Breastfed infants have more challenging tempermants (study)

[sometimesrunner]

Well, I have never called my son an asshole once we started FF, so there's that. lol But seriously, M WAS more challenging because he had MSPI. But he would have been challenging on "regular" formula as well, I just would have actually gotten a break if we would have FF from the beginning.

ETA: OMG...working on fixing my sig pic right now. fixed

[toesie]

Well, my baby was pretty not happy then. She didn't smile much, laugh much and just generally demanded more attention. Looking back, I think she was just hungry. I probably didn't make enough milk for her then. Or could just be that I was stressed out about making enough milk and she picked up on it. I dunno.
She got way happier once we added solids, which she was/is a fan of.

[heygrey]

Oct 27, 2014 10:36:15 GMT -5 @this said:

This is dumb. Of course I would have rated DD as more challenging when I was her 100% sole provider of sustenance. lol

I do think the breast is best/formula judging pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, but claiming formula fed babies are happier (and more "vocal" lol) is laughable.

this was my first thought. i wasn't getting enough sleep, mostly because i was his sole source of food, and he wanted to eat all night. had i been getting better stretches of sleep myself, my outlook and opinion on nearly everything in the first ~4 months would have been more positive. 

[water*drop]

I think it's interesting. DD was very difficult, but she was MSPI, so that would have been an issue regardless of feeding method.

I do kind of feel like it's obvious that not being able to split the feeding with a partner is going to make me perceive that my baby is more difficult than if I could say "hey, DH, you take this MOTN feeding, okay?" or not have to worry about being gone over a feeding or whatever, though. I mean, the bulk of my interaction with DD as a newborn was when she was screaming or nursing because if she was content, I put her down so I could go sleep or have 20 minutes of time to myself. I wasn't the one getting the happy baby. I was the one getting the hungry baby.

On one hand, I wish they would have done some observations that weren't self-reported. They say that the studies that weren't self-reported haven't indicated an actual difference in temperament, but the studies had small sample sizes so may be inconclusive due to sample size. OTOH, I guess it doesn't really matter if an outsider says my baby isn't difficult if *I* think she is difficult. In fact, that would probably make me feel worse.

[kategm]

Oct 27, 2014 11:22:54 GMT -5 water*drop said:

I think it's interesting. DD was very difficult, but she was MSPI, so that would have been an issue regardless of feeding method.

I do kind of feel like it's obvious that not being able to split the feeding with a partner is going to make me perceive that my baby is more difficult than if I could say "hey, DH, you take this MOTN feeding, okay?" or not have to worry about being gone over a feeding or whatever, though. I mean, the bulk of my interaction with DD as a newborn was when she was screaming or nursing because if she was content, I put her down so I could go sleep or have 20 minutes of time to myself. I wasn't the one getting the happy baby. I was the one getting the hungry baby.

On one hand, I wish they would have done some observations that weren't self-reported. They say that the studies that weren't self-reported haven't indicated an actual difference in temperament, but the studies had small sample sizes so may be inconclusive due to sample size. OTOH, I guess it doesn't really matter if an outsider says my baby isn't difficult if *I* think she is difficult. In fact, that would probably make me feel worse.

You just described the first 5 months of my daughter's life. This is incredibly enlightening. And yes, it does feel like shit when everyone tells me "there's no way she could be colicky because she's so happy!" Yes, happy until she screams for hours and hours and hours on end... But they didn't see that part...

[Deleted]

Huh. Well my anecdote for the day is that since day 1, DS1 has been super laid back and docile. Smiley, happy, laughing mover. He was EBF until about 7 months, at which point he went to exclusive FF and it made absolutely no difference.

I feel like this goes back to the whole nature v. nurture thing. Sometimes a babies temperament is just their temperament.

[L]

Honestly, my DD1 (who was basically EFF) is BY FAR my happiest, easiest baby...BY FAR....followed distantly by DD3 who started getting formula at 4mo & was EFF by 8mo. DD2 & 4 were basically EBF long term (over 12mo) and were both pretty miserable babies a lot of the time. . Anecdotes.

[formerlyllizzyb]

My EBF baby had a more challenging temperament than most of my friends' babies, regardless of feeding method.

However, I probably would have reported him having a slightly easier temperament had I not BFed him.

[dcn]

Ds was ebf. I would describe ds as a very happy baby. He was vocal and smiley. He was a shitty sleeper for sure but otherwise he was generally enjoyable. anecdote!

[auntie]

I wonder if kids who are EBF, as a group, include more kids who do have challenging personalities.

In talking with moms of kids with behavioral and developmental issues a surprising number of babies who went on to get a dx of ASD and SPD later did not easily transition to the FF and/or solids. Their moms had often planned to wean to FF by a certain milestone and were unable to do that. Consequently a lot of those moms were unhappy and trapped feeling.

It could be that author has it backwards. It could be a percentage of these kids are less enaging, smiley, vocal and personable (sound like a potential ASD dx in the future), but not because they are EFF. They are EBF because they don't have the temperament to be breezy.

[thebreakfastclub]

Most importantly, FF was way easier for me. Bonus, my kid was easy and happy.

At least they stated that the BF babies ate more often, since that seems to be true, but not really acknowledged a lot.

[stealthmom]

This is stupid. Ds2 went from 100% ebf to 100% ff in a matter of a month. His temperament never changed.

And if they are surveying first-time moms I give this very little credibility. When you have nothing else to compare your kid to you aren't a good judge of temperament. I certainly wasn't.

[teatimefor2]

Interesting, DS1 was EBF as well as typically happy and an excellent sleeper. We had zero issues BF and he was a bigger baby, I wonder if that makes a difference. Regardless, I believe it's based more on the individual baby and parent perspectives. It's a very subjective topic.

[karinothing]

ANECDOTE - DS was attached to my boob pretty much 24/7 and he never cried longer than like 2 minutes until he started throwing tantrums (well, when he wasn't in the car anyway). But seriously, he was the most chillax smiley baby ever.

But yes, I would agree this likely has something to do with how dependent EBF babies are on mom.

[speckledfrog]

My BF babies are two of the most mellow babies I've seen. Kids come with their inherent personalities and parents have their own personalities. I think that determines a lot of how you experience those early months (barring medical issues).

[Birdie]

DS was pretty high needs when he was tiny. He was EFF from 4 weeks on and pretty much cried any time he wasn't asleep and never let me put him down. Now he's the complete opposite, but those first 8-10 weeks were challenging.

I think babies are just made to be pissed off. They're either hangry or they eat too much and make their bellies hurt (my DS). I'd be surprised to find a baby who was happy go lucky right out of the womb.