what looks like a very interesting article about weight gain with a Nestle twist!

[welliemum]

I'm trying to get hold of the whole article, but here's the abstract:

"Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Pediatr Program. 2007;60:15-25; discussion 25-9.

Does breastfeeding protect from growth acceleration and later obesity?

Singhal A.

The MRC Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, London,
UK.

Nutrition in infancy has been suggested to have a major influence or program the long-term tendency to obesity. Breastfeeding, in particular, appears to protect against the development of later obesity, a conclusion supported by data from four systematic reviews and evidence that a longer duration of breastfeeding has greater protective effects. The size of the effect (up to a 20% reduction in obesity risk) although modest has important implications for public health.

The mechanisms involved, although poorly understood, probably include the benefits of relative undernutrition and slower growth associated with breast rather than formula feeding - the growth acceleration hypothesis.

This hypothesis is now supported by data from animal studies and two recent systematic reviews, which suggest an association between faster growth in infancy and later obesity in both richer and low-income countries and for both faster weight and length gain. The present review considers the evidence for a role of early growth and breastfeeding in the programming of obesity and the underlying mechanisms involved.

---------
So what this seems to be saying is that there's good evidence that you don't want to give formula simply to get a baby's weight up.

Interesting that it comes from a Nestle-sponsored workshop!

Am trying to get hold of the complete article at the mo.

Oooooh! Good stuff, WM! Be interested to see full article if you can get it.

Interesting that it comes from a Nestle-sponsored workshop as you say!

And I dunno, am not an expert, but I imagine one potential mechanism for ff babies' higher risk of obesity is not the formula itself, but the fact that a lot of people who ff give fixed amounts at feeds rather than using a demand sort of pattern. I woudl imagine that has an effect on programming a baby's hunger/appetite/metabolism.

makes sense

Oh botheration, it's not in the library.

Am doing a search now for other articles by the same person. He/she might have writeen about this elsewhere.

Anyway, it does seem to have a fairly clear message that feeding them all up to get them looking nice and porky isn't a good plan.

It could be good ammo for women getting grief about their baby's slow weight gain.

I found another paper by the same person here

Briefly, it's a study where they measured teenagers for a known risk factor of cardiovascular disease later in life.

They found the highest risk in the ones that put on the most weight in the first 2 weeks of life (and the lowest risk in the slowest growers).

In their conclusion they say that "...our data support the benefit of relative undernutrition associated with colostrum and breast-feeding very early in infancy in reducing the development of atherosclerotic CVD."

They also note that this effect is comparable in size to smoking or having diabetes - ie potentially huge on a population scale.

Makes me want to run into hospitals and dash the top-up bottles from the MWs' hands!

Has there been much research into normal blood sugar levels for newborns, do you know, WM?

Because when I had DS2, as you know, there was the issue of topping him up because his sugars weren't at hospital protocol 2.6 levels. But he was so identical to DS1 in his early feeding/sleeping behaviour and just his demeanour - he was quietly alert - I didn't hear either boy cry (except for paed check-up intervention) till I got home with them. I'd not had diabetes with DS1, I did with DS2 - but who's to know how fast the sugar levels rise in a newborn from a mother without GD if large tests aren't done?

It did make me wonder whether in general, hospital protocol was based on ff babies - and women were therefore being scared out of bfing because their babies were being measured against a scale that wasn't relevant to them.

Ooh, I did actually read about this - but it was yonks ago. I think the literature at the time suggested that no-one really knew what newborn blood sugars should be, and what levels to worry about.

I agree, it's a similar issue, with the same risk of defining something as a problem (and then treating it) when it might be completely normal and harmless.

I imagine intuitively that newborns tolerate far lower blood sugars than you or I would, because otherwise it's hard to see how humans would have got this far before the invention of needles and bottles.

Will have a read tomorrow (not now, it's 4am and I need sleeeeeeeep).

This looks good: (abstract follows)

Breastfeed Med. 2006 Winter;1(4):253-62.

Hypoglycemia in breastfed neonates.

Wight NE.

Sharp Healthcare Lactation Service, San Diego, California, USA. [email protected]

Healthy, full-term infants are programmed to make the transition from their intrauterine constant flow of nutrients to their extrauterine intermittent nutrient intake without the need for metabolic monitoring or interference with the natural breastfeeding process.

Homeostatic mechanisms ensure adequate energy substrate is provided to the brain and other organs, even when feedings are delayed. The normal pattern of early, frequent, and exclusive breastfeeding meets the needs of healthy full-term infants.

Routine screening or supplementation are not necessary and may harm the normal establishment of breastfeeding. Screening should be restricted to at-risk and symptomatic infants. Symptomatic infants need immediate assessment and intravenous glucose therapy, not forced feedings.

-------
I can't access the full text of this one - do you have access to breastfeeding journals?

Just off to look at another one I've found, which might have info about actual blood levels.