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?

What is the standard deviation of the IQ as a score? Has that been taken into account? The 4 points are still within the SD. So that does not count. . (I have a high IQ and as a student I did , for monies, the maths/stats bit of this kind of BS research- we used to have a good laugh and prove the most absurd stuff my mates and I. The researchers were not that bright! )

MaMaof4, on the basis of your 4 children you are dismissing the conclusions of a study of thousands of children as bullshit?

Your elder daughters may be very clever, but on that evidence it's obviously not genetic.

I take these studies with a pinch of salt. I breastfed my kids because it was more convenient for me but my mum didn't breastfeed me or my brother and we are both very well educated and have no allergies. Do what works for you. I agree it's bloody hard to start. I was very lucky to have a very patient nurse when ds1 was in the nicu for a couple of days. Without her advice I would have given up.

I really struggle to see why anyone gives a shit how OTHER people choose to feed their babies. As someone unthread pointed out there are many things to worry about such as abuse or neglect but not feeding. I have issues about how I fed but honestly don't care about anyone else. Why do those who BF care about those who FF??

We should be pro choice. For abortion, for feeding for wohmvs sahm. This is the 21st century it's about CHOICE.

We all know breast milk is best. Everyone knows smoking kills but it doesn't stop people taking it up. Women choose to FF for a variety of reasons. Up to them.

It's great that formula is an option with for those who choose to use it or those who have to.
The fact is that infant mortality has reduced since formula has been around. Obviously there are many reasons for that but it's nice to have options.

"I really struggle to see why anyone gives a shit how OTHER people choose to feed their babies."

Because the powers that be see it as a public health issue. They don't see the benefits of breastfeeding as trivial - at least not at a population level.

MaMaof4 the result they are reporting is statistically significant (and if you know as much stats as you claim that will be sufficient information to answer your question).

"We should be pro choice"

Women have a choice as to how they feed their babies, so shouting out for free choice in relation to infant feeding is simply hot air. There is no law or impediment to bottle feeding.

"The fact is that infant mortality has reduced since formula has been around"

Yes - formula is an absolute life-saver for babies who do not have the option of human milk.

i agree but I'm yet to be convinced about the benefits on a population level.

Loyse, if the epidemiologists, doctors and researchers who form the advisory panels on infant feeding in the WHO, UNICEF, NHS, etc, have reviewed the evidence from a wide range of sources over a period of years and have concluded that breastfeeding offers significant health benefits at a population level even in developed countries, then that's good enough for me. :-)

But then perhaps you have also done an exhaustive review of the evidence and conducted your own meta analysis of a wide range of studies.....

This kind of research:
1- ignore that intelligence is made up by a multitude of components - not all measurable.
2- transform an activity that could be an enjoyable (for some) or a painful (for others) activity into some utilitarian or criminal one (OOOH I am breastfeeding my baby because I want him to have a high IQ- OOOH you do not breastfeed your baby? what a shame he will have a lower IQ.)
Even the food is not anymore about taste-color and smells. Even intimacy is about sex performance. The 3 IQ food boosters - the 10 libido enhancing food etc And I hear the mums speaking about all kind of benefits to music lessons for kids- none of them related to the pleasure of appreciating and enjoying music. I dance for fun not to have a nice body. I did not read to learn spellings or other stuff- the spelling and the other educational 'benefits' (if any) were ''side-effects'' of my reading bulimia! (English is not my first language.)
Again the only solid fact is that milk (of a healthy mum with good nutrition) is likely to be the best for her kid/s. We all know that. We also all know that a mum that has difficulty BF will suffer throughout the BF session- if she believes in this kind of research and will not give up BF then I am not sure her baby will not pick up her suffering and I am not sure this will not affect him/her; if she pushes aside this research, bottle feed her baby and enjoy holding him tight to her skin at the same then I am sure (no research needed thank you!) her baby will greatly enjoy the feeding session. I believe in hugging kissing and all kind of animal stuff. Not sure it promotes IQ but it is surely much more fun. (I do not care if I am not clever- you believers in this research can just start imagining how dim I would have been had not my mum breastfed me for a long period of time!)

Passive agressive much?

What I mean is I think most of the benefits at a national level from what I can see require long term at least a year BF, for example breast ca risk. Even if the UK can get feeding rates up I seriously doubt that most women would choose to feed to a year.
Anyway I am pro BF but I failed. For a variety of reasons I'm sure no one is interested in. Actually I think in terms of health FF is ok. It's fine. My sadness is actually more related to the fact I feel like a missed out on a special closeness/ bond. But that's a whole other thread!

Ma - what evidence do you have that the research disregards other important things which contribute to IQ?

The fact the the study CONTROLS for 'confounding factors' shows that actually these things were given serious consideration.

As for intangible and unmeasurable influences on intelligence - well that's the point of studies which compare large groups isn't it? To stop these intangible and immeasurable factors distorting the findings.

This study 'does' nothing other than inform. It's not guilty of anything. All women are free to choose how they feed their babies.

LOL Loyse!
Just a bit PA (some did question my IQ level- It is OK- I do question my sanity sometime like when I am engaging in this kind of discussion. But I do enjoy it a bit. I hope I am not upsetting anyone around. I do respect each of the MN posters. It is absolutely OK to poke fun at me. I do enjoy it as well).
Loyse I am sorry you feel you missed out on BF!
After giving birth to the little ones, I had plenty of milk and it was easily running down my clothes for a long period and I did give it to other mums. I did breastfed them for the pleasure and because I was not working at the time . I do not feel that I was heroic and I did not do it for IQ gain. I also enjoyed FF my oldest daughters. For some reason I believe that IQ as measured now is a bit overrated. I believe also that when we develop less of the components that make up the formal IQ then our brain might develop more of the other components that make us humans and that still escape our quantifying thinking. The brain and the human spirit are more plastic than the static IQ. And love and warmth is what keep this plasticity - more than the kind of milk that we were given as babies. Just my belief.

Here's how the article is being portrayed in Brazil.

Firstly they are focusing on the fact that breastmilk is designed for humans. Breastmilk contains fatty acids that have developed to kick start brain growth, then they wanted to see if this could be seen so to speak.

Secondly the study concluded that IQ and monthly income went up PROPORTIONALLY to the NUMBER OF MONTHS feeding went on for, not as was portrayed in the UK reports, or as seems to have been misunderstood here. "That breastfeeding is better than formula feeding."

The reception it's recieved as far as I can tell is "Well that's something for new mothers to bear in mind" not...."well that's a stick to bash mothers with".

UK

Tbh this study just balances out the shit I had to read about how selfish a woman was for struggling with bf yesterday. I have ff 2 children but studies like this don't make me feel guilty they make me feel angry about how abysmal the support is in countries dominated by a formula feeding culture for women who want to bf.

Sooo the amount of weeks you were bf will lead to the amount of income you earn in later life okaaaaay. Do people not think this might just be a crock.Siblings are often fed the same and earn hugely diff amounts.Education and connections actually have the biggest impact on a kid's future,sure there are plenty of ff kids at Eton.Seriously a few months bf is going to get you a better job than a private education.I think not.

These studies saying either way are two a penny and come and go.They'll be one discrediting it next year.

Didn't know Brazil was so high up in medical research either.

Didn't know Brazil was so high up in medical research either.

Trust me, what people don't know about Brazil would fill volumes, Brazilians have got us pretty pegged though

I don't know, le petit, I wouldn't want to piss on the researchers who've spent a good long time doing this long term study of 6000 babies without learning a bit more about exactly what the possible flaws in it are. I also think it's perfectly possible for good research to come out of Brazil - what is the reason to instantly doubt it due to its origin?

I do think though that there may be issues with applying the results to the UK due to our very differing economies and culture. However it's still a very interesting result.

BBC said it was 3500 and they admitted other factors could affect intelligence- er I should think so.

Ok, so according to The Lancet (linked to earlier on the thread) nearly 6000 babies enrolled on the study in 1982 but just under 3500 were available for follow up 30yrs later. This is where the difference in figures has come from I think.

I'm sure there are many many more factors that influence IQ than whether a baby was breastfed or not. Which is helpful if you choose not to breastfeed or are unable to do so, as there are other factors that you will be able to influence if you're concerned about this issue.

I think the point is the study is not denying other factors, they said of course there are many factors. They were just interested in investigating the impact of length of BF had on development as one factor.

It's not about crediting or discrediting research, it has been conducted and new information will either add to it or there will be new research that throws even more questions into the arena.

Has it actually occured to anyone bashing it, that one reason this study might have been done is to highlight the benefits of fatty acids in humas breastmilk and influence the food industry to work towards making formula milk better?

About researchers:
I got a friend who works in some academy with 'Researchers' that are funded because they claim that they develop some clever computer-device that will help autistic people understand the body language. She is clever (if you insist I will gladly disclose you that she was FF, in a communist country- not sure that the FM they got there is the best- but she has an extremely high IQ.) I do not give much details about the grant and the University where she works, because I do not want her to get in trouble (she has her PHD in psychology and computer-sciences and is on her post doc stage). Anyway she is a bit unhappy. These researchers do not care much about the research for which they are funded. They use the monies to do fun stuff that interest them more. But they have to periodically report to the Trusts that fund them about their progress on the construction of this computer-device. And they do. Duly. With stats, numbers and everything. The data on which they base their report is absolutely verifiable. Their methods absolutely 'advanced' and robust. But the device is still a vague idea. Who cares? The funds will run their course. They will have published some papers about it. They might even end with some breakthroughs in the areas they enjoyed and for which they did not get the funds. So what would you say about their stat- based results?
Maybe the Brazilians researchers behind this paper are just laughing at us all their way from the nursery wards to the bank (to the computer/laboratory more probably- the monies they get is more for materials/students etc not for them to enjoy personally)....They might soon appear with some other research-based claim e.g. : we found the FF that beats the BF!