle at night when I told her I was exhausted and in constant pain (I had severe pelvic pain after a very long natural birth and couldn't sit on my bottom properly for 6 months after DS's birth). She actually said "you will be able to get away with just the one".

At this stage my son was only one week old, had only just started to latch on properly and thriving on EBF. I had to do my own BF research to discover that it was the worst advice one could possibly give a woman keen on EBF for a long period of time.

DS was never formula fed as I chose to disregard such advice. The solution to my pain was BF on my side on a bed, lying down next to DS. I used to even ask to go into friend's bedrooms to feed DS when we were out as lying down was the only thing we could do comfortably.

Breastfeeding a fussy baby (he woke up every hour for the first nine months of his life) like my own and suffering pelvic pain at the same time, was catagorically NOT an easy task. However, I am very probably an isolated case and I would say that in most instances woman who stick to EBF do not have difficulties.

In fact looking at international research around the world, I would say that low BF rates in the UK are not due to the fact that we have "more difficult" babies (that would defy scientific logic).

EBF (and length of BF after 6 months) has as much to do with culture, tradition and the availabilty of GOOD BF advice as anything else.

I am surprised that they even have to bother doing research comparing human babies to animal babies. I would have thought it was fairly obvious that human babies only do what their biological instinct tells them to do i.e. CRY and fuss when they need something

Studies of primates have shown that baby primates do not self-wean off their mother's milk until they are the human equivalent of 7 years old. Historic reports of human BF also indicate that the average age for human babies to self-wean was at around age 4.

Not the normal thing these day in most indutrialised countries with access to formula, but the global average for babies SELF-weaning off the breast is still age 4.

The conclusion being that the only explanation for shorter periods of time for EBF and BF beyond 6 months are cultural (and due to lack of correct and timely support) NOT natural or biological.

Like all survey results, it surely depends on who participated and their own experiences.

Had I been asked, I would have probably said the opposite to the survey results. My dd was a rather challenging baby - cried for several hours a day, hated being put down for a second (I couldn't even wee without her getting frantic and then inconsable for 20 mins +) and she was ff from birth. The other babies I knew who were bf were alltogether more chilled out.

It's probably a combination of baby's personality and availability of family support which causes the perception of challenging or not. I can see that if a baby is exclusively bf then a mother can't get a break the way someone who is ff feedimg can, but on the other hand, a mother who is ff still has to feed their child and not everyone has the support around them to allow for a rest.

InMyChime: "One thing I always wondered about with breast milk is: what if the mother has a really awful diet? Does that harm the baby?"

I did a quick google on this, and I found that the answer is yes, it may. But without being an expert, I'm slightly sceptical, because I'd have thought that the body takes all the best nutrients from your body and puts them into breastmilk. If anyone loses out, it would be the mum. However, I could be talking out of my backside.

Yuleingfanjo - as an experienced mum I now feel differently about the whole bottle scenario
Babies are such for only a very short time and many find a bottle so soothing
Personally I've never found bottles a hassle but then maybe that's cos I'm a secret bottle feeding wannabe
I think up until 18 months two years babies should have the odd bottle/ breastfeed by way of comfort!

I liked the point made about the interpretation of crying. BF mothers get a power hormonal emotional response to crying which kicks off the let down. I wonder if that makes BF mothers much more aware of the amount of time the baby cries? I have been convinced in the past that DD has been crying for hours and my DH points out that a quick glance at the clock makes it more like 10 minutes......

tbh I cant imagine this will make much difference to anyone....if you are looking at the evidence and weighing up in a scientific manner, you would discount this data as low quality, and even if you didnt, I cant imagine many people deciding that a bit of extra crying was more worth avoiding than the health risks of formula. If you arent looking at the evidence and have already made your mind up then clearly it wont affect you, and you will see it as confirmation of your view point no matter which view you hold!

Quite, helly.

Aren't FF babies fed by the clock rather than by feeding cues? So they'll cry every four hours. That may be bullshit though.

It's not even a scientific experiment ffs. Could they recreate it in a lab? Did they have a control?

mine never cried. carried them in wraps with a nipple in their mouth until toddlerhood.

inmychime.

it doesn't work like that re diet. you'd have to be starving ... and even then

What does an awful diet mean?

There is research that suggests the flavour some foods end up in breastmilk, which isn't surprising. Almost everything we eat will have an impact on breastmilk, but VERY rarely detrimental to the baby (Kellymom.com used to have a very thorough list of medications to avoid when BF - I'm sure the list still there).

Mothers in the poorest parts of the world such as Sub-Saharan Africa on the poorest of diets are able to BF their babies. Their babies are far more likley to survive in those harsh conditions if EBF.

Uterus, no FF babies are not always fed by the clock - neither of mine learnt to tell the time so they were fed on demand just their bf buddies.

Just like

When my DD was tiny (several years ago) my HV gave me a video about breastfeeding. It featured Caroline Flint who, at the time, was head of RCM. She said quite clearly that you can eat whatever you like, because nothing you eat passes over to your breastmilk. Yet everyone knows that isn't true, and that the flavour at least passes through to your milk, and that stuff like chillis etc may not be a good idea. I've often wondered why she made such an unequivocal statement.

hackmum,
Breastmilk does not work like that, whatever crap you put into your body the baby gets. hence you have to be careful with medications and alcohol when you are breastfeeding, and women with things like HIV are not reccomended to breastfeed. There is no magic mummy filter in the breast taking out all the rubbish.
I do not think researchers at cambridge are going to have doctored results because of a grant from mothercare (which also sells a lot of stuff for breastfeeding mothers), but I do wonder if the attitude of the mother has an effect. there is a lot of pressure on women to breastfeed and a lot fo women seem to put this pressure on themselves,so i can imagine a lot of women get really upset and stressed out when trying to breastfeed, which in turn the baby picks up on. Whereas women who bottlefeed are not going to be pressuring themselves in the same way.

uterus,
i think it depends on the parent, but I have only met ff babies that were fed on demand.

I agree flavours pass through into breastmilk. Tried taking Fenugreek supplements a few months back and made my normally chilled daughter very fussy indeed so knocked that on the head.

My ds1 ebf for first 6 months, with the odd carton of formula each month. Weaned himself off the breast at 11 months. Dd1 who is now 8 months was and still is breastfed, began solids at 6 months. I found it particularly stressful first time round as my son did not gain enough weight, however he was a very happy baby and met all developmental milestones, I hung on until 6 months despite hv wanting me to wean earlier. Similar thing with my daughter, but not so stressful this time as realised it's obviously me with a low milk supply, but they both went to the breast when they wanted and were clearly happy and healthy. Strangers comment on how happy and non-crying my babies are, I've always put it down to meeting their needs. A baby will only cry if it's left to (with the exception of poorly/colicky babies I realise, luckily I've not had these issues) and I don't leave mine to cry.

I disagree that ff mums will feel less stressed. There are so many things that can worry, stress and induce guilt in a parent that ff will not make better!

I'm breastfeeding my 3rd baby who is now 3weeks old, could count on one hand the number of times I have heard her cry since she was born, friends ff fed baby never stops crying I don't think it is to do with how they are fed and is also down to the mothers perception. I really don't think this is very scientific and a real shame if it puts people off bf.

I only bf my eldest for a couple of weeks and then gave up. All my babies have been and continue to excellent sleepers. Now whether or not that is due to ff-who the feck knows?

Although out of my friends who have and continue to bf-without exception their dcs do seem to cry ALOT more than mine do and also they are regularly up 5/6 times a night.

That is purely anecdotal of course.

Quite. ANY of our own experiences will only be anecdote, and even if we put them all together, they wouldn't constitute data. Most unfortunately, this appears to be what the authors of this 'research' did. A better title would be "mums perceive breastfed babies to be less happy" ... and might enable an exploration of why bf mums on average find early feeding behaviours stressful and worrying, most likely partially due to a culture that remains incredibly bottle-centric.

I demand fed all my 3 children until they were 3 years old. I understood the committment of b/feeding and was well supported by my husband. I would say that I found my eldest child to be a little more challenging but that could be because it was all new to me. My recollection of my third child was that she was a cheerful little soul who was always a joy to be with (Very similar experience to Snakeonaplane)

I can't compare to ffeeding because I never did it.

It's not the babies that are more challenging if we bf, in is our culture and society that is more challenging if we bf.

Ds fed more, so felt more demanding in that way, but he was a lot more chilled than DD who is quite hysterical if she isn't fed the minute the thought enters her head. DD is defintely the more challenging baby, but I'd put that down to her personality; where ds would sit in his chair watching teh world go by, Dd needs to be with me. Not sure ff would solve that

What I'd like to know (and I don't know if this has already been raised on this thread as I'm a bit short on time at the mo) is whether the BFing mothers had to provide information WRT their approach to BFing. I demand fed my two, but know other mums who BF to a more rigid routine. As BM is digested more quickly, one would assume BF babies may need more frequent feeding to feel 'full', so if they are following a routine, perhaps they are more grumpy?

Mine are now older, off the tit, and don't seem more challenging than any other young kids .