Breastfed exclusively for 6 months. Is formula ok now?
captainbill
New member
@olamide What do you mean risks?
Do you mean health risks to the baby? There are none (excluding any allergies or something along those lines). Formula is perfectly safe.
Do you mean risks to the mother? Breast feeding lowers the risk of some cancers I believe. Probably not by an amount that would make someone continue for that reason alone.
Do you mean health risks to the baby? There are none (excluding any allergies or something along those lines). Formula is perfectly safe.
Do you mean risks to the mother? Breast feeding lowers the risk of some cancers I believe. Probably not by an amount that would make someone continue for that reason alone.
@captainbill The ones that worry me (and I’m not sure if any are confirmed risks) is permanent damage to gut, risk of diabetes/obesity. What makes me feel shy about formula is even the copy on the packaging says breast is best! In bold font front and center 
katrina2017
New member
@olamide They only put that because breastfeeding activist pushed it but it’s perfectly safe. The benefits of breastfeeding are marginal.
https://time.com/99746/its-time-to-end-the-breast-is-best-myth/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361236/
https://time.com/99746/its-time-to-end-the-breast-is-best-myth/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361236/
@katrina2017 Just a quick note to say one of these links doesn’t appear to be a scholarly source and the other one explicitly states it cannot speak to OP’s concern re: impact of feeding on risk of metabolic dysfunction.
“Some caveats about the validity of our estimates are also in order. One is that sample size limits the robustness of any individual estimate. In the case of a relatively rare outcome like diabetes, the sample is too small (only 78 cases in the full sample, and 19 in the sibling subsample) to permit meaningful conclusions. More generally, our effective sample size depends on the number of cases in which two siblings have different breastfeeding histories.”
Also (*** this isn’t directed at you, complex-box***), I have to say… I’m glad that people are pushing back against a tone deaf “breast is best in all cases” perspective, but I’m kind of shocked by how many people are telling this OP that there is absolutely positively no impact whatsoever regarding formula vs breastfeeding. I think whatever effects might exist are often overblown, but it’s not very scientific to dogmatically claim no effects exist given the state of the literature. Let’s allow for some nuance, please. And stop downvoting a parent for trying to get a handle on the science.
“Some caveats about the validity of our estimates are also in order. One is that sample size limits the robustness of any individual estimate. In the case of a relatively rare outcome like diabetes, the sample is too small (only 78 cases in the full sample, and 19 in the sibling subsample) to permit meaningful conclusions. More generally, our effective sample size depends on the number of cases in which two siblings have different breastfeeding histories.”
Also (*** this isn’t directed at you, complex-box***), I have to say… I’m glad that people are pushing back against a tone deaf “breast is best in all cases” perspective, but I’m kind of shocked by how many people are telling this OP that there is absolutely positively no impact whatsoever regarding formula vs breastfeeding. I think whatever effects might exist are often overblown, but it’s not very scientific to dogmatically claim no effects exist given the state of the literature. Let’s allow for some nuance, please. And stop downvoting a parent for trying to get a handle on the science.
sarebear1992
New member
@sarebear1992 Here’s one. Just an example. From my read overall, the literature is very much still evolving (and again, it’s still so difficult to account for all potential confounders!!). It’s truly a complex and emotionally fraught research question. (Impressive how so many Redditors have it all figured out /s 
)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5481976/
“Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies have suggested that breastfeeding more than 3 months (10,11), and exclusive breastfeeding for more than 2 weeks (12), are associated with an approximately 15–30% lower risk of type 1 diabetes.”
“Our key findings are that children never breastfed had a twofold increased risk for developing type 1 diabetes, and that—perhaps most important—no clinically relevant difference in risk was found for those with different durations of either full or any breastfeeding among those who ever breastfed.”
Also note:
“In line with previous population-based studies (13,15), we found no evidence for an association between age at introduction of formula and development of type 1 diabetes. This is also concurrent with results from the randomized Trial to Reduce IDDM in the Genetically at Risk (TRIGR) study, showing that weaning to a highly hydrolyzed formula, compared with regular cow’s milk formula, was not associated with a decreased risk of multiple islet autoantibodies (24).”
(OP, this is all still consistent with the overwhelming assertions that formula is perfectly good for you to switch to!!)
)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5481976/
“Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies have suggested that breastfeeding more than 3 months (10,11), and exclusive breastfeeding for more than 2 weeks (12), are associated with an approximately 15–30% lower risk of type 1 diabetes.”
“Our key findings are that children never breastfed had a twofold increased risk for developing type 1 diabetes, and that—perhaps most important—no clinically relevant difference in risk was found for those with different durations of either full or any breastfeeding among those who ever breastfed.”
Also note:
“In line with previous population-based studies (13,15), we found no evidence for an association between age at introduction of formula and development of type 1 diabetes. This is also concurrent with results from the randomized Trial to Reduce IDDM in the Genetically at Risk (TRIGR) study, showing that weaning to a highly hydrolyzed formula, compared with regular cow’s milk formula, was not associated with a decreased risk of multiple islet autoantibodies (24).”
(OP, this is all still consistent with the overwhelming assertions that formula is perfectly good for you to switch to!!)
sarebear1992
New member
@syneryder But as the study notes:
“Children who were never breastfed had lower birth weight and younger gestational age, and were more likely to be born via cesarean delivery than children who were breastfed. Moreover, their mothers had less education and were more likely to be obese (Supplementary Table 2).
Never being breastfed was associated with a twofold higher risk for developing type 1 diabetes compared with those who were breastfed (HR 2.29 [95% CI 1.14–4.61] for no breastfeeding compared with any breastfeeding for ≥12 months; HR 2.31 [95% CI 1.11–4.80] for no breastfeeding compared with full breastfeeding for ≥6 months) (Fig. 2). However, we found no difference in type 1 diabetes risk by duration of either full or any breastfeeding for those who initiated at least some breastfeeding.”
To me—this largely suggests that socioeconomic factors are largely at play here. Especially when you note the relatively small differences even between “any” breastfeeding and “full breastfeeding” in the incidences of diabetes.
“Children who were never breastfed had lower birth weight and younger gestational age, and were more likely to be born via cesarean delivery than children who were breastfed. Moreover, their mothers had less education and were more likely to be obese (Supplementary Table 2).
Never being breastfed was associated with a twofold higher risk for developing type 1 diabetes compared with those who were breastfed (HR 2.29 [95% CI 1.14–4.61] for no breastfeeding compared with any breastfeeding for ≥12 months; HR 2.31 [95% CI 1.11–4.80] for no breastfeeding compared with full breastfeeding for ≥6 months) (Fig. 2). However, we found no difference in type 1 diabetes risk by duration of either full or any breastfeeding for those who initiated at least some breastfeeding.”
To me—this largely suggests that socioeconomic factors are largely at play here. Especially when you note the relatively small differences even between “any” breastfeeding and “full breastfeeding” in the incidences of diabetes.
@sarebear1992 Yes, that is likely playing a role!
I cited that article and pulled those quotes simply to show that OP’s concern wasn’t some asinine question totally divorced from the extant literature on the topic. OP was asked to identify the sources that prompted her concerns, so I provided a relevant candidate.
I cited that article and pulled those quotes simply to show that OP’s concern wasn’t some asinine question totally divorced from the extant literature on the topic. OP was asked to identify the sources that prompted her concerns, so I provided a relevant candidate.
captainbill
New member
@olamide Fed is best and your baby will be perfectly safe whatever you do.
I’m not sure where you’re located but in the US there has been a huge swing from breastfeeding to formula and now it’s shifting back to breast again. Formula absolutely saves lives, but it’s also not always needed. My MIL was so surprised that I’ve been breastfeeding this long because she was pushed to formula and really thought that kids need more than breast milk. I think the shift back to breast is just backlash against the formula push and acknowledgment that you don’t need to supplement if you don’t want to or have enough of a supply.
Formula is heavily studied and there is no real connection to any of those things, it’s impossible to isolate breastfeeding and formula feeding from the other factors that do influence things like obesity. For example someone who might formula feed perhaps does so because both parents work and maybe also because they both work they eat fast food or frozen food more often because there’s no time to cook healthy meals every day. That doesn’t mean it’s formulas fault if the child becomes obese.
I’m not sure where you’re located but in the US there has been a huge swing from breastfeeding to formula and now it’s shifting back to breast again. Formula absolutely saves lives, but it’s also not always needed. My MIL was so surprised that I’ve been breastfeeding this long because she was pushed to formula and really thought that kids need more than breast milk. I think the shift back to breast is just backlash against the formula push and acknowledgment that you don’t need to supplement if you don’t want to or have enough of a supply.
Formula is heavily studied and there is no real connection to any of those things, it’s impossible to isolate breastfeeding and formula feeding from the other factors that do influence things like obesity. For example someone who might formula feed perhaps does so because both parents work and maybe also because they both work they eat fast food or frozen food more often because there’s no time to cook healthy meals every day. That doesn’t mean it’s formulas fault if the child becomes obese.
@olamide Research the Nestlé scandal. Back in the 70s Nestlé would poach new moms, even going as far as pretending to be nurses and talking to new moms after birth and telling them how great formula is and how it's better than breastmilk and would hand out samples so in turn, moms would hear from "doctors" that this is better, immediately use samples and then their milk wouldn't come in and they were forever reliant on formula. Win for Nestlé! There was a huge lawsuit over it which turned into laws today that make it so companies cannot give kickbacks to pediatricians for any food or drug and they are required to put on the can that breastmilk is the best source of nutrition for baby. Which it is! Technically. But today's formula is so incredibly close to breastmilk that there isn't much difference, they just have to put that on the can for legal purposes now 
@olamide I’m sorry you’re getting downvoted for simply asking a question. There are absolutely studies that show a correlation between the absence of breastfeeding and some increased risk of adverse outcomes. It’s important to keep in mind that (a) it’s very difficult to tease apart the effects of all confounding variables in those studies, (b) even if a correlation is statistically significant, that does not necessarily mean that it is a meaningful effect size (e.g., say, totally hypothetical the difference between 3 colds vs 4 colds might be significant but not particularly meaningful in the real world), and (c) much of the extant literature suggests much/most of any benefit that does exist is concentrated in the early time after birth. Keep in mind, maternal mental health is also incredibly important to babe (and as a parent, your wellbeing should count as important in and of itself regardless of how it may impact the development of others). SO, again, sorry for the pile on. You should feel confident in making the switch if that works best for you.
immortalitas
New member
apolloxlvii
New member
@olamide I know this is anecdotal, but, My brother and both my sons, 100% formula fed since birth. Me, breast fed. They are all thin, and I am a big old fatty. Them: all healthy AF. Me? Gallbladder removed, lactose intolerant, multiple stomach issues.
Genetics and diet/lack for exercise are much more influential than being formula fed.
Genetics and diet/lack for exercise are much more influential than being formula fed.
@olamide My understanding is that there is no risk even going all formula from the beginning
https://parentdata.org/breast-is-best-breast-is-better-breast-is-about-the-same/As
https://parentdata.org/breast-is-best-breast-is-better-breast-is-about-the-same/As
mcbrideusa
New member
@anth987 Your link for some reason goes to an article about circumcision, here's the real one: https://parentdata.org/breast-is-best-breast-is-better-breast-is-about-the-same/
"About the same" does not mean "zero risk." It means risk is small. Per the article you posted.
"About the same" does not mean "zero risk." It means risk is small. Per the article you posted.
angel_sword
New member
reforming1969
New member
@angel_sword The formula itself is safe, it’s the quality of the drinking water that’s not. Using bottled water fixes this issue.
lethimhear
New member
@reforming1969 And I’ll add the caveat - if the parent can reliably afford it. The mix of those two things - water quality and formula being expensive - is why it’s more important in developing countries not to be overly reliant on formula. Because if a parent is told formula feeding is superior (as they were a previous generation ago) and their milk supply dries up but simultaneously they become unable to buy formula, it’s been observed that parents will do dangerous things like ‘diluting’ their formula to make it last longer.
That said, formula absolutely saves lives all over the world.
That said, formula absolutely saves lives all over the world.