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?

316 babies is hardly a comprehensive study.

What a pile o cack. I am astounded papers publish this crap. As you say, 316 is hardly a representative sample.

I ebf both of mine and DS is vile and DD is an angel.

Today, anyway.

I found this article interesting.

I breastfed DS until he was 3 and am now breastfeeding DD (8months). With both children I've been very attached (carrying them around all the time and they both sleep/have slept in the same bed as me).

Because of them being so attached I haven't found them to be whingy because they just like being cuddled and close to me - but I suppose as soon as they do whinge/cry I know they want milk, food, sleep etc and so then I give it to them.

I can imagine that breastfeeding might be harder if a child was not so attached - sleeping in another room, away from a parent who was working etc - and of course that must be a reason why many people give up.

Really the article does state the obvious IMHO. But maybe it is useful for first time mums who I'm sure often feel very lost and quite desperate to make their baby happiest.

Of course FF babies aren't necessarily fed by the clock. It is perfectly possible (even really easy) to FF on demand.

Having said that, this does show a difference between BF and FF. If DS suddenly gets hungry I can't just whop him on the boob, I have to put him down, put the kettle one, pick him up again, put him down to make the bottle, pick him and faff around when I find the mussie etc... So there is a sense that he has to wait longer, but gets more when he does feed. So the difference between distress/satisfaction may be more intense.

(316 sounds like quite a big sample to me, but I'm not a statitician...)

Its as meaningful as 316 of us all saying our experiences on this thread. That does not add up to conclusive proof. Also pretty damaging as I believe everyone should keep an open mind on breastfeeding, not go into it thinking 'it will be hard' or 'it will make for a restless baby' or whatever. DS (BF) never puked, slept well and very content. My cousins baby (FF) was whiney and always puking up milky sick although he is a very good eater these days. This anecdote means very little in the scheme of things!

interesting.

hasn't been my experience with my two ebf DCs - totally shit sleepers yes but have always been exceptionally happy, smiley little things. if either of them really cried then we'd know that something was very wrong.

not sure if this is meaningful but both of them had dummies and weren't really 'demand-fed' after the first few months in the traditional sense - e.g. i encouraged them into a bf routine quite quickly and would only feed them when i was sure they were hungry rather than wanting comfort so similar to ff in a way.

I think the sample size is reasonable but I think there are two problems with the story. Firstly they measured the mothers perception of crying which is provably a distorted measure of actual crying, and in this case there is reason to suspect that BF mothers will have a more distorted view than FF. Secondly (more in the reporting than the trial) they are using crying as a surrogate for unhappiness, or bad behaviour which it simply isnt.

every child is different, my son was breast fed slept 8 hours a night and hardly ever cried, my friends son was bottle fed didnt sleep through until he was 4 and screamed almost constantly I don't think it has anything to do with how or what they are fed some babies are more chilled out then others and I think its stupid trying to pigeon hole everything into little boxes nothing is 100% with kids and there will always be someone whos experience is the opposite

I think the survey findings could be used constructively as a platform for discussion about the realities of bfing - primarily the fact that breastfed babies do need to be fed on demand for the whole thing to work. If you try to impose a 3 or 4 hour routine on a 4 week old they will indeed be pretty bloody miserable.

However, I suspect said constructive discussion will not happen and it will, as usual, be used yet another stick to hit mothers with.

"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 think the point is that breastfeeding is harder work, so a baby is less likely to suck hard enough to continue eating when they're not really hungry. They'll mess about and comfort suck, but not really feed as much. A baby who uses a bottle can pretty well lie back and think of England instead. (Had to bottle feed myself, btw. And my DS used to leave plenty, often. I always took the view that he should have as much as he wanted, whenever he wanted, but never be coaxed, and it seemed to work okay.)

The thing that staggers me about the reporting of this study is that nowhere is it pointed out that this researcher and his team are looking into the causes of childhood obesity. I've not read the study, but I strongly suspect the slant of "more trouble if breastfed!" is not the point in any way. The bit I'm keen to know is, does bottle feeding increase the risk of obesity, when controlled for other factors (family diet, genes, etc).

I think this research says a lot about our expectations of babies and motherhood - it's as if there is a 'babies should be seen and not heard' culture here and that babies shouldn't cry as long as they are fed, clean and cared for.

I'd like to see a similar survey carried out in one of the Scandinavian countries where breastfeeding rates at 6 months are around the 80% mark - my hypothesis would be that we would see a quite different result.

As for babies being 'badly behaved' - words fail!

Pointythings, sorry but I disagree. A baby who won't sleep much is a nightmare to care for. I would die for my son, but frankly the first year of his life I could have swung for him, too. Early mothering with a sleepless and fretful child is phenomenally, mindblowingly horrific, whatever feeding method you choose. My husband pointblank refuses to have another, much as he adores DS, because at 3 it is STILL a rareity for DS to sleep through. We co-slept, and after horrible months of trying and failing to breastfeed, I expressed what went in the bottles. I have never, ever expected parenting a baby to be easy and I don't think I took the easy way out if my baby seemed to suffer - we tried him in his own cot and he was horribly distressed, so we waited till he was ready. But my God, a baby who doesn't sleep is horrendous - and they aren't all like that. DS needed to be fed at least once and often twice in the night till he was 9 months. Until 3 months, it was every 2 hours, day and night.

I don't think babies should be seen and not heard. I think I need more than 2.5 hours of unbroken sleep in one sitting to function at all well. I object rather strongly to statements to the contrary. It's all well and good talking as if a mother's emotional resources are infinite, but PND is pretty damn bad for babies, too, and a shocking bf relationship can trigger it, as can severe sleep deprivation. Motherhood cannot be all about sacrifice, to the point the mother has no claims at all. Tribal societies don't isolate women in homes alone and leave them to it - mothers can sleep when their babies do because other people pick up the slack! There needs to be a balance between the needs of the baby and the needs of the mother, if only because the baby is so very dependent upon the emotional resilience of the mother. It matters. Personally, I think successful breastfeeding is a bit like learning a language, or learning to drive - a nightmare at the start, but a huge boon later on. At 6 months, a bf baby will be a damn sight easier to feed than a bottlefed one. But the mother has to survive to that point first with her sanity intact. It is NOT unreasonable or selfish for a mother who is at breaking point to decide to resort to formula. It's simple common sense, and what formula is for.

perfectstorm I am a bit at your tone towards me - where have I said that ff is always wrong? Where have I implied that I am a member of the bf militia? I would not dream of suggesting that a desperate mother who tried formula in order to get more sleep is committing a crime, I know better than that. I am trying to make a point about the wider UK culture which is very hostile towards children of all ages - crying babies, children in restaurants, teenagers in hoodies - all are assumed to be guilty unless proved innocent.

All I said was that I would like to see this research replicated in countries where bf is the norm, not the exception to see what the results would be, and I posited a hypothesis - which is something scientists do. If the hypothesis gets shot down in flames, they live with it, which I would also do were this research to take place and my theory to be proved false.

FWIW I have 2 DDs, both bf - one was a great sleeper, one was a twice-a-night merchant until age almost 1. All babies are different, and I think that research like this needs to be very carefully presented in the media so as to avoid sweeping generalisations - like those headlines in the Times and the Daily Mail, both of which are sensationalist and unhelpful. Will you at least agree that babies are incapable of being 'badly behaved'?

In my experience which is only two children so limited...

first baby breastfed for a year. she was the most miserable, clingy and generally difficult baby I have ever known. She still is (5 now) a temperamental child, over reacts and very hard to calm down.

Second baby breast fed for 4 months, I had so stop due to her not putting on weight, she was put on prescription milk because she was so tiny. Before this again she would winge and cry a lot although slept better than first. After giving her a bottle it was like someone had swapped her for a happy baby. She is now two and a half and amazingly layed back does sometimes tantrum but over very quickly unlike her sisters hour long tantrums and she is laughing again in seconds.

Dunno if it's anything to do with milk.... But interesting thought, if I had another one I would probably go for bottle feeding simply from my own experiences and for my sanity.

kelly2000: "hackmum,
Breastmilk does not work like that, whatever crap you put into your body the baby gets."

Hmm. I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.

I'm not even going to dignify your last sentence with a response.

As I stated quite clearly, I suspect this is a media-given slant. Dr Ken Ong leads research into the causes of childhood obesity and thus this study will be on that subject - not the psychological effects of feeding choices! It will almost certainly support the vast majority of other evidence, in finding BF to be better than FF on that front. The media will never report medical research fairly and accurately, and it's a waste of time expecting them to. They've spun this like nobody's business.

My irritation is with the suggestion that this research is in some way down to a maternal expectation in this country that babies should be well behaved or easy - I've never met a single mother with the expectation In point of fact, I also don't agree that it would necessarily follow that higher bf rates would lead to more tolerance of fretfulness. People wax lyrical about the Dutch birthing system, yet there's published evidence that Dutch women themselves have low satisfaction scores and resent the lack of analgesia quite a lot. Something isn't easier because it's more commonly endured. Mothering IS hard. I can see why the press have jumped on this, though it's unfortunate that they have. There are a lot of exhausted, guilt-stricken women out there!

hackmum, not you! I agree wholeheartedly with that one.

perfectstorm I get your point, but I still find it irritating that you see me as attacking ff mothers when I manifestly have not. I have also stated that I am quite willing to be proved wrong, and I notice you not addressing the point I raised about British culture being hostile to children and young people in general.

I don't think anyone expects being a mother to be easy - I certainly did not, and so was pleasantly surprised when it proved much less hard than my (admittedly catastrophising) expectations.

As for the Dutch birthing system let me say this: I am Dutch. I am bloody grateful that I was living in the UK when I had my babies.

the whole study is bollocks

they asked the mothers at 3 months, isn't that the time when colic starts?

BM doesn't get built from what food is in your stomach, it gets built from your blood (BM is actually highly specialised sweat!) and your body. Calcium is calcium regardless if it comes from a large chocolate milk shake or spinach so once it's been digested and into the body it doesn't really matter.

Your breasts doesn't know where the nutrients come from, and if you are lacking in some particular nutrient, it will pull it from it's reserves (i.e. your body tissues/bones) so the only one coming to harm from a dire diet is you not baby. Unless of course you are on a starvation diet and have been for years - even women in prison camps have bf their babies and whilst they withered their babies grew.

Oxytocin (the 'love' hormone that's released during bfing amongst other things) actually increases digestion (oxytocin receptors on the outside of the guts) and the body's ability to get nutrition from food so even if you do have a fairly poor diet as much as possible will be wrung out of the food you eat.

well i wont say any research done is insignificant if done in the appropriate way but what i believe is that anything which is natural is the best,so breatfeeding is the best if we can manage to do it properly,no science can prepare the antibodies it has n surely it makes the bonding between mum n baby more strong physically n psychologically n its like u share every best of u to make them feel the best though its true,no pains no gains as it requires sacrifice to have a controlled diet n medication so that they wont affect the baby in a bad way,though milk is a great filter too n sacrifice ur rest to be available whenever ur baby is to be fed but its worth it,n no doubt its convenient too at gtimes,u can smtimes sleep away while feeding

Oh there's an interesting comment upthread about Caroline Flint saying nothing passes through from food to breastmilk. She was our NCT teacher and, in my opinion, fed us a bit of duff information about breastfeeding. She said babies don't need burping and to only feed on demand.

So I ended up with a 5-day old baby screaming with trapped wind, and very hungry because I hadn't been waking her up to feed (she was jaundiced and sleepy following a difficult labour).

Haven't trusted "feeding experts" since.

sania It is not relevant that BF is 'natural', If one day there is a super formula that is better than BF then that will be better.

BF is currently safer on average for babies than FF because it has a different chemical composition. There is no magic to see here.

Actually, you misunderstood me. I talk about maternal expectations, not feeding method, for the most part. I thought you were criticising women in this country's attitude to mothering, and implying they think it's supposed to be easy, and contrasting that unfavourably to maternal attitudes in other countries. I disagree with you - and though it wasn't the point I understood you to be making, I also disagree that this country is generally hostile to mothering and children and young people, too. I've encountered a lot of warmth and help and interest in kids and families, since becoming a mother. On a day to day basis people are generally lovely.

I should add that I'm not a native Brit myself. I personally find people in this country warm, kind and supportive when it comes to mothering, and to small children, but then my comparators are France and Australia, so maybe Scandinavians feel very differently? And I also live in a part of the world that's very geared up to families, with fantastic schools and leisure facilities, and a ton of outstanding daycares and community playgroups, and so my experience may be skewed as a result. (And the Dutch bit made me laugh! Have you seen people on the birthing threads going on about how amazing the Dutch way is, just because everyone gives birth at home? I was really lucky and only needed gas and air, but the thought of no pain relief at all makes my stomach clench.)

I expected being a mother to be hard, and it was. But the sleep deprivation was harder than I imagined, simply because it went on for so long. I'd love more kids, but my husband just can't take losing any more sleep. I tell him we were just unlucky, but he's scared we'll be unlucky again!

I thought 2 hour wakings/feeding through the night were normal. my first did this for 2 years until she went into her own bed from mine and slept through.

Consequently, now my five month old daughter sleeps in three hour chunks and I feel really lucky!