Benefits of bfing over ffing?

[you]

Okay I'm writing this on the back of reading the bfing thread in aibu but putting it here as I'd really like it to not turn into a gunfight if at all possible please :)

With regards to the risks of formula feeding an otherwise healthy term infant in this country, and presuming all other environmental and social factors are the same, what are the risks, really? I've rad the leaflets and been on a UNICEF course and am totally pro breastfeedibg, however I can't help but think a lot of the benefits are emotional rather than physical especially as the child gets older.

I've read a lot of research but a lot if it does show extra factors to be involved such as making up bottles indifferent.

So, IF a mother makes up the bottles correctly thus vastly reducing her chances of gastroenteritis, feeds baby in arms rather than with a bottle propped up against a cot side which seemed contribute to most babies ending up with ear infections, feeds on demand as would a bf mother etc what is a baby in this country really likely to end up with, risks wise? I believe the allergy link is pretty poor evidence wise so all were really left with is 3 points worth of iq and of course the not insignificant lack of antibodies, so more coughs/ colds pressumably but anything long term?

I really am interested so please let's not turn this into a debate as they all go the same way are boring :)

And sorry for any silly typos am on my iPod and the spell check is dire.

"cop yourself on"?

Rollit -- please keep your arguments coming. You are making a very interesting case.

I am a huge supporter of breastfeeding (when it is right for the mother), but more importantly I am a supporter of getting the facts out to women so that they can make an informed choice. So far it seems as though the popular literature on the topic is not in tune with the medical literature -- and that I find very sad for the countless women who have a terrible time breastfeeding and then suffer needless guilt when they switch to formula.

That aside, years ago I read an interesting article in slate magazine (owned by the Washington Post) which explained that the antibodies in breast milk do not pass the intestinal wall in humans as they do in most other mammals. The immunity passed from mother to baby, is passed through the placenta prior to birth. The antibodies in the breast milk remain in the gut providing the protective gastrointestinal benefits which have been mentioned several times on this thread. However, they do not pass into a babies blood protecting it from all manners of disease.

Has anyone else come across this information? And if so, does anyone know of any recent studies that may have been done on this?

Here is the article by the way:

www.slate.com/id/2138629/

Many thanks!

I understand why it is better than an observational study but it does not randomise breastfeeding itself does it. Yes it lead to increased BF in one group - but that is not the same as getting a group of pregnant women and telling one group to BF and one not (and them following through with that).

However even though the design may be better than an observational study it is one / two studies compared to thousands of observational ones.

I think I need to go back and read this thread in detail.

Actually I am interested in that too. I genuinely thought that was proven.

No idea sorry but interested

I thought the literature said that if the mother caught a cold the baby would receive some protection. However now you mention it I cannot remember reading that in a scientific paper.

I did know it wasnt automatic for all illnesses. For example when measles was doing the rounds here and DD was 10 months ish and BF there didnt seem to be any clear evidence it would protect her (a few studies said marginal protection).

What was suggested is that BF would provide some non specific immune protection.

However again I cannot link this scientifically.

Will have a look

The reason why I mentioned this point is that the immunoligical benefits (beyond what goes on in the intestine) are repeatedly brought up in forums as a reason to breastfeed and yet I can't seem to find any study to confirm this.

I have come up in several instances on non-scientific literature stating that the reason why immunisations start at 8 weeks is because this is when maternal immunity in an infant begins to wane....

Hmmmm.....I want to get my hands on those 40 year old studies mentioned in the article!

Anyone else?

Would that not be because they can't assume an 8 week old baby is still being breastfed?

Majority of 8 week old babies are not being breastfed.

Havent read article yet but will try and dig out the papers.

Gaelic I really don't know but the Slate article which was written by Sydney Spiesel - a clinical professor of pediatrics at Yale University's School of Medicine -- seems to suggest otherwise. As in the immunolical benefits of breastfeeding are overstated so infants (bf or not) do need these vaccines early on precisely because they aren't protected via their mother's breastmilk.

didn't mean to delete sydney spiesels credentials!

Sorry gaelic, just to be as specific as possible.....the article does not 'suggest' that infants need early immunisations because of waning naternal antibodies....i made that link (which is in no way scientific so please correct me if wrong!)based on the article's explanation of maternal antibodies not passing through an infant's intestinal wall.

I?m back tracking here somewhat, but I'm just reading through the thread in detail. Rollit said, in the context of arguing against the biological norm pov: ?Multiple pregnancies are the biological norm?. I?m not sure whether you mean multiple as in twins, triplets, etc or multiple as in many of them. The first are normal yes, but much rarer before fertility treatment. The second, many pregnancies, are NOT the biological norm, at least not very closely spaced. There is an argument that long term menstruation is an abnormal female state, given that breastfeeding prevents menstruation and is a natural contraceptive until such time as it is safe for the woman to conceive again.

I am probably the least scientically trained person on this thread right now, having an humanities degree and having studied biology only to GCSE, so I'm struggling with some of the terminology in the linked papers!

But going back to that SLATE article. I followed the link to this article. As I said I struggle with some of the language, but my understanding of this is that, while antibodies may not enter the bloodstream in any significant amounts, the article is describing all kinds of other benefits relating, among other things, to HIV. It also states that maternal milk antibodies line the mucous membranes and "In humans, milk excreted antibodies play a major role in protecting infants from infection by pathogens having a mucosal portal of entry." This suggests to my lay person's understanding that this mechanism would indeed be providing ongoing protection against things such as the cold virus. Yes? No?

OK, point taken.

You still haven't explained "cop yourself on" though.

But is there not an advantage to increased child spacing? More resources for each child, less strain on maternal health?

Not really the same thing.

My argument would be along the lines of insulin in diabetics - it is best to have your own working supply but injecting yourself is a great way of saving lives if you cannot.

With breast milk...they think it has around 400 ingredients in it, whilst most formulas have about 40. How can missing those amount of ingredients be normal?

Reading the paper gaelic just linked (at 7.20am, not good ) - it discusses the idea of IgA in breastmilk offering protection at mucus membrane sites primarily gastrointestinal and respiratory.

So that does support the main immune benefits of breastfeeding in reducing gastrointestinal and respiratory disorders (which have always been the main ones cited in the literature). It also talks about the antibodies in breastmilk preventing bacteria from attaching - including pneumonia and flu.

It does not talk about all round super immunity but that has never been claimed - gastro and respiratory have always been the main emphasis but perhaps this has been simplified / chinese whispered in promotion of breastfeeding to 'all illnesses'

Leonie -- I like how you include the fact that your mate's friend who formula feeds also smokes and has vaccinated her children.

What a horrible mother! Send her to prison!

Sorry but none of your anecdotes prove anything and you certainly can not call them a "trend"!

I come from community where every single mother I know has breastfed.....some of the children get sick all the time, others don't, some recover quickly, others take longer. It's nowhere nearly as black and white a situation as your have presented it.