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?

Because any old bullshit can get published in internationally recognised medical journals, right?

Sorry just having a lol at the idea that siblings earning different amounts means this whole 3500 baby study was bullshit.

It is a real shame there it isn't significantly harder to use computers...the quality of discussion would go up!

There would probably be less racism too.

Tarka - a lot of bullshit gets published. Google chocolate consumption and Nobel prize winners - the bbc reported it seriously.

That was in the BMJ.

"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)...."

Paid for by whom? Those huge vested commercial interests desperate to see an increase in the the use of breastmilk - which isn't traded, costs nothing, and negates the use of a hugely successful global commercial product?

Yeh, right.

The only people with a powerful, vested interest in increasing breastfeeding rates are babies, and nobody cares what they think anyway....

One thing to take into consideration with this study, is that formula composition is likely to have changed since the 80s. Therefore the results may apply more to people who are adults now, rather than the current generation of children.

Genuine question: do women really 'feel guilty' about not breastfeeding, beyond the first few weeks after stopping/giving up trying?

I only breastfed both of mine for a few short weeks, before breaking open the formula. Ok, I felt a little bit guilty after giving up with DS, and my MIL made a couple of comments about how I gave up so easily with DD, but my youngest is 1 now and it just wouldn't occur to me to give how they have been fed a second thought now?

I certainly won't be spending the rest of my days wondering if they would have been marginally more intelligent if I had breastfed them past a year?

This whole, 'oh it's just another stick to beat us with' is just This study is just presenting facts which are that breastfed babies become ever so slightly more intelligent - shock horror, kids who are fed the way that nature intended are marginally better off, if every single other factor is completely equal (which lets face it, is pretty hard to ensure).

There are so many other factors that come into the IQ and income potential of a child/person, that it is quite difficult to give a shit about how they were fed as a baby isn't it?

light do you mean the spoof paper in the NEJM that set out to proof a point that correlation does not always equal causation?

Chemistry is correct. I never wanted to be. It wasn't for me, I would defend the rights of anyone who wanted to though. Would I dwell on it years later - no I still believe I made the right choice.

Do I think some poxy study in one of the poorest countries around would make me think any differently. NO!

I do think though there needs to be stacks more help because I know it isn't easy at all. Do I think that money will appear - nope....

Christy (not Chemistry!)

Beloved these kind of research are paid by the public monies- by your monies (NHS) and mine and the monies of the poor Brazilians women who have to slave for it and still feel guilty if they are too exhausted to BF. I will be a bit cynical: private companies pay more and the research they fund is usually of higher quality.
Anyone remember the scandal of the earth is warming up stats? Published in excellent papers as well.

I am not convinced about how statistically significant the difference is let alone what IQ actually tells us. It is just frustrating that it descends into FF vs BF again. I'd like to know why it matters- is it the physical content or the way it is fed ? how do babies fed on EBF do compared to FF or BF? the survey says theres no difference post 6 months? what about post 6 weeks? or post colostrum? do you rule out babies who weren't bf for a reason such as mothers being unavailable- which might be a more significant factor? Are mothers who succeed in bf more likely to have family support which might help in other ways?
I also think research into mixed feeding would be good- I know so many mothers who gave up breast feeding entirely for ff (or even struggled on hating it) as they weren't told mixed feeding was possible.

Do I think some poxy study in one of the poorest countries around would make me think any differently. NO!

oh my! Brazil is one of the poorest countries, London is covered in smog and everyone wears a bowler hat right? Oh no, wait it's 2015! Brazil is the 6th richest country in the world, slowly climbing, its welfare and maternity system puts the USA to shame and the corruption is being tackled to the ground.

Tarka - correct. Got the journal wrong.

They never admitted it was a spoof and the bbc reported it as fact.

I can think of plenty of other papers in my specific field where quite frankly the authors are talking bollocks, makes me view all papers with a bit of suspicion.

"by your monies (NHS) and mine and the monies of the poor Brazilians women who have to slave for it and still feel guilty if they are too exhausted to BF".

You haven't explained how public bodies like the NHS would benefit by funding studies that were known from the outset to be flawed in their methodology or deliberately biased.

Why would the NHS be encouraging women to breastfeed for example, if there were no evidence of benefit to the NHS and to the health of mothers and babies generally? It would be far cheaper for them to do less breastfeeding support and promotion.

Honestly, I think the response to this study is indicative of bizarre levels of insecurity and defensiveness about feeding choices.

Among mothers who choose to formula feed there is an assumption that modern formulas are highly sophisticated and that research can assure us of their long term safety and efficacy.

Why is it that research done by formula manufacturers is automatically to be trusted and accepted, but that research done into breastfeeding is automatically to be distrusted and approached cynically? Despite the fact that formula manufacturers have a vested financial interest in hiding poor results, and researchers into breastfeeding have no commercial pressure to get the 'right' result?

Honestly, I think the response to this study is indicative of bizarre levels of insecurity and defensiveness about feeding choices.

I agree. I find it very strange and I wonder if this is people's attitude to all research - they shouldn't do it, it's always faulty, it's a waste of time/money, it's crap especially if it's Brazilian - or just research about breastfeeding.

I didn't breastfeed for very long at all. I didn't really get on with it. Do I therefore think there should be no more research on the subject? Er, no.

I wish you knew more about the research funding game!
The NHS did not 'choose'- the researchers choose the subject and knew how to sell it to the providers of public funds. Researchers at public hospitals and universities (paid for by our monies) are under a big pressure to publish and to have PhD students who do research under their supervision because their promotion depends on this (their ego as well.)
The research proposals that sell best are the ones that are easy to understand by laymen- not necessarily the ones that promote best knowledge and progress and are too difficult to understand. (There are not enough monies in the what is called the basic research in various sciences- too obscure, and not easily translated in some market gadgets. Most progresses made in basic sciences in the past centuries were made by individuals with monies or with the support of kings- 'mecenes' - or by university professors who were not crushed under the big modern performance-related constraints. Passion for the subjects- freedom from 'measurable outputs'- that is what promotes breakthroughs. It is where the grants should go- but again they go on trivial subjects that can be easily explained and that have some vast appeal.)

What is upsetting about this research?
1- Well it look that none of us needs any degree at university to understand that BF is best from the nutritional point of view to babies- hence waste of monies. Better to invest in education (that does make a huge difference). Better to fund research on better formulas for babies/mums who can't BF (TBH I trust private companies to do that).
2- It is ridiculous to promote BF on the grounds that it increases the IQ (and not significantly for that matter). It is insulting to us mums!
3- Too much emphasis on the measurable quantifiable IQ disturbs me. There are a multitude of components in intelligence and most of them are still beyond our grasp and they are not necessarily measurable. The IQ as defined now is made up of some features that can be measured. Too restricted thus.
4- I believe in the plasticity of the brain and on its 'self-compensation', 'self-healing' abilities. 'Fuck up' a part of it- and it will compensate for it by developing other skills. BF does not necessarily promote best these abilities. Love warmth and education are better grounds to promote these abilities. Unfortunately monies buy good education. Unless Public funds stop funding all these kinds of redundant research and invest in education- for all to enjoy, poor and rich; BF and FF babies.

"Well it look that none of us needs any degree at university to understand that BF is best from the nutritional point of view to babies"

According to the infant feeding survey 1 in 4 mothers in the UK is not able to name a single benefit of breastfeeding.

According to thread after thread on mumsnet, the benefits of breastfeeding are trivial or non-existent, and easily balanced out by the convenience of bottle feeding.

In other words - people are absolutely NOT persuaded that breastfeeding is of any significant value.

"BF does not necessarily promote best these abilities. Love warmth and education are better grounds to promote these abilities."

Oh for fuck's sake - nobody is suggesting that breastfeeding compensates for a poor education or poor parenting.

"Better to fund research on better formulas for babies/mums who can't BF (TBH I trust private companies to do that)."

If an ingredient is proven in independent, good quality research to be important to the health and normal development of babies then it is unethical for it not to be added to all formula. Why do you trust private companies to spend their profits on high quality research into improvements in formula, when they can't use the findings to give their product a competitive edge? And why do they need to improve a product when it is already considered adequate, and when mothers have absolutely no choice but to buy it anyway, because usually in using it they damage their ability to sustain growth and health fully with their own, human milk and are therefore cornered into buying formula whether they like it or not.

"I believe in the plasticity of the brain and on its 'self-compensation', 'self-healing' abilities. 'Fuck up' a part of it- and it will compensate for it by developing other skills."

Choosing to breastfeed is part of what you do, along with many other things, to help optimise your child's development. Probably the smallest, easiest, cheapest part, which is available to almost everyone, rich or poor.

What's not to like?

Intelligent women tend to prefer to spend their lives with intelligent men. Thus the child gets two intelligent parents.

Intelligent mothers reason that breast milk is (usually) better for their babies. Those who want to give their children the best they can, will try to breast feed.

But, they don't stop there.

They stimulate the baby and the toddler.

They keep him/ her clean and healthy.

They teach him/ her good manners

They provide educational toys.

They fill their home with books. They go to visit museums. They talk about the world over family dinners.

They make sure their children get the best education they can obtain for them.

They sign them up to extra curricular activities to make the DC as rounded as possible.

So, its hardly surprising that there is a correlation between breast feeding and life success. However, its a false correlation, like the one that shows more crime is committed/ reported where there are more police.

Beloved why would anybody with healthy,thriving older children doing well at school reel off the benefits(such as they are) of bfing? I've long since wasted time thinking of it.One minute a highly tenuous report supposedly finds a link to something in the small amount of babies it looks at,the next report discredits it.There are waaaaay too many variables and non science to take some if these "studies" seriously.I have far bigger parenting choices to worry about.

Only thing I do rem is that in third world counties it saves lives,not because it's the elixir of life but because formula made with dirty water can kill.We don't have a problem with finding a steady supply of clean water in this country.

You know half of children were today found to have tooth decay.It's undisputed,the facts are solid and plain to see.I find that far more worrying to be frank.Ditto the amount of kids on screens far too much,in bed too late,getting too little exercise,not reading enough,not eating enough fruit and veg.....

"i saw it and tbh thought that it was another stick to beat mums with"

why?

1- Who are the mums who do take time to answer to surveys? And who are the majority of mums in the UK? I had the privilege to live in the UK for many years- I love the UK and British. Unfortunately too many mums in the UK are underage or in the (neglected) underclass neighborhood. They are more than likely not to see any benefits in BF. (In many countries these mums live on benefits and get for free formula milk for their kids.)
2- Are you sure the mums who do not see any benefits to BF will now rush to BF following this research?
3- Private companies INVEST monies in improvement research- I know it first hand: I got a brilliant scientist friend who work in private companies. Private companies know that it is a good strategy to boast research- in the short term (citing it in marketing) and in the long term (they will not hesitate to invest in follow up surveys. The mums who pay for formulas base their shopping on educated information.
4- 'Unethical'? Ethics are a tough subject- various first hand doctors ponder it. However I am not sure that ethics are taken into account in the sense that you suggest here. New finding of new ingredient = new PATENT. PAY for it and you can use it in your formula.
5- True nobody is dismissing education etc But why does this research justifies itself by these extra marginal IQ points ?
6- The public monies used on this kind of research could have been used on more important research - and here you will soon see that just like you I believe that greediness is what makes the private sector finance their research- on the basic research in sciences that does not immediately translate in new products and monies and that is neglected by the private sector and that does not necessarily produce papers that appeal to laymen. Researchers in the NHS who apply for more public grants are unfortunately quite often reduced to propose researches with a wide appeal.