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?

I can see you had a different experience LePetit and I'm sorry it wasn't a happy one - but glad you found what worked for you. Just found it slightly odd that you started post with "I disagree Juggling" since I feel that if you do disagree that's simply because you had a different experience.

"but babies will thrive as long as they are properly fed irrespective"

But the research suggests that they thrive better when breastfed, and are less likely to contract both trivial or serious illnesses. The mother of a child with diabetes, or repeated respitory infections or ear infections can't know that her decision not to breastfeed hasn't contributed to her child being ill.

Incidentally, this regular bleating about other aspects of parenting being more important - has any breastfeeding advocate ever said that breastfeeding is ALWAYS or even MOSTLY the most important aspect of parenting? I can answer that - no they haven't, they never do and they don't imply it either.

So why make out as though this is a common belief or argument put forward by breastfeeding advocates? I can tell you that too. It's because you want to imply that breastfeeding advocates have lost all sense of proportion and are frankly idiotic, because no sensible or reasonable person could argue that breastfeeding is the be all and end all of parenting. In other words you are creating a straw man argument. You get lots of them in these discussions and it's very tiresome.

For the record, even the most passionate breastfeeding advocates does not believe

• that formula is 'evil'
• that breastfeeding is the only thing that matters when it comes to parenting
• that breastfeeding will guarantee you a healthy child and that bottlefeeding will definitely make your child sick
• That all women can and should breastfeed
• That women should be shamed for not breastfeeding
• Thst women should be made to breastfeed

.. So maybe people could stop creating straw man arguments based on these belief.

"I thought breast feeding was important at the time, but now I know its only important when you've not yet done any of the other parts of parenting"

And incidentally, as a parent of three children ranging from 9 - 16, I refute your assertion that the passage of time casts a different perspective on the issue of breastfeeding and highlights how trivial the issue is. I'm profoundly glad that I made the decision to do breastfeed my children and was able to overcome the challenges involved in doing so. I think my children had the best possible start in life - and I couldn't say that if I hadn't breastfed. I think their experience of breastfeeding contributed hugely to how pleasurable their lives were as babies and small toddlers. I'm so glad I was able to do this for them. Nothing can take that away from them or from me.

Beloved72, you obviously are quite singleminded about breastfeeding. It was just that sort of prescriptive attitude from others that caused me so much stress 12 years ago. 2 years ago, a paediatrician explained to me that breastfeeding is actually quite a complex process for the baby and that Ds1 would never have been able to do it. My baby isn't unique (much as I thought he was back then), so I guess there will be other babies who cannot be breastfed too.

Another example of a baby who should not be breastfed was my baby cousin. Her mum had a cyst but she persevered with the breastfeeding despite the discomfort and the baby died aged 5 weeks from poisoning.

So, maybe the blanket message should be changed to breast is best (usually) rather than the prescriptive best is breast.

Anyway, my children are a lot older now. Maybe you have a view about parenting 13 year old boys that you'd like to share, as I do not have any experience in that area yet, but fortunately, for me, your views on breast is always best are not able to hurt me any more.

Ditto bottle feeding,definitely gave my dc a better quality of life.

And as for the best start sorry mine had that too.Bf or ff is a miniscule part of it.Mine had the best feeling system for them and our family and a host of other things I'd probably trump you on 6 times over Beloved- if we were to go down the competitive parenting route.

Cows eat grass and salt. Human babies cannot thrive on milk derived from that. Lucky for modern humans we have the technology to modify their milk to such a level that it allows non-breastfed humans the same survival chances as breastfed ones. Without modern technology the chance of survival for a baby that was given cows or goats milk would be severly low.

It is a simple fact that human breastmilk is best for human babies. Nothing else is close to it. The Brazilian government is using this research to ensure that babies that cannot drink their own mothers milk, for some of the reasons you gave Var, can at least recieve human milk.

"My baby isn't unique (much as I thought he was back then), so I guess there will be other babies who cannot be breastfed too."

Yes - there are a small number of babies who categorically cannot latch on and feed, and a small number of women who can't produce any breastmilk, even by expressing. Given that in Norway 98% of women leave hospital breastfeeding, and 95% are still breastfeeding when their babies are a month old, I'm presuming that this the number of mothers and babies completely unable to breastfeed is pretty small, these figures being representative of what is happens in a country where breastfeeding is the cultural norm and is well supported.

You have gone ahead and done exactly what I have spoken about below, and made an assumption that when someone says that they think breastfeeding gives babies the best start in life, that they mean that all babies can and should be breastfed, even in a situation where a baby can't be breastfed and a mother can't produce milk. The point of you telling this story is to make a point to me, I presume, which is what? That some babies can't be breastfed? Do you think that breastfeeding advocates aren't aware of the blindingly obvious?

"Another example of a baby who should not be breastfed was my baby cousin. Her mum had a cyst but she persevered with the breastfeeding despite the discomfort and the baby died aged 5 weeks from poisoning.~"

I presume she was told not to breastfeed by doctors and ignored medical advice (though having said that, I'm not aware that women in the UK who have breast abcesses are advised that it is dangerous to continue to breastfeed - they are usually encouraged to continue to breastfeed from the unaffected breast while the abscess is treated). What is the relevance of this story to what I have said? To point out that there are rare illnesses which make breastfeeding inadvisable? Can I direct you to my post of 16.29, when I point out that breastfeeding advocacy doesn't involve telling women who can't or shouldn't breastfeed that they must or ought to breastfeed regardless of circumstance.

"So, maybe the blanket message should be changed to breast is best (usually) rather than the prescriptive best is breast."

No. It would be like telling parents that it's good for children to eat a healthy balanced diet in childhood, and then tacking on to every single health promotion message that some children may be allergic to foods (such as dairy, nuts, fish) which form an important part of the diets of the majority of children. No need. Women know when breastfeeding isn't possible or advisable as they are advised by health professionals. Why dilute a very important message on the basis that for about 2% of mothers and babies breastfeeding will either be impossible or inadvisable?

"your views on breast is always best are not able to hurt me any more."

I'm sorry you were hurt by your inability to breastfeed, but your feelings and your experience are not my responsibility, they are yours. We are here on an internet forum engaged in a discussion about the benefits of breastfeeding. I don't have any responsibility to curb my opinion to protect your feelings. I'm not judging you. I am expressing an opinion about breastfeeding. readthis

"Lucky for modern humans we have the technology to modify their milk to such a level that it allows non-breastfed humans the same survival chances as breastfed ones."

I'm not sure that even babies in the West who are ff have the same chances of survival as breastfed babies, not when it comes to SIDS, NEC and some childhood cancers, although these illnesses are rare.

FF babies certainly don't, as a group, have physiologically normal rates of growth in infancy (the physiological norm is that of exclusively breastfed babies, and this is different from that of fully formula fed and mixed fed babies), and there's a body of evidence (such as the recent research showing differences in the brain structure of ff and bf babies shown on MRI's news.brown.edu/articles/2013/06/breastfeeding )

As I said - I don't think we really know everything there is to know about how infant feeding impacts on the more subtle aspects of health and development in later childhood and adulthood. Too many confounders, a lack of a proper control group (because of the ubiquity of formula use across all sectors of society in the West) etc. And of course lack of evidence of harm is not evidence of lack of harm.

LePetitMarseillais if a mother can't or won't breastfeed, or dislikes breastfeeding so much it makes her resent and mistreat her baby then then a baby can't be breastfed and will have to miss out on the benefits. There is no argument about that. If you want an analogy - I can't work full time. I don't have the energy and it would make me a poor parent to try. I just wouldn't cope. However, unlike you, I can see that having a working mother can be hugely beneficial, and make a household much more financially secure. I can see that my children miss out on things that children with two working parents can have, and sometimes that makes me feel sad. However, I don't feel the need to rubbish working parents and to make a case that having a working mother brings bugger all benefits to a child, just because I can't work.

"I'd probably trump you on 6 times over Beloved- if we were to go down the competitive parenting route."

I'm not a competitive parent and there have been many things I have done wrong bringing my children up that I wish I could go back and do differently. I try my best, that's all any of us can do. I just think it's a bit sad that women who can't or don't want to breastfeed so frequently feel compelled to diminish the value of breastfeeding in order to defend their own choices.

There is nothing to defend,only you think there is,I certainly don't. I bf and ff,frankly it has made diddly squat difference to my dc like it made diddly squat to me,my mother etc.I know you and other bfing crusaders want angst ridden mothers but they just rarely exist 10 years down the line.

"I just think it's a bit sad that women who can't or don't want to breastfeed so frequently feel compelled to diminish the value of breastfeeding in order to defend their own choices."

No one is diminishing the benefits, unless you mean disputing the rather faulty use of statistics to show that breast milk drinking results in higher IQ. If you can and do breast feed, then good for you. Well done. Please don't try to claim some consequent superiority in your children's success in later life.

PS The cyst was undiagnosed, so no advice given nor ignored.

Has the Brazil study been shown to be a faulty study?

The MRI study that was linked to is very fascinating and I would be interested to know if that has also been dismissed as bad science?

No, just the interpretation of the findings. It is a case of false causality (correlation does not imply cause).

e.g. You could prove with statistics that increasing the number of policemen results in more crimes being committed the following year. It doesn't. it just means that people are more likely to report a crime if they believe that their report will result in criminals being caught.

Oh, I thought that the Brazil study had not claimed causality, only correlation. Perhaps I've misunderstood the summary of the findings. They talk about "an association" with higher IQ, longer education and higher earning which I took to mean a correlation and not a definite causal link.

Wouldn't it be very difficult to show a direct causal link for any of the effects of breastfeeding, because you can't do any of the kinds of experiments that you would need to do as they would be unethical and impossible to do?

The study was automatically discredited because it is about breastfeeding.

That's interesting Culture. I suppose the distinction between a correlation and a definite causal link is quite subtle for many people, especially it would seem the media in general, where I agree with others that there's usually only a cursory mention of confounders such as social and economic factors having been taken into account. The general level of reporting of anything scientific and/or involving statistics seems fairly basic doesn't it?

Although they controlled for lots of factors. They were probably indirectly measuring preserve fence and determination of the parents since in my experience it is bloody hard and so so tempting to give up!

Yes, exactly Primary - I'm sure some of those type of hidden factors involved (though obviously not for each individual)
Personally I didn't need much "preserve fence" (I take it that's a classic auto-correct ) but some will certainly have shown it in bucket loads

The context in which the study was done is clearly important. In Brazil, there was and is no clear divide in class/education/socio-economic/age terms between mothers who bf and those who don't, or who do for a short time only. This is obviously very different from the UK.

It is possible - as the researchers said - that the difference in outcomes in Brazil related to feeding are reflective of different sorts of mothering rather than different feeding. That is, mothers who breastfeed longer are somehow 'different', and it's the difference in mothering that makes the difference in intelligence/material success in life.

The study was revealing in that it appears breastfeeding has a 'dose' effect - the more it's done, the greater the impact - so it's indeed possible that Brazilian mothers who like breastfeeding and do it for longer are also more likely to do other things we know support cognition and intelligence such as having more frequent interactions with their babies, or being more responsive to their needs. We just don't know. However, knowing, as we do, that the very composition of breastmilk supports neural development (ie the growth and complexity of the brain and its function) in a way that formula milk cannot, the findings are certainly supportive of breastfeeding causing the results they found, at least partially.

But it's more complicated than that. It may well be that good, responsive and sensitive, loving care reducesor even wipes out the difference made by breastfeeding. It may be that being born in materially well-off circumstances with good access to education and higher education makes any feeding difference disappear, too. In any case, research like this does not and does not claim to predict outcomes in individual babies, which is why anecdotes of intelligent successful ff babies are irrelevant. It's on a population level that any difference emerges.

What makes me irritated is the way the research - in fact, any research like this - is regarded as a criticism of women who don't breastfeed. This is understandable when people feel defensive and sad about their breastfeeding experiences, but really....why don't we grow up a bit and see the wider picture?

What about the majority of mothers in the world whose circumstances are not materially good (including some mothers in the UK)? What about families whose access to education is poor? Isn't it good, that babies born in difficult circumstances can have something instant, cheap and readily-available that does make a difference? And that the health services and maternity professionals in countries with limited education and welfare provision can support women breastfeeding, knowing it does appear to help?

Breastfeeding is often precarious in the developing world - the idea of all women breastfeeding happily and exclusively for years is false. It could be that raising the overall IQ level and material well-being of a population by 4 points is a small step towards reducing inequalities, and one which should be supported alongside advances in education and other forms of welfare.

It would be good if in the UK everyone got a basic education in understanding research, so fewer of us left school capable of coming out with some of the odd, self-centred and naive notions expressed on this thread :(

Thanks for that very interesting post tiktok

Thanks, Juggling; it was a bit long.....sorry.

Basically:

• it's perfectly plausible that the study shows cause and effect ie the more breastfeeding, the better for cognition and therefore educational performance

• findings may be less significant in a country like the UK where better access to higher education could 'equalise out' any infant feeding impact on education/material success (though of course that was not part of this study - I'm speculating)

• study shows differences on a population level and cannot predict outcomes for an individual baby in the UK

• we should welcome research into effects of bf/ff, as knowing more may have an effect worldwide

I'd add that support for breastfeeding in the UK - I mean real, problem-solving support, not vague cheer-leading - is poor, and even the vague cheer-leading grows silent once the baby is beyond a certain arbitrary age, or is being fed 'in public' :(

I feel like I just need to add to the debate that my breastfeeding support through DS and DD was brilliant, I stayed overnight in a MLU to get ongoing help with DS and had repeated home visits from lactation consultants with DD. It is tough breastfeeding but I am so pleased I stuck at it with DD for over 2 years. With DS I only managed 2 months BF and another month of EBM, stopping only when I got mastitis and a burst abscess wasn't healing, the nurse thought that the breast milk in the wound was preventing it from closing. I just want to put out there that some places get great support, and I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I felt like any problems were taken seriously and they were happy to come out and help, having the backing of a team of people really boosted my confidence too, and I think that's half the battle.

Yes, support in some places is very good....shame that's not everywhere!

"No one is diminishing the benefits, unless you mean disputing the rather faulty use of statistics to show that breast milk drinking results in higher IQ. If you can and do breast feed, then good for you. Well done. Please don't try to claim some consequent superiority in your children's success in later life."

If doubt and scorn are the first response to ANY and ALL research suggesting that breastfeeding has long term benefits for children, then that is certainly intended to diminish the benefits of breastfeeding.

Go back through any threads on mumsnet about any new research and you will find the almost all the responses from mums who have chosen or have had to formula feed, and a good proportion of those who have breastfed, will be cynical, regardless of whether they have properly picked through the study to see how it was conducted and what was controlled for.

Why is that? Why the knee jerk response?

"Please don't try to claim some consequent superiority in your children's success in later life."

Eh? Where have I talked about my children's successes or failures? All I have said is that I feel that breastfeeding contributed to them having a happy infancy and that it has been good for them.

There are no claims of 'superiority' - and actually you saying that reminds me of being back at school and someone who was bullying me shouting 'you think you're better than everyone else!', on the basis that I had a posh accent which I couldn't help. Childish.

Tiktok can you comment on a breastfed baby being killed by an undiagnosed cyst in the breast? I have never heard of this before. Is it very uncommon?

I have never heard of it, Beloved.