For me ff was simpler because bf was:
1) Sit down
2) Plop out breast(s)?
3) switch breast
4) switch breast
5) switch breast
etc. alot for hours on end. Both my babies wanted to constantly for
hours on end be on the nipple because of supply issues. I gave up on
bf with my first and persevered with the help of domperidone with my
second.

while ff was:

1) pour water in bottle
2) put formula in bottle
3) shake
4) feed baby for max 15 min

Which required no refrigeration, microwave, pitcher, or measuring
cups. It did require a store :-)

I think it is my supply issues and inability to move while bf because
of large breasts which make it hard for my dd to keep her latch that
make me think bf is hard.

What I think it comes down to is YMMV. For someone who has a baby
that nurses every 2 hours for 10 minutes and can walk around during
that, and sleeps fine on their side at night and doesn't get mastitis
or have a bad latch, or a baby with a small mouth, bf the easier. For
people who don't worry about sterilizing bottles, give kids room temp
formula made with powder on the spot with a fast flow nipple, formula
feeding is a breeze. It is just different for different people in
different circumstances.

KC

dragonlady wrote in message news:mehouck- OK -- but how was that simpler than:

1) Sit down
2) Plop out breast(s)?

Which requires no refrigeration, microwave, store, pitcher, or measuring
cups?

(Again, I really am NOT trying to be difficult; I've heard people say
that bottles were simpler than breasts. Since my first was
bottle/formula fed after a few months, and my twins breastfed, I have
the comparison, and considered breast SO much simpler -- I'm just trying
to understand why, for some folks, the bottle is simpler.)

(And, yes, I understand that for many people bottle feeding is
necessary/desirable for reasons that have nothing to do with simplicity.)

meh