'Breastfeeding not as beneficial as once thought'

[Jojay]

See this link.

www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26906

(hope the link works)

Comments??

yeh, she probably knows more about bf than those medical types who study allergies.

"The IQ business has been fairly well debunked by that recent sibling comparison study as well I thought."

Links please.

BTW, which bits of which article was 'utter tripe' and why, in your healthy scepticsm kind of way, of course.

"Doctors know jack shit about breastfeeding. But then, they can't know everything. Horses for courses, innit."

So your point is?

hey, i am only querying your sources because that is what i do. so that i can inform myself along the way.

easy, just type in the addy. i can cut and paste.

btw, I have posted 2 links. which one do you think was 'utter tripe'.

and i dont think bf is best.

I think bf is normal therefore.

I don't think bf has any advantages.

i think a LC can do more than 'recite' works. I think she can analyse them for flaws in methodology, etc. A LC is different from a BFC. It is a whole different level of training.

OTOH, i am not saying you can or i can trust what anyone says on anything. but when a bunch of mums on a net forum can punch holes into a review of a study in the bmj, it doesn't speak highly of that study either.

you know, just along those healthy sceptcism lines....

i think a LC can do more than 'recite' works. I think she can analyse them for flaws in methodology, etc. so can draw conclusions onto which studies she can trust. So i trust bf information from people who know about bfing.

"And when it comes to medical research, I'm afraid I set more store by what the medics say, not an LC. "

For me, when it comes to mecical research into breastfeeding I set more store by what bf experts say.

As we know, medics get about one lecture's worth of information about bfing in medical school. And the first half of the lecture is spent on the anatomy of the breast.

MP and ruty are both wrong. Those figures are for exclusive breastfeeding. Read this bit again

"The experimental intervention led to a substantial difference in the duration of any breast feeding that was maintained throughout the first year of follow-up: 72.7% versus 60.0% were still breast feeding at 3 months, 49.8% versus 36.1% at 6 months, 36.1% versus 24.4% at 9 months, and 19.7% versus 11.4% at 12 months in the experimental and control groups."

I suspect that many of the parents had started to wean their babies by 6 months.

would you hold more store in a medic who is also a bf expert?

if your answer in 'yes' then can i suggest you buy and read a copy of this book?

you may find that dr jack newman, a consultant paediatrician for the WHO and former chief of paediatrics at Doctor's Hospital in Toronto sings very much from the same songsheet as the avg lactation consultant.

As you say, horses for courses. night night.

looking forward to your links and answers to my earlier questions which have remained unaddressed.

personally I'd trust the study results. I just wish everyone would tell pregnant women that the one thing that does help prevent eczema is taking probiotics.

Taking probiotics Tatt?

Explain please....?

none taken. just still interested in the links you mentioned and my questions anwered. but that is just me.

BTW, the author of both my links also have an MS. Don't know much yet in what but is a scientific minded person besides being a lactation consultant.

must go

I am not wrong tatt. If you read my posts I said it was 7.9% for exclusive breastfeeding. See my posts yesterday 14.37 and 14.54. the point is exclusive breastfeeding rates were very low in both groups at 6 months, and so if women in the breastfeeding group were giving their babies formula from 3 months onwards [whilst continuing to breastfeed a bit] that could obviously have a marked effect on the allergies outcome.

ruty your 22.08 post agreed with MP, whatever you said earlier.

VVV just google it - e.g. www.health-report.co.uk/probiotics_atopic_disease.htm

what i wonder about is how many of the women that chose to breastfeed at all, to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months or brestfeed for longer did this because they have a high incidence of allergies/exzema in their family and they had been told/had found out that breastfeeding may protect against these. just because for me this was an important factor in wanting to breastfeed both my sons for as long as possible/they wanted/i could.
must admit i only skimmed over the paper, but couldn't find anything re this...

this might have introduced a big bias in the study: as these babies might have been more prone to develop allergies/exzema regardsless of whether they were breastfed/formula fed. and come to think of it, the number of women/babies that were "genetically" more susceptible to allergy/eczema may have been higher in the group that was supported, as as part of the bf promotion they may have been told that it might protect against allergies/eczema(?)

anyways, just a thought...

ok i didn't say exclusive the third time.