Breast is not best, language, guilt and lactivism musings

[vintage67]

Patch I thought those other factors came in a bit later

Which factors?

Sorry should of been clearer, the smoking etc.

I'll try and find the article I read on it all. It was ages ago, though, so no promises. It was just basically saying that you couldn't credit the back to sleep campaign with the total reduction in SIDS, as lifestyles have also got healthier in the same time frame.

Basically, you can't really take out all of the variables, so it's impossible to distinguish certain outcomes. It wasn't disputing that back sleeping was safest, just that maybe other recent changes have contributed to the reduction in SIDS too.

(in bold) This is also true with breastfeeding and formula feeding.

 

[Tasha]

(in bold) This is also true with breastfeeding and formula feeding.

In what way do you mean? I mean for me the reduction in smoking and drink, plus the back to sleep campaign has shown the reduction.

Whereas we can get 100 children who were BF and 100 children who were formula fed and compare their average IQ, how often they have been to the GP and for what reason, and so on.

ETA and we can make sure they all come from smoke free, tee total homes.

 

[vintage67]

(in bold) This is also true with breastfeeding and formula feeding.

In what way do you mean? I mean for me the reduction in smoking and drink, plus the back to sleep campaign has shown the reduction.

Whereas we can get 100 children who were BF and 100 children who were formula fed and compare their average IQ, how often they have been to the GP and for what reason, and so on.

ETA and we can make sure they all come from smoke free, tee total homes.

You would have to find sets of parents with identical IQ's and supervise the daily child rearing practices throughout the entire pregnancy and childhood. Also, daycare or no daycare influences a child's immune system. Genetics and susceptibility to illness are factors as well. I am not arguing the benefits; merely saying studies can show trends, but they are not perfect. That's why ALL breastfed children are not healthier than ALL formula fed children, or smarter, or less prone to cancer. There are too many variables in life.

Cancer--What was the water supply like where the child grew up? What kind of toxins were in the soil, air, water that nourised the food the child ate? Etc., etc., etc.

And endless variables with everything else.

The natural antibodies are there and it's the food mother nature designed babies as a first choice. I think we venture into hyperbole of mircacle elixir or liquid gold, you enter territory for backlash. It isn't a perfect science. Neither of my boys have ever had an ear infection. I have seen someone on this very site tell someone they did not believe bottle fed babies never got ear infections. I was stunned the first time I heard of a breastfed baby getting colic. That's how strong the hyperbole can be. My bottle fed babies had colic but they never had ear infections. Who knows why, how or what other variables were at play here.

You shoot for the best possible outcome by providing the best tools that you are able to provide. There's no guarantees in life. A good friend has a 16 year old nephew battling a brain tumor right now. I have no idea if he was breastfed or formula fed, but I know I would be the bitch of the century if I asked or implied blame of any kind.

 

[midori1999]

(in bold) This is also true with breastfeeding and formula feeding.

In what way do you mean? I mean for me the reduction in smoking and drink, plus the back to sleep campaign has shown the reduction.

Whereas we can get 100 children who were BF and 100 children who were formula fed and compare their average IQ, how often they have been to the GP and for what reason, and so on.

ETA and we can make sure they all come from smoke free, tee total homes.

You would have to find sets of parents with identical IQ's and supervise the daily child rearing practices throughout the entire pregnancy and childhood. Also, daycare or no daycare influences a child's immune system. Genetics and susceptibility to illness are factors as well. I am not arguing the benefits; merely saying studies can show trends, but they are not perfect. That's why ALL breastfed children are not healthier than ALL formula fed children, or smarter, or less prone to cancer. There are too many variables in life.
Cancer--What was the water supply like where the child grew up? What kind of toxins were in the soil, air, water that nourised the food the child ate? Etc., etc., etc.

And endless variables with everything else.

The natural antibodies are there and it's the food mother nature designed babies as a first choice. I think we venture into hyperbole of mircacle elixir or liquid gold, you enter territory for backlash. It isn't a perfect science. Neither of my boys have ever had an ear infection. I have seen someone on this very site tell someone they did not believe bottle fed babies never got ear infections. I was stunned the first time I heard of a breastfed baby getting colic. That's how strong the hyperbole can be. My bottle fed babies had colic but they never had ear infections. Who knows why, how or what other variables were at play here.

You shoot for the best possible outcome by providing the best tools that you are able to provide. There's no guarantees in life. A good friend has a 16 year old nephew battling a brain tumor right now. I have no idea if he was breastfed or formula fed, but I know I would be the bitch of the century if I asked or implied blame of any kind.

You have a sort of point, but I am sorry, you are wrong. The reason not ALL breastfed children are healthier etc is because breastfeeding doesn't prevent illness, it reduces the risk of certain illnesses. How a baby is fed doesn't give a definitive yes they'll get xxx or no, they won't get xxx. Studies already control for things like parental health, environmental factors etc as much as possible.

So, regardless of back or any other factor, if a child is breastfed, they are less likely (as an example) to get an ear infection. If a woman breastfeeds for 3 years, she is less likely to get breast cancer. It doesn't matter if her Mother, sister and Aunt all sadly had breast cancer, because she has breastfed for three years her risk of getting it is reduced.

i'm sorry to hear about your friend's son. A good friend of mine lost her son to cancer and it is such a terrible thing to see any child go through, let alone your own. I don't think anyone would suggest that how she fed her child should even be something anyone thinks about, let alone mentions to her.

We can all only do our best. No matter how someone feeds their baby or why they ended up doing so, whether through choice or not, most people only want what is best for their child.

 

[patch2006uk]

(in bold) This is also true with breastfeeding and formula feeding.

In what way do you mean? I mean for me the reduction in smoking and drink, plus the back to sleep campaign has shown the reduction.

Whereas we can get 100 children who were BF and 100 children who were formula fed and compare their average IQ, how often they have been to the GP and for what reason, and so on.

ETA and we can make sure they all come from smoke free, tee total homes.

You would have to find sets of parents with identical IQ's and supervise the daily child rearing practices throughout the entire pregnancy and childhood. Also, daycare or no daycare influences a child's immune system. Genetics and susceptibility to illness are factors as well. I am not arguing the benefits; merely saying studies can show trends, but they are not perfect. That's why ALL breastfed children are not healthier than ALL formula fed children, or smarter, or less prone to cancer. There are too many variables in life.

Cancer--What was the water supply like where the child grew up? What kind of toxins were in the soil, air, water that nourised the food the child ate? Etc., etc., etc.

And endless variables with everything else.

The natural antibodies are there and it's the food mother nature designed babies as a first choice. I think we venture into hyperbole of mircacle elixir or liquid gold, you enter territory for backlash. It isn't a perfect science. Neither of my boys have ever had an ear infection. I have seen someone on this very site tell someone they did not believe bottle fed babies never got ear infections. I was stunned the first time I heard of a breastfed baby getting colic. That's how strong the hyperbole can be. My bottle fed babies had colic but they never had ear infections. Who knows why, how or what other variables were at play here.

You shoot for the best possible outcome by providing the best tools that you are able to provide. There's no guarantees in life. A good friend has a 16 year old nephew battling a brain tumor right now. I have no idea if he was breastfed or formula fed, but I know I would be the bitch of the century if I asked or implied blame of any kind.

They extrapolate the data as best they can. It is true that you can never remove every variable, as no two children are identical. However, they can remove the variables enough to make the data meaningful. Otherwise we'd never be able to state anything regarding humans.

No one is claiming that all breastfed babies are healthier than all formula fed babies, but it is true to state that the immune systems of breastfed babies are stronger than those of their formula fed counterparts. No, not every formula fed baby will be sickly, and not every BF baby will be healthy.

Anecdotes, while they can be compelling, are meaningless compared to actual data.

While sort of on the subject - swapping the arm you hold LO in when bottlefeeding can help lower the risk of ear infections. It's be no means a guarantee that FF babies will get ear infections, although I do know alot of FF babies who have had antibiotics for them (but they're all long term dummy users too, which also increases the risk for ear infections).

I just fundamentally don't agree that presenting the message slightly differently would make women feel worse. Surely 'breast is best' is just as bad, as no-one likes to be told they're not doing their best for their child?

 

[Kess]

The other thing regarding health etc, is that I think I'm right in saying the way a child is fed affects their individual results rather than just compared as a group to babies fed another way, so e.g. my BF baby had an ear infection recently and has eczema. You could compare him with a FF baby his age and say that baby is healthier so far and has never had eczema or ear infections but the important thing is for my child, if he were formula fed he'd likely have had more ear infections and worse eczema. That's why I feel some people are missing the point a bit when they say, "My FF baby is very clever and healthy" etc.

As for all women knowing the risks of formula already, even on BnB, which is made up of people who are literate, interested in reading and discussing about baby stuff etc, I've seen blinkees in sigs which say "FF babies are Just as Healthy, Just as Smart, and Just as Loved as BF babies". Just as loved, totally, of course. But the other two?

 

[Missy86]

The other thing regarding health etc, is that I think I'm right in saying the way a child is fed affects their individual results rather than just compared as a group to babies fed another way, so e.g. my BF baby had an ear infection recently and has eczema. You could compare him with a FF baby his age and say that baby is healthier so far and has never had eczema or ear infections but the important thing is for my child, if he were formula fed he'd likely have had more ear infections and worse eczema. That's why I feel some people are missing the point a bit when they say, "My FF baby is very clever and healthy" etc.

As for all women knowing the risks of formula already, even on BnB, which is made up of people who are literate, interested in reading and discussing about baby stuff etc, I've seen blinkees in sigs which say "FF babies are Just as Healthy, Just as Smart, and Just as Loved as BF babies". Just as loved, totally, of course. But the other two?

You may be opening a can of worms with that last statement, I don't think you can get a ticker saying " I knew the risks but I decided not to give my baby the best start in life. "

I see no other way to settle this other that to start up a thread in 20 years to see how well our kids are doing, let's just hope Rhys isn't a Chav with no job on a council estate as I fear his time on formula may meant his iq is not what it should be I also look forward to hear how many of the bf kids have got firsts from Cambridge

 

[SnuggleMum]

Even if we did compare our kids in 20 years, it wouldn't really say much. Maybe someone should have identical twins, flip a coin, and feed one formula and breastfeed another? That'd give a better idea.

 

[Missy86]

Even if we did compare our kids in 20 years, it wouldn't really say much. Maybe someone should have identical twins, flip a coin, and feed one formula and breastfeed another? That'd give a better idea.

Count me out I am having my last

The ops post just annoyed me, i was enjoying learning and having a nice conversation before her confrontational post

 

[SnuggleMum]

Even if we did compare our kids in 20 years, it wouldn't really say much. Maybe someone should have identical twins, flip a coin, and feed one formula and breastfeed another? That'd give a better idea.

Count me out I am having my last

The ops post just annoyed me, i was enjoying learning and having a nice conversation before her confrontational post

What made it seem confrontational to you? It is an interesting point, I find, and one that I think is often not 'got' - there are always a lot of anecdotes in these debates, so I think explaining clearly how the risks work is helpful.

 

[Missy86]

The reason people have those tickers if I remember rightly was after a particularly nasty bf v ff thread, a lot popped up after that. It doesn't mean they havent seen the risks they are just as proud as the bf mums out there that is all and wanted to show some ff solidarity

 

[Tasha]

The IQ thing, I have read it is about/around/average of three to seven points higher. It isnt a great deal IMO and certainly not the main reason I would chose to BF.

 

[freckleonear]

The IQ thing, I have read it is about/around/average of three to seven points higher. It isnt a great deal IMO and certainly not the main reason I would chose to BF.

I agree. But it does make me think, if formula doesn't provide the right fats needed for optimal brain development, what else is it missing? There are literally hundreds of "ingredients" in breastmilk (https://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums/whatsinbreastmilk.pdf), some of which we have no idea what their exact purpose is, and probably plenty more that haven't been discovered yet. So although the IQ difference isn't huge, it does illustrate that breastmilk is designed to provide exactly what babies need for optimum development and no substitute can ever match up to that.

 

[Kage76]

As for all women knowing the risks of formula already, even on BnB, which is made up of people who are literate, interested in reading and discussing about baby stuff etc, I've seen blinkees in sigs which say "FF babies are Just as Healthy, Just as Smart, and Just as Loved as BF babies". Just as loved, totally, of course. But the other two?

would it be better if we had a blinkie that said "I deliberately chose to put my child at risk of obesity, infection and lower iq- but i'll love my fat dumb sick little baby anyway"

your statement is exactly why those blinkies exist. Im sorry if i come across as really really annoyed- im trying not to be- but to insinuate that my child isn't all that she could be because of the method of feeding is hitting way too close to home. And there is a huge difference between "risk" and a guaranteed outcome.

 

[SnuggleMum]

As for all women knowing the risks of formula already, even on BnB, which is made up of people who are literate, interested in reading and discussing about baby stuff etc, I've seen blinkees in sigs which say "FF babies are Just as Healthy, Just as Smart, and Just as Loved as BF babies". Just as loved, totally, of course. But the other two?

would it be better if we had a blinkie that said "I deliberately chose to put my child at risk of obesity, infection and lower iq- but i'll love my fat dumb sick little baby anyway"

your statement is exactly why those blinkies exist. Im sorry if i come across as really really annoyed- im trying not to be- but to insinuate that my child isn't all that she could be because of the method of feeding is hitting way too close to home. And there is a huge difference between "risk" and a guaranteed outcome.

Why not just a 'Proud to formula feed' or 'happy to formula feed', isn't that what people are trying to get across? I don't think one that is a bit harshly worded (as in that extreme example) is good, but then I don't think one that makes out formula to be equal (in specific terms - risk of infection, obestiy etc) is good either.

Edit - I'm getting confused, sorry! I thought the other poster said that harsh one, but see now you said it. I think that is totally different to calling out a blinkie that isn't true.

 

[vintage67]

The other thing regarding health etc, is that I think I'm right in saying the way a child is fed affects their individual results rather than just compared as a group to babies fed another way, so e.g. my BF baby had an ear infection recently and has eczema. You could compare him with a FF baby his age and say that baby is healthier so far and has never had eczema or ear infections but the important thing is for my child, if he were formula fed he'd likely have had more ear infections and worse eczema. That's why I feel some people are missing the point a bit when they say, "My FF baby is very clever and healthy" etc.

As for all women knowing the risks of formula already, even on BnB, which is made up of people who are literate, interested in reading and discussing about baby stuff etc, I've seen blinkees in sigs which say "FF babies are Just as Healthy, Just as Smart, and Just as Loved as BF babies". Just as loved, totally, of course. But the other two?

Yes. Just as healty and just as smart. Prove otherwise.

 

[lhancock90]

The other thing regarding health etc, is that I think I'm right in saying the way a child is fed affects their individual results rather than just compared as a group to babies fed another way, so e.g. my BF baby had an ear infection recently and has eczema. You could compare him with a FF baby his age and say that baby is healthier so far and has never had eczema or ear infections but the important thing is for my child, if he were formula fed he'd likely have had more ear infections and worse eczema. That's why I feel some people are missing the point a bit when they say, "My FF baby is very clever and healthy" etc.

As for all women knowing the risks of formula already, even on BnB, which is made up of people who are literate, interested in reading and discussing about baby stuff etc, I've seen blinkees in sigs which say "FF babies are Just as Healthy, Just as Smart, and Just as Loved as BF babies". Just as loved, totally, of course. But the other two?

Yes. Just as healty and just as smart. Prove otherwise.

To insinuate they aren't, is wrong.
They are at "risk" not instantly thicker and unhealthy.

 

[Tasha]

I agree. But it does make me think, if formula doesn't provide the right fats needed for optimal brain development, what else is it missing? There are literally hundreds of "ingredients" in breastmilk (https://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums/whatsinbreastmilk.pdf), some of which we have no idea what their exact purpose is, and probably plenty more that haven't been discovered yet. So although the IQ difference isn't huge, it does illustrate that breastmilk is designed to provide exactly what babies need for optimum development and no substitute can ever match up to that.

I agree. I was just meaning that I personally wouldnt worry about three points on an IQ test, so that would not be why I would chose to BF. There are many why I would though.

 

[MommaAlexis]

It is a RISK that they will be a minute amount less intelligent then they would have been, had they been BF. Just as we can't say whether or not they were affected, you can't say they weren't either. You can't say that your child was not affected by it even slightly because you don't have a clone of them in the exact same living environment and upbringing that was BF. So, the statement JUST AS SMART, etc. is incorrect because you have absolutely no way of knowing if your specific child would have had the exact same IQ had they been BF. Their IQ was possibly not affected, but no one could tell you for sure. Not a single person in the world can prove whether they 100% are or aren't. The studies are in general, it is a risk. Not "it will guaranteed happen to every single child who is FF and they'll be dumb." And there IS proof that IN GENERAL, it is a RISK. You cannot possibly say that your kid will be exempt to every risk of FFing.

Not saying it should make you BF or anything, I'm just saying, you don't know that.

 

[Kage76]

As for all women knowing the risks of formula already, even on BnB, which is made up of people who are literate, interested in reading and discussing about baby stuff etc, I've seen blinkees in sigs which say "FF babies are Just as Healthy, Just as Smart, and Just as Loved as BF babies". Just as loved, totally, of course. But the other two?

would it be better if we had a blinkie that said "I deliberately chose to put my child at risk of obesity, infection and lower iq- but i'll love my fat dumb sick little baby anyway"

your statement is exactly why those blinkies exist. Im sorry if i come across as really really annoyed- im trying not to be- but to insinuate that my child isn't all that she could be because of the method of feeding is hitting way too close to home. And there is a huge difference between "risk" and a guaranteed outcome.

Why not just a 'Proud to formula feed' or 'happy to formula feed', isn't that what people are trying to get across? I don't think one that is a bit harshly worded (as in that extreme example) is good, but then I don't think one that makes out formula to be equal (in specific terms - risk of infection, obestiy etc) is good either.

Edit - I'm getting confused, sorry! I thought the other poster said that harsh one, but see now you said it. I think that is totally different to calling out a blinkie that isn't true.

Because I'm not proud at all to formula feed- and the blinkie that says just as smart just as healthy and just as loved IS true. If you put my daughter in the same room as a baby of the same age who is BF I challenge you to be able to pick out the BF one.

And if all blinkies had to be truthful there are a couple of BF ones out there that may need some addressing.