Fed is Best!!!!!!

[HotDawg123]

If you choose to breast feed - good for you
If you choose to bottle feed - good for you
But if you choose to be a breast feeding warrior and look at those who choose to bottle feed as scum then I hope you slip in dog shit tomorrow.

The amount of horrible women I've come across who are like this is too many now. And as I am heavily pregnant and have hormone rage it is really pissing me off.

Thank you for listening.

Ayosha : you say "Tiktok - so, in your opinion, if BF won't improve either short term or long term health outcomes for babies, why do you feel it should be promoted heavily?"

Eh?

I have never said that it will not improve short or long term health outcomes. In fact I have said the opposite - for example, that it has a role in reducing health inequalities because it improves outcomes. I am convinced by the evidence that it has an effect, short and long term, on health, for mothers and babies/children, but I choose not to go on and on about all aspects of it here :)

I have never said it should be promoted heavily, either.

I don't think breastfeeding should be promoted heavily - it is pointless to do any heavy promotion while we are in a situation where women who want to breastfeed are not enabled to do so confidently and effectively, because of various factors (for example, poor training of HCPs...just one factor). I think mothers should be aware of their option to breastfeed (in communities where it is not often done, some women don't even realise it is possible). Those that don't want to, or who decide it's not for them, and switch to ff, should be supported as well, and not judged or questioned on whether their reasons are 'good enough'. They may need help to do it safely and comfortably, and if they are sad about it, they may need support to understand that they can formula feed with closeness and loving connection - absolutely not a province of breastfeeding alone :)

Breastfeeding is a lovely experience when it's going well. Most women like lovely experiences! They feel this is something they'd like to do, and they should have every opportunity to do it - wherever they are. But they should not feel coerced or forced, or somehow pressured.

Oops, you're Alyosha, and I've been omitting the 'l', sorry.

And if I come across personally as being judgemental about womens choices being considered "good enough" please know that it is not directed towards the women. What I'm trying to say is, when you hear women say things like (which I have actually seen on this thread) "it was my choice to give up, because I didn't get on with breastfeeding",

When I say I don't think that's good, what I mean is, it doesn't seem like a choice was really made to me. Another poster brought that up (I think it was mini ) and if I remember rightly (it's a loooong thread) she was sort of slated for it. It's hard to make judge the distinction and it's hard not to come across as judgemental. But I just think it masks the facts that a good chuck of women who formula feed are women who couldn't breastfeed, rather than formula feeding by choice. It's not the fault of the women, but I do feel it's sad and it is very emotive for me, I'm one of them!

And actually to be honest, in my private thoughts, if someone said to me "I'm perfectly capable of breast feeding, found it easy, but just couldn't be bothered/wanted my body back etc." then yes I would internally judge them. It's not a crime, we all have thoughts on what we think is right and wrong, but I don't believe that 90% or more of women formula feed think like that IME, and that's why I think much better breastfeeding support and a different style of advocacy is important. I would obviously never say anything because what's the point? But I don't feel like it should be so taboo to acknowledge our thoughts and opinions of BF and FF.

And actually to be honest, in my private thoughts, if someone said to me "I'm perfectly capable of breast feeding, found it easy, but just couldn't be bothered/wanted my body back etc." then yes I would internally judge them. It's not a crime, we all have thoughts on what we think is right and wrong, but I don't believe that 90% or more of women formula feed think like that IME, and that's why I think much better breastfeeding support and a different style of advocacy is important. I would obviously never say anything because what's the point? But I don't feel like it should be so taboo to acknowledge our thoughts and opinions of BF and FF. I guess what I mean by this ramble is that judgement of formula feeding mothers is not conctructive, most don't just do it out of ambivalence, and if they do, then yes I personally don't think that's ethical, but am fully aware it's none of my business, and that doesn't mean that better care can't be put in place for women who do want to breastfeed.

Sorry double posted/pressed enter too soon on that last bit

First of all Tiktok, I'm not sure why you would expect everyone to agree with your view of a particular scientific paper. In fact, every paper which comes out with less than great outcomes for BFing is, in your opinion, flawed. And the study I linked above didn't just look at kids obeying their parents! It also looked at asthma, bmi and obesity.

You are entitled to your opinion that the study is crap but it's difficult to take you at face value as you haven't actually provided rebuttals beyond "anyone who knows anything knows this is a crap study!".

Your dismissive attitude towards the BFHI studies that show babies at risk from being left skin to skin with no monitoring is also concerning. The risks come from the fact that hospitals are told 1 hour of skin to skin is vital to help establish BF. Yes, it's negligent on the part of the care providers to leave women unattended. But it happens. With the current state of our NHS if BFHI is rolled out then it could lead to more deaths. It's a reason to support BF differently from the way BFHI wants to do it.

Secondly, maybe if you don't accept the previous study, maybe you will accept this study?

apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43623/1/9789241595230_eng.pdf

In five health pointers, the authors found either extremely small or no benefits from BF.

"I have never said that it will not improve short or long term health outcomes. In fact I have said the opposite - for example, that it has a role in reducing health inequalities because it improves outcomes. I am convinced by the evidence that it has an effect, short and long term, on health, for mothers and babies/children, but I choose not to go on and on about all aspects of it here smile "

But we agreed that BF wouldn't improve perinatal or infant mortality (short- and medium- term outcomes). We both agree BF can cut infections. And BFing for a while can cut your risk of breast cancer (a bit). You clearly think BF has some additional benefits... These are addressed in the WHO overview (i.e. small or no benefit).

I also think you can't say "don't look at the poor outcomes for X high % BFing group because of the confounders" and then ignore the confounding factors in every other piece of Bfing research"!

However I am glad you agree that we shouldn't heavily promote BF and leave it up to the mother. That would seem to preclude the BFHI though.

luna - I am the same, I have no family support whatsoever (am NC with all of my birth family apart from a 90 year old grandmother who lives four hours away) and was also therefore heavily reliant on healthcare professionals for support and the support available just wasn't sufficient.

Apart from it being very quick I had a textbook birth and recovery but we were in hospital for four days because DS wouldn't feed. I literally begged to see a feeding advisor but was repeatedly told there was nobody available and was only able to access help (other than the midwives forcibly shoving boob in mouth) when I got home. I has no choice but to use formula because they wouldn't let him go more than 36 hours without a feed and he'd had urates in his nappy (sign of dehydration) and my milk hadn't come it enough to express. It was a mess. They never even mentioned expressing until my second day in hospital and then there was nobody to show me how to do it.

Something has to change so other people don't have these experiences, and that something isn't anything to do with whether formula feeding is good or bad, its about supporting women to be able make the choice that the NHS and others tell them is 'best' if that is what they want.

glitter I admire your honesty! I really do.

I think when the bf/ff issue is insignificant to you, like it is to me, it's hard to understand. But I appreciate you coming out with it.

Another sad discussion of dehydrated babies.

fn.bmj.com/content/102/2/F110.long

The NHS paid out 162m for 25 successful claims in a 10 year period. These were only the claims that were successful - there were probably more cases.

Alyosha, don't misrepresent my opinions, please. It' s not fair.

You say, "In fact, every paper which comes out with less than great outcomes for BFing is, in your opinion, flawed."

What????? Why on earth do you think you are justified in saying that's how I think?! Papers vary. There are plenty of papers which show great outcomes for BF which I think are flawed. I am critical, sceptical and I know how to assess research, and that does not lead me to decide on the merit of a paper by looking at its outcomes for breastfeeding.

"And the study I linked above didn't just look at kids obeying their parents! It also looked at asthma, bmi and obesity." - yes - and so what? The basic flaw persists - in none of the outcomes would you expect BF/FF (ill-defined in this paper, but that's another issue) to overcome a sibling effect.

" you haven't actually provided rebuttals beyond "anyone who knows anything knows this is a crap study!". I did. And I repeated some the rebuttal just now. Read the whole study for yourself - not just the blog you linked to. Judge for yourself how bad it is.

"Your dismissive attitude towards the BFHI studies" - it was not a BFHI study. I was clarifying (as you did not) that the practice of skin to skin without monitoring (which is one small part of Baby Friendly) was negligent.

"Secondly, maybe if you don't accept the previous study, maybe you will accept this study?

apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43623/1/9789241595230_eng.pdf"

Alyosha - there's 57 pages. Have you really read and assessed it? Never mind - it's a systematic review from a trusted resource. The findings will be robust, I hope. It shows 'significant though relatively modest long term effects of breastfeeding'.....and your point is?! I think that's a decent summing up of the evidence as I have read it.

"But we agreed that BF wouldn't improve perinatal or infant mortality (short- and medium- term outcomes)."

Oh bloody hell.....are you confusing mortality with morbidity? If you are, I'll have to throw in the towel. If you're not, then you're using 'mortality;' as short hand for 'short and medium term outcomes' - well, equally mystifying and wrong!

"You clearly think BF has some additional benefits... These are addressed in the WHO overview (i.e. small or no benefit)."

Look, Aloysha. I don't want to be rude, honestly. But you don't know this field well enough to be making these statements about the research or about me and my supposed opinions. There are indeed possible additional benefits not mentioned in that review - the lit. on infant feeding is HUGE. You, armed with Google, seem to think you can cherry pick your way through the studies and draw something out of the hat that will 'prove' the impact on health of infant feeding is negligible, false, over-stated, or not worth worrying about one way or the other. But it doesn't work that way.

Infant feeding research is dynamic, organic and difficult, fraught with confounders, definitions, and different settings. You really have to know what you are talking about to have a productive discussion.

You talk as if you are the only person who is wise enough to know all this, and yet act as if the right study will finally prove you correct once and for all.

"However I am glad you agree that we shouldn't heavily promote BF and leave it up to the mother. That would seem to preclude the BFHI though." Not at all. Protocols for BFHI are not big on heavy promotion - but individual staff and individual maternity units may not carry things out as well as they should :(

Please stop, Alyosha. The study you linked to has nothing to do with dehydration.

It was hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar).

you don't know this field well enough to be making these statements

How rude.

Diana, I know. It does sound rude, and I I regret it.

I wish I had a politer way of putting it.

But I drew a blank - she tells me what I think (wrongly), she accuses me of looking at outcomes of studies and dismissing ones whose outcomes I don't like, she really cannot read research correctly, she confuses important terminology.....so I'm afraid I was left with that rather impolite statement.

tiktok I want to applaud both your science communication skills and your patience. I agree 100% with what you're saying, especially about the cherry-picking

(And for anyone who gives a shiny one, I'm a scientist and statistician who can critique methodology and analysis in my sleep, and I think tiktok's summary of the bf research literature is spot-on).

Aw, geeka, thanks :) .

Diana thank you, it means a lot to me, I thought I would get grief for that :)

tiktok I completely agree with geeka (although I'm not a professional analyst - it is on my career path though!) . You've done really well to try and explain things as best you can to Alyosha. I've noticed she hasn't addressed any of my posts to her, my main one being why it is she feels the need to singlehandedly prove that breastfeeding doesn't have any health benefits, I'm not quite sure what your motivation is coming from there Alyosha!

geek fwiw I haven't even read their conversation. I got lost with it and gave up. But your post comes across slightly sneery and 'gavel. I'm a scientist so I must Be right'. Jus sayin'.

Thank you, Glitters. It's clear from your posts you are supportive about anyone's feeding, and aware there may be all sorts of things lying behind someone's experiences.

Boy oh boy, you are one sensitive lady, Diana :)

I think scientists - real ones, not pretendy ones Like Some I Could Mention - have a right to state their credentials, in order to back up what they say.

You know, so we're sure they're not talking out their arse.

Glitters not at all. We're all passionate about something. Your attitude this time round will probably make things happen for you where help and support are concerned.

tik not at all sensitive.

I haven't needed to mention who I am or what I do for a living in order to 'back up' what I say. After all this is an online forum and it could all be bollocks for all I know.

It wasn't so much what was said, it was the way it was said. I didn't think it was very nice.

Not my intention, Diana. I'm just trying to cut through the quibble about who knows enough to review the science in question; technically I do, and I agree with tiktok. But I expect most people don't give a shiny shit about my qualifications

Nah that's fair enough. I get you. I just think that clearly Al is trying her best to back her opinion. She's of trying to be goady or deliberately awkward (well from what I have read anyway!)

not trying