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?

www.nhs.uk/news/2012/01January/Pages/breastfed-babies-cry-more.aspx here

Apologies if someone has already linked to this.

here

Sorry!

I also wonder what they make of babies who are exclusively fed breast milk but by bottle rather than by breast. Are they saying the differences in behaviour are exclusively down to the method/vector of feeding or are they down to the differing composition between breast milk and formula? Not a very good study really.
I have to say, from my very limited personal experience, DS has seemed to be quieter and more satisfied when fed breast milk by bottle (which we do from time to time as a result of problems from tongue tie) than by boob. If we are having a bottle day, he wakes only once or twice in the night. If we are having a boob day, he wakes every 1.5 to 2 hours. But that could just be because he finds boob feeding hard. But I do think he's quieter when bottle fed because he's stuffed full (rather like us after a huge Sunday lunch). Only way to find out why is to ask him!

Excellent posts shagmundfreud and MixedBerries

My two were BFing constantly frequently and were both very content and settled babies ( though dd in particular was more lively and less sleepy than some )

I fed them frequently, on demand, and agree with you shagmundfreud that this may not be common practice in our society.

pifle to that headline
id class it as unhelpful at best.i peer support in breastfeeding group at my local kids centre and with so many "dead against" breastfeeding its not helping those who want to try but lack confidence

it does seem that the anecdotal evidence is that if you bottle feed you are more likely to have a routine for feeding and the formula milk is more likely to sit in a baby's stomach digesting slowly and keeping them quiet for longer - which is hardly new research.

Perhaps bottle fed babies in a strict feeding routine learn earlier that crying isn't going to get them fed and so just like CIO/CC these babies, by the time they are 3 months old, just give in and don't ask?

No BF DD2 was easier, if she grumpy you feed her. If she was out of sorts in her cot she'd feed and then co sleep. Same if o

We don't need studies like this. Can't we just feed the way that suits us and be left alone to get on with it?

no time to read it all, but agree that we are all mahoosively encouraged to feed but not told exactly what that will mean, or what to expect. Who had heard of cluster feeding before having the baby? I hadn't and was in a desperate panic that I wasn't producing enough (my milk was very slow to come in - end of fifth day and I couldn't stop worrying). Support after the birth is essential. I remember going to the NCT breastfeeding counsellor in quite a state and she watched me do a feed, told me this was completely normal and I should be congratulating myself instead of worrying! I also got lots of help in the hospital.

The research - are they all first time mothers? Agree also with the poster who said the massive hormonal response you get to crying destroys your perception of time.

Sorry about half post. Phone rang and I pressed send putting iPod down
Anyway personally I found being able to instantly feed hungry child and comfort a grizzly or ill one far easier than FF.
Also as a still BF toddler, DD2 was far better at entertaining herself than DD1.

I breast-fed both of mine almost exclusivly until 6mo and neither of them cried much at all. Honestly my first-born would wimper, go on the breast and be instantly calmed. I wonder how many of the bfing mothers of crying babies were trying to work to a routine? I think that gina ford et al give mothers unrealistic expectations and breastfeeding isn't compatable with routines.

I would have thought, like startail that not being able to plug in a grizzly baby would mean ff babies would be less content.

I think JugglingwithSnowballs' post, albeit cynical, is probably not too far off the mark.

As other posters have remarked, BFing mothers' may be more attuned to the grizzling of their babies, BF babies may use dummies less, the question of whether a baby is "badly behaved" [sic] is very subjective, and there is clearly also a link between the composition of FF and the relative slowness with which it is digested, which may leave a baby feeling 'fuller' and therefore more sleepy / content for longer (not that this is necessarily a good thing - but we do live in a culture that likes its conveniences).

I don't think it's particularly helpful to start a BF v FF debate here, but there is clearly a huge industry, with vested interests, behind the production of dissemination of this research, and the way in which the British press & TV present anything about parenting is usually very simplified. I too am very hacked off with MNHQ for pandering to this by flagging it up in their news' headlines verbatim.

Two points from reading about the research in the article on NHS site, as linked to above by smf

1. The differences in perceived temperament of the babies were small

2. "Educational achievement of women who breast-fed or mixed-fed their babies was higher, and how this might have influenced their scoring of temperament was not discussed by the authors"

3. Scores were always (I think) the same for breast-fed and mixed-fed babies and their mothers, and only (but always) slightly different from the formula fed babies and their mothers. To me this calls into question whether the differences are actually to do with the feeding method, or whether they are largely or completely due to pre-existing differences between the groups of mothers ( which also determine their choice of feeding of their infants )

Basically more educated mothers chose to breast-feed and also had higher expectations ? less experience ? less support ? or any number of other factors which influenced how they scored their babies on the temperament questions they were asked.

Just bugs me when quick, easy and often wrong conclusions are drawn from simplistic social research. IMO much more effort should be made to explore findings and possible conclusions before research is reported.
Co-existing data does not equal a causal relationship !

The first thing I thought when reading this was basically the Jugglingwithsnowballs's point 3. Is this a difference in babies or in the mothers and their expectations. If you are going to do research like this and ask for mothers to assess their own children there should at least be some effort to research the impact of the mothers - a bit of objective observation would be useful but obviously very difficult to set up in this sort of scenario. Shame the babies couldn't rate their mothers!

With my 2 bf babies I think that at 3mths I would have said DS1 was challenging but when I look back at it now, with a gap of 11 years, he was actually pretty happy except when he needed feeding which admittedly was a lot of the time, but feed him and he was content. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of occasions he apparently cried for no reason and DS2 was the same. They were not unhappy babies and they didn't cry for hours on end but then if they cried I dealt with them. I didn't leave them on the basis we were trying to work to some routine that could not be altered or for any like that.

There was also some research a while back that said that babies that were picked up and responded to quickly as new borns and in the first few weeks of their lives cried less at 6mths and beyond than those who weren't picked up. I would be taking this survey and then comparing what the babies where like another 3+ months down the line. Did the positive attention these babies received by being breastfed on demand lead to happier babies in the long run despite them being 'challenging' as newborns? In my limited sample of 2 I would say it did. This says nothing about FF babies by the way. Presumably if they were attended to then they were happy 6 mth olds too. I am just saying that I don't think the label of being challenging is necessarily an indication of a personality trait that is set for life or even beyond 3 mths. And if it isn't, what on earth is the point of the research which basically says hungry babies cry and need attention. It's not really a groundbreaking theory, is it?!

at the notion of FF babies almost 'sedated' with their milk!

We all know FF stays in a babies tummy longer and hence they sleep better and longer. It doesnt mean this is better for the baby.

It is always interesting to see how pointless discussions about pointless articles referring to pointless studies attract so many posters

Yeh, it is annoying that a flimsy bit of research gets soo much media attention.
But, because of all the attention it gets, I think it does matter.
How babies are fed, especially around the world is a very important, life and death, matter.

boycott mothercare. i think its a disgrace that they will fund a study which shows breastfeeding in a negative light just so that they can make money on selling formula, bottles, sterilisers etc.

the study was supposed to provide a more realistic view on breastfeeding - not a negative one though

Why not say it as it is?

I feel quite isolated as a breastfeeding mother who loathes it but continues - i actually found the study refreshing

I personally found it a huge positive that i was able to just whip my boob out whenever and wherever i was so my DS never got so hungry he was distressed. Seeing the faff of a FFing friend of mine when i went out with her and how distressed her DD got whilst having to wait was incentive enough for me to continue with BFing.

My personal experience does not back this study up. My DS is one of the smiliest, most content and chilled out babies i've ever come across and he almost never cried in the time i was BFing. That's not to say that my experience is typical. I'm just extremely sceptical of studies like this.

NotnOtter - you may feel isolated but you're definitely not alone in loathing bf but continuing anyway - dd2 is 5 weeks old, so that's five more months of it for me at least... (and she is clearly as unhappy with cow's milk as her old sister was, so i can't even comfort eat creme eggs through the cluster feeding)

I think whoever said that it's about the effect of other people's expectations and whether a baby is truly being fed on demand is so right. I was encouraged to believe my DD was difficult - she was and is to be true - but just how difficult changed immeasurably once I started to finally follow my instincts. Of course breastfed babies will be unsettled if their primary source of comfort is only allowed to them for an hour or two a day.

This is interesting, I actually took part in the wider/ original study, although not this offshoot of it.

And just in case the media coverage has cast doubts on anyone's decision to BF, here's a lovely blog if you're lacking confidence:
[http://www.thealphaparent.com/]]