"Breastfeeding Overrated?"

[xolynn]

https://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/breastfeeding-just-might-be-overrated--study-finds-184819287.html;_ylt=Amcr2wzFvE2NZcfyOJgAUspabqU5;_ylu=X3oDMTE2cDcyZjM4BG1pdAMEcG9zAzQEc2VjA01lZGlhQkNhcm91c2VsTWl4ZWRMUENB;_ylg=X3oDMTBhYWM1a2sxBGxhbmcDZW4tVVM-;_ylv=3

So just read this article and wanted to see others thoughts on it. Honestly not sure what to think of it thought it was a bit wierd lol normally all you see is BF being promoted...

 

[counting]

There are some issues with the study, but most studies do have some issues. Here is a good link about this.

https://bfmed.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/reports-on-breastfeeding-sibling-study-are-vastly-overstated/

I think families need to look at all evidence presented and make an informed decision about parenting choices, rather than just one single study.

 

[xolynn]

Yeah definitely a good point...one study shouldnt sway a parent either way. Oh and btw I wasn't trying to say BFing usually being promoted is a bad thing or anything(don't want to start a debate of FF vs BF)...just wanted to get the article out there for other opinions..

 

[HPmum2B]

But even if that is true that there is little long term benefit, that does not negate the shorter term benefits. Also, asthma is a huge benefit, reducing the risk of a potentially fatal condition. I believe the risks of things like eczema and hay fever are also reduced? And they are often linked with asthma.

Even the smallest of benefits makes it worth the effort for me.

I breastfed my first, and am currently breastfeeding my second, and it is hard work. DD1 was most difficult, this time round I am far more prepared, so I can completely understand why some people would struggle with breastfeeding and I take my hat off to anyone who gives it a go. If you choose not to breastfeed, then that is your choice and I completely respect your right to choose. I just think its marvelous we live in a world with options.

 

[special_kala]

Of course studies are going to be swayed by social factors but the basic scientific facts prove time and time again that breast milk is very beneficial.

If people choose not to breastfeed after being given all the information that's their choice and if it doesn't work out through lack of support them shame on those who should have been supporting new mums but studies like are not going to change the fact that statistically breast milk is the lower risk option (in 99% of cases).

 

[sue_88]

No point to articles like this.

Science is science, IMO. I do what's best for my baby, not what's best for me.

I actually think it's rude for the article to call BFing overrated, as the reverse would cause an uproar....but of course, that wouldn't be allowed.

 

[special_kala]

No point to articles like this.

Science is science, IMO. I do what's best for my baby, not what's best for me.

I actually think it's rude for the article to call BFing overrated, as the reverse would cause an uproar....but of course, that wouldn't be allowed.

Can you imagine a study that 'proved' "formula is unsatisfactory"...that would go down well so well right)

 

[HKateH]

Science is science, IMO. I do what's best for my baby, not what's best for me.

:

I'm staying out of this thread after this post as I know where it will go and I don't care for the bf vs ff debate (again) BUT this annoys me. This is the second time recently that I've noticed a post of yours taking a superior attitude towards others who make different choices. It's posts like these that tend to kick start heated threads as they come across as judgemental.

 

[Miss_Cellany]

This isn't just an article, it's science. Just like the other studies that show breast is best. I think the problem is that the media have decided to go for shock factor headlines. No-one, not even the people who carried out the research are suggesting that breast isn't best, just that some of the factors that are attributed to breastfeeding are possibly more related to socio-economic factors, such as intelligence, happiness, bond with parents etc. It doesn't debate that breast milk is best for some illnesses that have already been proved.

The problem with any research into babies is that you can never have a control group to make sure that the data isn't flawed by a different factor in their upbringing. There is no way to prove that intelligence is because of the milk you drank, the parents you have, the number of siblings, the clothes you wore, the toys you had....

I personally think that intelligence and allergies are probably genetic rather than anything to do with what you eat in your early years.

 

[sue_88]

It's not judgemental, it's the choice I make for my baby.

You make your own choices.

Frankly, I only care about how I raise my child, and yes I do what's best for her.

For the record, I am a FF baby. Am I heathly? Yes, nothing at all medically wrong with me, and never has been. Do I care that I wasn't BF because my mum found it weird? Yes, I do.

 

[tristansmum]

I agree with the study. Firstly they are not saying formula is better than breast milk or that you should not breastfeed. They simply showed that in families where each child was fed differently their health was no different. I believe this is the first study to look at children with in the same family so other factors are as similar as possible such as wealth, family history, housing etc. So I'm sure more studies will follow.
I was unable to bf my first and I nd my second for 8 weeks before switching to formula. I do believe that breast is best if it's possible. For me it wasn't... Even the second time I found it uncomfortable and I hated doing it. Switching to formula made me a better mum.
I think a study like this can help with the guilt many ff mums feel when they stop bf. It shows what I believe that other factors affect our children's health and future just asmuch/ more than how they were fed as iinfants

 

[Pielette]

It's food for thought.

Ultimately a study like this does interest me because I ff my first and am currently breastfeeding my second. However, I have looked for the answer to this but can't find it anywhere, what did the study determine as 'breastfed'? How long were these children breastfed? Because I could say my eldest was breastfed as he was for three weeks but in the grand scheme of things no he wasn't breastfed, he was formula fed.

I'd like to know the answer because there's a difference between a child breastfed for a year and one breastfed for two months. Are we comparing full term breastfeeders? Or those breastfed until 6 months? I can't work out what parameters we're dealing with.

Unfortunately the media has seized on the wrong terminology. I do think that the author has good intentions here, not that that matters in science. She's trying to make the point that there often isn't enough support out there to enable some to breastfeed. Flexible working hours, more affordable childcare, more support in the early weeks and diagnosis and solutions to problems.

In terms of the ff vs bf debate, I think it's been done to death on here. There's no point. We all know that breast is best in terms of nutrition. Formula however is a very good substitute. Those are the facts. However there are many other factors involved in feeding method and often these are personal to each individual mother. Do what is best for you. I will do what is best for me, and neither one should judge the other. I'm sick of mothers bashing each other and getting defensive.

 

[liz1985]

Theres already a thread on this study that been moved to discussions and debates or whatever it called.

If you read the actual study not just the articles, it promotes bf and doesnt disregard any of the benifits of bf, its mostly looking at the claims that bf helps children to perform better at school with higher grades etc, and this study believes that it is more connected to social and economic factors than bf or ff.

Articles always choose the parts they want for attention grabbing headlines and stories that will cause debate.

There is a page on the nhs website that looks at the study and what it means.

 

[Noo]

It's not judgemental, it's the choice I make for my baby.

You make your own choices.

Frankly, I only care about how I raise my child, and yes I do what's best for her.

For the record, I am a FF baby. Am I heathly? Yes, nothing at all medically wrong with me, and never has been. Do I care that I wasn't BF because my mum found it weird? Yes, I do.

^^ this - I have a strange resentment for my mother since she didn't attempt to BF me. Sad really.

The feature doesn't contain all the research though. Only the parts it wishes to highlight so in that sense even if the research is valid - the feature is bias.

 

[MommyJogger]

It's food for thought.

Ultimately a study like this does interest me because I ff my first and am currently breastfeeding my second. However, I have looked for the answer to this but can't find it anywhere, what did the study determine as 'breastfed'? How long were these children breastfed? Because I could say my eldest was breastfed as he was for three weeks but in the grand scheme of things no he wasn't breastfed, he was formula fed.

I'd like to know the answer because there's a difference between a child breastfed for a year and one breastfed for two months. Are we comparing full term breastfeeders? Or those breastfed until 6 months? I can't work out what parameters we're dealing with.

Unfortunately the media has seized on the wrong terminology. I do think that the author has good intentions here, not that that matters in science. She's trying to make the point that there often isn't enough support out there to enable some to breastfeed. Flexible working hours, more affordable childcare, more support in the early weeks and diagnosis and solutions to problems.

In terms of the ff vs bf debate, I think it's been done to death on here. There's no point. We all know that breast is best in terms of nutrition. Formula however is a very good substitute. Those are the facts. However there are many other factors involved in feeding method and often these are personal to each individual mother. Do what is best for you. I will do what is best for me, and neither one should judge the other. I'm sick of mothers bashing each other and getting defensive.

The study failed to define their parameters for how long a woman would have to breastfeed to be in the breastfed group or the average bf duration for the bf group, but if you look at the data in the cohort, in order to get the number of dichotomous siblings they included in the study, they would have to include combi-fed children in the "breastfeeding" group. The average required duration of breastfeeding for most studies like these is that the child receives breastmilk of some volume (usually at least 80% of food intake) for at least 12 weeks, but some studies only require 8 weeks of breastfeeding duration to include the baby in the 'breastfed' group. After 12 weeks, they disregard how the infant was fed when they look at bf as a boolean (yes/no) variable. They apparently looked at how the numbers stack up with bf duration and claimed that the results hold, but they never define the range of weeks they look at, so their longest duration may have been 12 weeks and they don't include any of their data or calculations from the "duration" variable to check what the longest duration might have been.

 

[MommyJogger]

I posted this somewhere else, too, but it's of note that of all the outcomes the researchers had access to through the cohort, they chose the outcomes for which the "bf has statistical benefits" links were the weakest in the rest of the available research anyway.
It also doesn't speak at all about the short-term benefits (the study doesn't need to to be an interesting study, but the way the media is sensationalizing it as if all the benefits have been 'overstated' is really frustrating), but even in the US, we're talking about over 900 children who could be saved each year by raising the rate of bf.

 

[babyjan]

Science is science, IMO. I do what's best for my baby, not what's best for me.

:

I'm staying out of this thread after this post as I know where it will go and I don't care for the bf vs ff debate (again) BUT this annoys me. This is the second time recently that I've noticed a post of yours taking a superior attitude towards others who make different choices. It's posts like these that tend to kick start heated threads as they come across as judgemental.

It doesn't sound like she's being judgemental to me, just stating that she's doing what's best for her baby :/

**Oh sorry I guess I just didn't read it as something rude

 

[kirstybumx3]

I just wish these didn't keep popping up because I wanted to breast feed and couldn't. And often find mums that do breast feed don't think of that when they are saying ff isn't as good. I know it isn't and feel guilty daily that I'm not "doing what's best for my baby" !

 

[cherrylips100]

I am still massively touchy about the whole bf vs ff subject. I tried so hard to bf but due to many reasons I had to stop and I think about it everyday. I think women are put under so much pressure to bf and for many it just doesn't work out the way they wanted it to.
I honestly think if I had kept trying I would have ended up with pnd, so although breast feeding is the healthiest option it wasn't the best option for me or my babies.

 

[thayet]

I just wish these didn't keep popping up because I wanted to breast feed and couldn't. And often find mums that do breast feed don't think of that when they are saying ff isn't as good. I know it isn't and feel guilty daily that I'm not "doing what's best for my baby" !

Yeah. I don't care so much about the debate that this article has (yet again) sparked, but I wish threads like these could be restricted to the breastfeeding and/or issues and debates forums. For those of us who desperately wanted to breastfeed and couldn't, it's a daily knife in the gut to come across threads like this in baby club. This is especially true for those of us struggling with ppd.

Maybe the admins could move this thread?