Hellobee Boards

@junebugmama: where on the WHO's site does it say that?
Because you literally just gave all first time moms (especially new moms) paranoia for the next 12 months dishing out "facts" like that.
Irregardless, that is ONE organization. For every "fact" proven by an organization you can likely find another reputable organization debunking that fact. such is the beauty of the internet.

ETA: If your goal is to be a LC your job is to "help" a mom who wants to breastfeed and ultimately look out for the best interest of mom and baby. Not to push breastfeeding. That imo is the fail of many LCs.

@winniebee: I agree. It's an extremely reckless statement to put on a public forum.

Threads like this that are suppose to be "helpful" tend to make formula feeding moms feel even more judged.

@Mrs. Jacks: We had one and choose not to use it because our child had a low birth weight (preemie) and the monitor couldn't pick up his breathing so it was constantly going off. Scared the heck out of me.

@Mrs. Jacks: lovely, so I guess I'll just spend my nights glued to the monitor making sure Lo is breathing. No sleep for this mama (kidding but not really...that stat really freaked me out!).

Hey, and I hate to say it but the sleep stretches and SIDS is well documented, but stated incorrectly. The more correct statement is that in babies with a SIDS event, they were babies who were likely to sleep longer and get into deeper sleep than other babies. It doesn't mean that long deep sleepers are likely to have SIDS, rather it means that babies who had a SIDS event were more likely to be long deep sleepers, if you understand my logic!

@Mrs. Jacks: That makes sense to me - thanks for clarifying!

@Mrs. Jacks: that helps a little, thanks

@mrs. wagon: Dr. Google is evil! Esp. for a FTM

@hilsy85: That statement scared me too. I EBF my baby and he sleeps longer than 6 hours at night.

@mrs. wagon: "Beediatrician"! I love it

@stargal: I think I must be the odd ball b/c I ff my first (breastfeeding didn't work out) & I'm now really anti-formula, but I never felt guilty about our feeding choice with G and still don't feel like a failed him or anything... even with my stance on formula.

I think we do the best we can with the information & resources we have at any given time and regardless of what the stats are there isn't any reason to feel guilty in doing so.

@hilsy85: don't be scared! My DD used to sleep great long stretches when she was Leo's age. We had an Angelcare monitor but stopped using it because the false alarms were freaking me out.

I say enjoy the long stretches and hope and pray that he doesn't have a regression at 4 months!

@plantains: thanks! We're right at that point, so fingers crossed we sneak past it!

I think all of the breastfeeding information is really great and I think it is important for babies to get human milk. That said, rule number one is:

"Feed the baby"

Feed the baby however that may be. I will be honest and say that it does irritate me when people don't consider BF as an option - I feel really strongly about this. At the end of the day though, we all need to do what is best for us, our babies and our families.

I have been on an elinination diet since 8 weeks PP, am a WOHM and I EBF - let me tell you, it is HARD. I am lucky to have a great support system both at home and at work. I'm currently struggling with low supply and that is even harder. Even with a great support system and my dedication this could mean the end of my BF relationship way earlier than I had wanted and that is super sad.

I have to remind myself, no matter what, it all comes back to the number one rule. Feed the baby.

@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: If your baby has a milk protein or soy protein intolerance, you need to cut out from your diet all food and drink products containing those proteins (or by-products of them). My son had bloody stools starting at 8 weeks and was diagnosed with a milk protein intolerance. Mrs. Jacks did an entire blog post on it.

I think part of the problem when citing all of these benefits without giving actual numbers is that they can be misleading. Part of my job deals with cancer research. When new data comes out showing a "statistically significant" improvement from some medicine, the media will dutifully report on it and patients may get their hopes up. Unfortunately, the improvements are often significant from a statistical perspective only, like giving the average patient 2 more weeks to live. That's important and great news in the cancer field, but the average patient probably wouldn't see it that way.

Same thing with breastfeeding. I can't find it now, but I read a study once about diarrhea (I think) in formula-fed vs. breastfed babies, and the conclusion was something like 13 of 100 formula babies had one incidence, compared to 9 of 100 breastfed babies. That's a statistically significant difference, but not really worth driving yourself to tears or insanity trying to give your child breastmilk if it's not working for you. But if you just read that long list of benefits, you'd easily conclude that you're dooming your child to a life of illness if you formula feed.

I think we do a disservice to mothers by vilifying formula (not that you did that, @junebugmama, but it happens a lot). Here's a really sad story about a baby who ended up in the hospital for dehydration because her mother had been so thoroughly brainwashed that she refused to give her child formula (she ended up fine thank goodness). http://www.fearlessformulafeeder.com/2013/02/fff-friday-she-offered-me-more-advice-on-how-i-could-try-harder/

Whenever there's a study proving something, there's another study to disprove it. I think a lot of the comments on her support that. For example, a decision like breastfeeding in a third-world country probably provides a huge amount of benefits when compared to babies who aren't breastfed. But in a first-world country, those benefits tend to be more minimal because of all the other resources available. Socio-economic standing also plays a bit role (along with parenting styles). To say improved intelligence, reduced risk of obesity and others are because a baby was breastfed ignores all the other variables involved.
Just pulling one study from MSU (I've seen others but am too lazy to find them), lower income mothers are less likely to breastfeed, but they are also less likely to have access (or can afford) healthier food choices. When you look at that one group, are the higher rates of obesity caused by not breastfeeding or not having access to healthy food?
All these things need to be considered, instead of looking at each variable in a vacuum and provided when sharing statistics to people looking for information. To not do so is simply a disservice.

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2012/very-few-low-income-moms-meet-breastfeeding-recommendations/

http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/why-are-low-income-and-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-to-obesity/

@mediagirl: THIS. I needed to rent a double electric hospital grade pump right after I had my baby b/c my milk wasn't coming in. Even with my awesome insurance, I still had to pay a copay each month for the pump (granted now, it'd be covered under the ACA but back then, it wasn't). It was necessary that I keep pumping to increase (and then maintain) my supply so I needed pumping bottles. Once I started working, my electric pump was a MUST. With the amount of work I had, I could barely afford to take my pumping breaks regularly - I needed that double electric pump so I could efficiently pump my milk in the 15-20 minutes I had. My tubing got a hole in it so I needed to pay for and replace that.

Guess I'm just trying to say - breast feeding can get pricey too.

@shortcake: Well said. Agree completely.