I Formula Feed
Find a Conversation
I Formula Feed
| Mon, 07-07-2008 - 7:50pm |
I chose to formula feed my daughter. I love her with all my heart, and am a great mother (contray to what other mothers will say because I didn't BF). I gave my daughter the best 9 months of my life when pregnant...eating healthy, excerising, quit smoking, quit drinking, yada yada yada and I give her everything in this world now but yes I was selfish and formula fed and do not regret one second of it. I'm sorry that my husband, mother, sister can help with feedings and make a bottle themselves... I can go out for a night and not worry about having a glass of wine or I can go to the mall and not have to whip my boob out in the middle of the common area. And my daughter is extemely healthy and happy. I don't think Im going to hell because I formula feed nor do I feel I am a bad parent. My husband and I agreed formula was the way to go for us. I'm sure there are plenty of things BF'ing mothers do that other parents wouldn't agree with but that doesnt mean you should be crucified for it. I think other mothers should get off their high horse about bf'ing and realize its just not for everyone and you're not

Pages
In one post you described breastfeeding as 'disgusting', which does show some real hang-ups you have to own.
Then you say
"And what you look at as I could have BF, I look at as there is no way. For me is not something I could just get over like you may think. "
Did you actually try to get over it? I mean seek real serious help, from a therapist maybe as to where this feeling came from, or something? Do you have any real understanding of your own psyche and where this comes from?
On the other hand, there are other mums who felt the same way before baby was born and when breastfeeding began. However, as time went on, the actual act of breastfeeding and perhaps also the associated hormones that help make you feel good, helped them overcome even severe feelings of 'Ick'.
Did you even WANT to get over this issue you have for your children's sake?
I do not know the answers to these questions, but you may care to share. Looking at the 'arguments you have used so far, it sounds as though you have bought into a lot of myths of your own, to justify your decision.
You ask for 'proof' that FF has risks but when it is given, you say you do not really believe in those studies, even when they are large, and it is carefully explained to you how to read the data given. Is it easier for you to say this than to really understand the truth? Some sort of comfort you give yourself?
You have suggested it is 'easier' to FF. Well, perhaps if you 'prop' the bottle and don't actually spend the time with your baby while feeding. While the early weeks for me were very difficult, and pumping and working with one of my children was not easy (the whole working thing with two children under the age of 2 would not be easy anyway) breastfeeding itself is actually much easier once you get going. And for the baby when I did go back to work when he was quite young, BF was SOOOO much easier to do at home and on weekends, as I could catch up on much needed rest.
I got to feed the baby in the evenings, while my DH would often cook. I never had to worry about formula going off in the tropical climate where I live. Night time feeds did not mean a baby waiting hungry, perhaps crying, while I warmed a bottle, nor sitting up with them to feed. Just pop them in the bed and lie down to feed with them. Even some of the day time feeds can be done lying down, giving mum a chance to rest if needed.
Teresa
>>"statistics lie".
I've tried that one in the past, but of course that was thrown out the window.
I am glad you posted that. ITA.
I teach Maths and Science at high school, and also have to teach about scientific methods, and misleading statistics and some causes.
Problems can arise when studies are carried out by or funded by commercial groups with a vested interest. Studies that do not support what they want can then be swept under the carpet and this has happened in some instances with drug testing for example. But there is no commercial enterprise with that vested interest in promoting breastfeeding (except perhaps the makers of pumps, but I do not know if they are supporting research). So that one is a no-brainer. That source of bias does not exist.
Another source of bias can be if the group being researched is too small. This is often the case early on in any research. Later, larger groups are surveyed. Eventually results from many research programs are combined in meta-analyses and the group size builds up even more. This process has already happened with the data being quoted, so small group size is a bias that can be ruled out.
Unmatched groups can be a source of bias. Groups should be matched for things such as socio-economic status, education level, health etc. Failure to match groups completely is indeed a problem that was criticised in some early studies, and researchers have been very careful to iron out such problems in later studies. The later studies have illustrated even more strongly the risks of FF.
Problems with linking cause-effect or some other concurrent thing that is actually the cause can be a problem. But if the groups are matched properly, as has been done, then this can't happen.
In some social types of surveys, faulty/ambiguous/leading wording of questions is a problem. However, when you are measuring objective things like duration of BF/FF and its relationship to actual incidence of various infections, childhood cancers and diabetes, deaths and so on, then this sort of bias does not come into the equation.
Bias can be introduced when statistics are presented, particularly when they are graphed. Problems such as a truncated axis, icons that are enlarged in 3D and so on, are all ways to display otherwise OK results in a misleading way. But this is not a feature of any of the data presented in this thread. So again this is not an issue.
Statistics that leave the reader 'dangling' and not knowing what it is being compared to, are also misleading. eg 20% better/more efficient.
Or 'New improved'
In fact, it is really more in the interest of formula companies to use slogan like 'New improved' or 'Mow even closer to breastmilk'.
Anyway, having gone through many of the reasons why statistics CAN be misleading, and shown that in the case of the data presented, NONE of these reasons apply, we can surely put to rest the claim that 'statistics lie' in this particular case.
Teresa
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thanks
Yes I have hang ups which are mine.
Shari mother to
I have a tremendous amount of respect that you recognize that you have a "hang up" and didn't want to breastfeed. I fully support your right to make that choice. I don't see it as "selfish" to not work through it and "just breastfeed".
But I don't think you and I are on the same page when it comes to estimating the relative risk of not breastfeeding. I infer from your posts that you view the risk as quite small, maybe even inconsequential.
I haven't found (yet anyway) an effective way to assess or debate how important the risks are deemed to be by different people. KWIM?
Thanks for your post Shari. I appreciate your own honesty here - and the fact that you obviously did do some research.
"The reason I always get on this board is that FFing is risky to baby. Yes it may be an unnecessary risk the way you see it."
Given that this board is about debating the relative merits of BF vs. FF in terms of the substances themselves, then yes, that is what you will hear about on this board. And for good reaon, I think that a site like this can, and has, done much to educate.
I hope that even though you had your own personal reservations and issues with breastfeeding, that you are able to see that, and perhaps encourage your own children to not feel the same way as they grow up, and learn that bf is not 'disgusting' as you put it.
Teresa
Cathie
First of all thank you for the post.
Shari mother to
"Sure it's possible, that if I learned how to do it "right", my vegetables and animals would be sufficiently different than the ones the store carries, but I argue that the differences would still be small relative to the effort."
I think that's a good point.
Pages