New news - link between BF and breast cancer ...

[Marls001]

Just heard this morning on NPR (US National Public Radio)(link ) that not only does BF help baby, it also protects moms against breast cancer! Great news for those of you who BF.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool at National Cancer Institute - roughly calculates your risk factors for breast cancer.

i agree wet nursing (breastfeeding between equals, not for profit) is a survival option and much better option than formula.

it makes me cry when you hear about mothers neglecting the own babies to feed another's (or more than likely to work miles from home to provide for her child, some mums only visit their child once a year during chinnese new year!).

casbie - apparently it went on here in the UK for centuries too, the aristocary looked down on bf as a menial task, employed poor women to bf their babies, i wonder what that did to the mortality rate of working class/underclass babies ?

I read that the reasons for wet nursing amongst the aristocracy in England were:

1. aristocratic women were more "delicate" and produced poorer milk than robust, healthy working class girls from the countryside;
2. it was thought that lactation impeded the aristocratic's woman recovery from childbirth;
3. there were taboos on sex whilst lactation continued and an aristocratic woman's job was to produce an heir and lots of spares.

Covered in Olwen Hufton's "The Prospect Before Her - A History of Women in Western Europe".

thanks tiktok, sorry if I'm sounding a bit thick!! I still think of breast and solids as exclusive breastfeeding and what i'm doing isn't ( cos he has 2 bottles formula) but of course that's silly!

I will continue with it and sorry about the hijack

elenya - that is fascinating, i especially love no.1 - it is a fab myth isn't it ?

yes, must remember that in order to produce more (male ?) heirs i should stop bf sooner next time, have periods back quicker so can start breeding right away ! lol !

The irony is that repeated pregnancy among the aristocracy was deeply damaging to women's health, and they were indeed less robust than their country counterparts as a result (they could have breastfed though - and spaced their pregnancies). This was not their 'fault' - it was the male-led mores of the time. Gabrielle Palmer is v. good on this.

i think we all read the same book!

As memoery serves (which it often deosn't) one of the proposed resons that bf reduces the risk of b cancer is because it delays the starting of menstration after pregancy - so the breast is exposed to less hormones - this is also why starting your periods earlier is a risk factor and why those who have had b cancer are advised to not take HRT.

yes, i am a palmer fan

..and don't get me started on male-domination ! lol !

...and another reason those lazy aristo's. were "delicate" is they sat around all day, never did a day's work, stuffing their faces with rich French style food...not healthy...lol !

Is the bf-cancer connection just down to delayed return of periods? Or is it more than that?

the less you ovulate the better, it seems over the WHOLE of your life time, so if your periods start later rather than when you are 9, you have 3 kids that you bf for an extended period, and your menopause comes ealier rather than later (? is this true ?), this would all add up to less ovulation which reduces your risk, that is how i understand it any way !

no it is not that your menopause comes earlier it is that you are not ovulating whilst you are bfing (ovulation is triggered by the hormone - the body is not producing the hormone - so yes the less you ovulate because the less homrone (prog) your body makes.)

NQC - another reason I read that b feeding reduces risk of cancer is because as you breast feed some breast tissue cells are taken up in the milk, that means there are less cells to become cancerous.

do you want me to route around for a reference - this is all from memory and may not be making the best of sense.

dimpled - yes i understand that - of course if you excl. bf you don't ovulate for a certain no. of months and it is hormone related - my periods came back at 5.5 month although excl. bf until 6 months - of course some women don't ovulate for much longer while they bf - depends on the woman

but i thought that the NUMBER of years you ovulate matters too, so if you only ovulate for 20 years rather than say 40 years that helps too in which case when you have the menopause would be relevant too

i would have thought that was a factor as in their risk assessment in that report they ask when did your periods start - so the later your periods start the better and the sooner they end the better - no ?

yes yellowrose you are compeltey right - I misread your post and thought you were implying that by bfing you were more likely to have an ealry manopause - problme of mumsnetting while small children in the room.

So, less hormone you are exposed to the less the risk. Reduced exposure to it would be:

1. later onset of period (less ovulation over lifespan)
2. earlier menopause
3. breast feeding (as not ovulating)
4. not taking HRT

but again I say this is all gleaned from various readming and relying on my not so hot memeory. I have the books downstairs and can go and look if you want clarification.

thanks dimpled, that makes sense, it is what i had thought too

does anyone know what the alternatives are to HRT ? i have heard that japanese women for example do not usually take HRT, but eat soya and it has been proven to be effective. or would soya in itself effect your hormones and so resemble HRT ?

i will be 40 next year so thinking of the future

hi yellow rose

hope this works - not done this before!

www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/27000591/

alternatives to hrt.

oh dear - i need a computer course!!

amijee - thanks a lot - will have a look later - ta