Breastfeeding in the news this morning

[Jackieharris]

From what I heard on the radio a Brazilian study has linked breastfeeding with intelligence & 'success' later in life.

I've not read the study or seen any details so not sure about validity/is it applicable to UK/how long the sample bf for etc.

But I did also hear that in Scotland the bf rate at 10 days is less than 50%. I'm quite shocked at that. I'd have guessed it would be more like 70-80%.

Can't see this study/news changing that though.

What are the chances of GO announcing spectacular new investment in bf support in today's budget?

But letting your kids eat too much sugar without cleaning their teeth will lead to cavities and can be directly attributed to them. Letting your child consume too many calories without enough exercise will long term lead to obesity.

Giving your child a few months of formula as opposed to Breast milk won't definitely lead to anything, and is only a temporary food for a short period of time.

They just don't compare.

The teeth and obesity examples as you have pointed out both have a well understood causal link, which makes them much simpler and clearer to understand. Not many people would argue against the causal link based on the evidence we have gathered.

The link between not breastfeeding and various outcomes cannot (yet) be shown to have definitive causal links, for the reasons described in the previous posts (it's not possible to do the kind of RCT etc). Therefore the risks are less well defined and may vary a great deal in any one individual's case. So, my personal take on this is that it is clear to me that the constituents of infant formula are not yet equal to or better than breastmilk, and there may be some risks (of varying levels) associated with not breastfeeding. Therefore if I can breastfeed, I will. This means that any of the possible risks of not breastfeeding will be avoided. If it was not possible to breastfeed for whatever reason, then I would do as much as I could to mitigate any of the possible negatives of not breastfeeding.

It's not a huge big thing, or the most important part of parenting or anything like that. It is something that I think is worth learning more about, and I have no problem with people researching into it. I will breastfeed any future children (if I can) based on the same decision making process, plus the fact that I liked breastfeeding first time round so that hasn't put me off it.

Soooooo these possible neg what are they?Gastro( which can be completely avoided if scrupulous hygiene and instructions are followed)aside ?

What are these definite "risks" because obviously you could predict "risks" in anything in the same way without def proof.

Common sense tells me that feeding babies a food they'll consume widely from 6 months anyway aint a great "risk" however you dress it up.

Letting my kids eat too many sweets alongside not following a regular teeth cleaning regime now that is a risk.

Yes, gastric illness is a risk, plus not getting antibodies etc from breastmilk is a drawback as well. You probably won't accept these as valid risks, but there is a possible risk of increased chest and ear infections, a risk of constipation, increased risk of eczema, and as already mentioned a possibility of increased risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes. There was also a very interesting study linked to a while back on this thread about the differences in brain composition (shown on MRI scans) between breastfed babies, compared to mixed-fed or formula-fed babies.

I would also be concerned about not giving my baby the combination of antibodies, living cells, enzymes and hormones that are in breastmilk. It's not clear what effect (if any) this would have in the long term.

So, a wide range of possible issues. So my personal decision was to breastfeed if I could, based on wanting to avoid any of these possible risks.

There were studies linking bf to exzema so I'll ignore that one.

Re obesity sorry another ludicrous claim( why on earth you'd waste money on a study into that). Too many variables,other factors and the stark truth that obesity is caused by too many calories and too little exercise.All the BM in the world ain't going to save you from a fat behind if you eat pies all day on the sofa.

Properly made bottles and a diet rich in fruit/veg will put paid to constipation.

Re the hormones etc how long are we going to wait for evidence on that?Babies have been fed formula in the maj for a long time.Time and again researchers try and find "risks" and continuously draw blanks.There are oodles of things as parents we could research ad nauseam into looking for "risks",it would drive you nuts.I prefer to take a balanced approach,sorry if that disappoints.

LPM, careful hygiene when preparing formula powder and bottles reduces the gastro risk because you are shutting off one possible way for bugs to enter the digestive tract, but this is only part of the story.There is no evidence that it can be 'completely avoided' with scrupulous hygiene, and in any case, breastfed babies get gastro as well, just not as frequently overall. So it's just not possible - or even desirable - for babies to avoid all infection.

The other two common infant conditions which have been studied in relation to feeding western and indeed UK infants are ear and chest infections. The three conditions feature in a number of cohort studies from the UK and elsewhere in the West.

The reason young babies are especially affected by their diet is because their growth, metabolism and their immune system and their whole physiology is developing, in a way and at a rate that never happens ever again in their life, and milk is their sole nutrition. So to say 'they're going to have loads of formula milk after the age of six months, anyway, so how important can that be?' is not right.

None of this is to say all ff babies are gonna get ill, shock horror, and it's a terrible thing to give a baby formula - it's not a terrible thing at all! But I think it should be perfectly possible to acknowledge that how a baby is fed makes a difference, especially as we understand how the infection thing works, without this evidence being dismissed.

I don't understand your outrage about research into infant feeding and obesity. Clearly, the way a baby is fed is only one element of the social, behavioural, cultural, psychological, emotional, physical phenomenon of obesity. But given that there some plausible connections with early infant diet, it makes sense to me to explore this more fully. Recent research indicates that it may only be certain babies whose risk of obesity is reduced, principally those babies who are already at risk because of other family factors pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/11/25/peds.2014-1392.abstract. Other babies' development of obesity is unaffected, maybe.

The point I was trying and clearly failing to make was that people do what they like (as they should) - however some people continue to claim all research to the contrary is therefore completely wrong or useless. It's a peculiarly self absorbed stance.

So we have to believe every single bit of research ever published on every thing?Blimey that might be more than a little impossible.

You do realise that for many studies claiming risks there is often one then saying the opposite and also there are hoards and hoards of "studies" published on everything often simply to make the author money.

Not at all just debunk them properly rather than just coming out with an anecdote about what you did.

Think I and others have over and again.

And actually you do have to use your own anecdotal experience when wading through the huge number of reports reported on various parenting issues in order to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Yeah, well, of course you should believe everything and anything that's published, and yeah, of course researchers make loads of money researching breastfeeding, and yeah, of course anecdote and personal experience are well-recognised ways of debunking scientific, peer-reviewed papers with huge samples. Saying 'that can't be true because blah blah blah happened to me' or more simply, 'that can't be true because I think it's rubbish and that's my opinion' are fantastic ways to progress knowledge and understanding.

So every report and stat that comes out ( even those financed by sugar companies saying sugar is fine) you clutch to your breast and believe?

< eye roll>

No one sensible takes these kinds of studies at face value and just accepts all the "facts" that are reported. It all goes toward a wider understanding of it all. It's up to the individual to decide how much stock they take from each one.

If analysing science is not someone's cup of tea then it's reasonable to accept the advice of others who have done so for you eg the NHS, WHO, or other body that is fairly impartial.

As for things like obesity, of course everyone understands the simple equation of too much food + not enough exercise = getting fatter. But if it was that simple to solve then we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic! Why not look into possible contributory factors and solutions? It's not a criticism of someone else's choices.

Finally, why do you think the NHS, WHO and many other health organisations around the world state that breastfeeding is recommended? Even formula manufacturers have to state this on their publications, by law. Is it a conspiracy by financially motivated scientific researchers, or some other kind of conspiracy, perhaps part of a class war?

Blimey LPM. I couldn't have made my sarcasm any clearer.

I'll try again.

Yeah of course I believe every scientific study even the ones published by the sugar people saying sugar is great. I have no critical faculties at all

Any good?

WHO recommends it because it advises people all round the world including those in countries without clean water which makes the choice a far more serious issue.

The NHS recommends plenty of things- 7/10 fruit/veg a day being the latest.I try my best but frankly don't waste much time worrying on the days I don't manage to get 10 portions of rainbow coloured veg into them either.

I think I know where some of your confusion lies, LPM. You are unable to distinguish between a research paper, a campaign, official guidance, personal opinion, and recommendation.

There is no NHS 7-10 fruit 'n' veg recommendation. I had never heard of this as a recommendation (though I did know there was research on it), so I checked.

The recommendation in the UK remains 5 a day.

You probably mean www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04april/pages/five-a-day-should-be-upped-to-seven-a-day.aspx which was research, which described apparent benefits in eating great amounts of fruit 'n' veg....but there's no official recommendation from the NHS as a result.

Nevertheless, research of this kind does help refine policy and guidance, so it's always worth knowing about if people are interested in this sort of thing.

The fact you thought the NHS were now recommending 7-10 portions is revealing, don't you think?

LPM, you are impressively clear in your conviction that breastfeeding is unnecessary and has no benefits. I can see that we will have to agree to differ.

I do want to make the point though that the WHO recommendation is for both developed and developing countries. Clearly having unclean water supplies in developing countries makes formula a bigger risk, as does poverty and the temptation to eke out formula powder etc. However the WHO specifically make the recommendation for developed countries as well, for a variety of baby and maternal health reasons. Take that as you will, of course.

Errr no actually.

Research states that 7 and even 10 a day is better.

The NHS say their 5 a day was always a minimum.Whose to say they don't up it eventually.

Oh and Culture I'm sure there are some benefits but there are benefits to many parenting choices I,you and pretty much everybody don't choose to be big enough to pursue to the enth degree.

Grrrr. LPM you really can't tell the difference between research and recommendation can you? I don't know why this is difficult for you. You state the nhs now recommend seven to ten portions a day. I link to an nhs site that quotes the current state of recommendations alongside research that of course may contribute to changing it in due course but at present has not changed it. This means you were not correct. You still say you were right.

!