Is this true?

[twitteringbirds]

"The quality of a mother's breast milk may be compromised by stress, bad food habits, chronic illnesses, smoking, and drinking."

No.

Smoking and regular drinking will of course, not be ideal, but they don't affect the milk quality.

Women successfully bf in the concentration camps, in the Gulags (even the heavy labour camps on short rations) and in other terrible situations - so stress and poor diet don't make any difference.

No. Well, not by stress or by bad food habits. And not by most chronic illnesses. Some alcohol does get through to breastmilk, but it's a tiny tiny amount. I don't know about smoking, but IIRC studies have shown that if the mother does smoke then it's still better to bf than not, from the pov of the baby's health.

Obviously if you have a poor diet or get dehydrated it can affect your supply as in amount of milk you are able to make, but it is still the same type of milk, as in quality.

chronic illnesses~yes if severe, depends on illness.
stress,diet obviously in extreme weight loss etc as get hormonal changes.
would say is matter of degree and nature of problem.

I am pretty sure I have read that mothers who breastfeed and smoke are more likely to have children who grow up to be smokers.

More likely than mothers who breastfeed and don't smoke? Or more likely than mothers who formula feed and smoke?

I thought it was something to do with being pre-acquainted to the 'taste' but maybe it is just the general fact that children of smokers are more likely to become smokers themselves.

From Kellymom.

No, DarksomeNight, sorry - quantity is unaffected by poor diet or hydration levels - except at the extreme starvation end of the spectrum.

Quality, in the sense of 'contents', is affected by diet, smoking and drinking. But in the sense of 'less able to nourish adequately' it is unaffected.

Serious chronic illness? Can't think of any circumstances which would compromise quality and quantity but if a mother was having treatment for cancer, for instance, then this might affect the safety of her breastmilk.

Acute illness - sudden and debilitating D&V, for instance - may have a very temp. effect on supply.

Physically, breastfeeding is a robust system which endures in the face of quite difficult circumstances as long as it is 'allowed' to. Socially and culturally it can be quite fragile - especially when women read nonsense like the sort you've quoted, twitteringbirds! Where was it from?

I've had poor supply after D&V bugs but it always picked up within a couple of days.

I would imagine stress could affect the let down but not the milk itself.

Wikipedia suggests that it's from W.Sadler, L.Sadler. The Mother and Her Child (1916)

I googled and got the same result as Port - not a good reference at all, and one hardly even believable (1916 talking about smoking?). It's just way dodgy as a reference.

The evidence is that acute, severe stress may hamper let down temporarily only.

There are some good papers which demonstrate that stress and anxiety have no effect on quality or quantity.

More googling - this book exists, and you can download it (it's part of project Gutenberg). But using it as an authority on infant care would be inadvisable.

I just pick a sample:

"The nipples should be washed with soap and water and rinsed in boracic
acid solution before each nursing. If the mother worries greatly, or
thoughtlessly "gets very angry" just before the nursing hour, there is
a substance known as "epinephrin" secreted by the glands located just
above the kidneys which is thrown into the blood stream and which
raises the blood pressure of the mother and often produces not only
colic in the babe, but many times throws him into severe convulsions."

I think we can safely ignore it except for historical interest!

The book exists, at least. I did wonder about the smoking, too, but it's plausible if it was one of those "the lower orders are going to moral rack and ruin" kind of books, I imagine.

boric norks!

It's a good read, isn't it .

So far I'm enjoying

While the authors recognize the great blessing of anesthesia to the woman in laborand almost unfailingly make use of it in some formnevertheless, we also recognize that it would be a fine form of mental discipline and mighty good moral gymnastics, if a great many self-centered and pampered women would "spunk right up" and face the ordeal of labor with natural courage and normal fortitude. It would be "the making of them," it would make new women out of them, it would start them out on the road to real living.

Oooh...

"Everybody should stay at home and away from the mother and her new born child until after the seventh day, and then, if our patient is normal, visitors may call, but should not stay longer than five minutes. The convalescing mother will improve faster without the neighborhood gossip, or the tales of woe so often carried by well-meaning, but woefully ignorant acquaintances.

When the hard ball-like mass can no longer be felt in the lower abdomen, when the lochia has passed through the three changes already mentioned, and the flow is whitish or yellowish, scanty and odorless, the patient may sit up in a chair increasingly each day. Such conditions are usually found anywhere from the tenth to the fifteenth day. The patient first sits up a little in a chairshe has already been exercising some in bedand this enables her to sit up with ease for a half-hour the first day, increasing one-half hour each day during the week following. At the end of three weeks, she may be taken down stairs providing there is ample help to carry her back up stairs.
After another week (at the close of the fourth), if the lochia is entirely white or yellow, with no blood, she may begin carefully to go about the house. There should be no lifting, shoving, pulling,
wringing, sweeping, washing, ironing, or other heavy exercise for at least another two weeks, better four weeks. Any variance from this program usually means backache, lassitude, diminished milk supply, and frequently a general invalidism for weeks or months--sometimes years."

To be fair, it seems pretty enlightened for the time, but that doesn't make it a good authority.

Sounds great!! No ironing or washing!!! Take me back to 1916!! Although, having to lay in bed for 10-15 days isn't that great!

"At the end of three weeks, she may be taken down stairs providing there is ample help to carry her back up stairs. "

!!!!!!!

Love it! Think of all those DHs carrying their wives upstairs...

I do obviously agree with the ban on ironing, pulling, lifting and so on for four weeks, lest 'invalidism' lasting years result

Port, are you sure you haven't made up that 'spunk right up' bit?

I'm guessing women were quite a lot lighter in them days...

Please, check it out on Gutenberg...

Hey!! What are you trying to say moondog!!

Yes, as one of my friends put it. where we leave, you see people briniging out babies and strutting about town when they are still wet!
(Babies not women although obv. moisture issues with mothers I'll warrant)