Breastfeeding not as beneficial as once thought ...

[sheeplikessleep]

www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=65483&CultureCode=en

Well it was beneficial to me!

It saved me a small fortune in formula and saved time too.

Tbh one professors theories and study/ies (?) means nothing.

I believe in the benefits too. BUT, I just thought it was interesting the link with testosterone in pregnancy being linked to success at breastfeeding.

Anyone who has FF a baby already knows this!

Thie is not the first study that has come to this conclusion either.

Yes Breast feeding is A Good Thing but there are so many Good Things as far as being a parent go, I fear that because there is so much emphasis on BF that all the other equally important issus go unnoticed or unpromoted.

And lets not forget that for some people the pressure to 'successfully BF' can actually be a negative factor overall, in terms of stress a low mood low self esteem (none of which ideal when you have just had a baby!)

zaphostrophe, that's exactly what my sister said to a support group she was asked to speak to by her HV I don't think she was asked back

I'd like to see how the research was done and whether the methodology behind this one really does negate all the studies which exist which show BF does matter.

What does the WHO say about this?

Never mind WHO, what does Tiktok have to say .

It says that breastfeeding is environmentally sound and that it is the best approach in developing countries but also that breastfeeding should be 'out of politics'.

Surely issues relating to the way the formula companies impact on the environment and the developing world are political?

Thera has always been a need for babies to be fed by means other than their own mothrers breasts, that is the way of the world (nature isnt always 100% perfect!) and thank God we now have the means to feed out children safely with food that is appropriate for them, even if not made in the huiman breast!

Hmm, I am not convinced. What about women in countries where they have a much higher bf rate, or women before formula was invented? Or are they saying women in this country at this time experience more testosterone during pregnancy?

I might be totally off the mark here (and hope not to cause offence) but I thought that most (not all obviously) supply "problems" are caused by bad advice or unrealistic expectations. NOT saying here that mothers who stop bf due to low supply should have "done better" etc as this isn't the case, it's the support systems (HVs, midwives and the media) who are to blame.

I think this is the same study which was in the news a while back with lots of headlines about how breastfeeding increased babies' IQ. It's just a different take on it.

Xposted with santa - slow typing, didn't want you to think I was having a go. Of course some women do have naturally occurring supply problems, it happens in all mammals so no reason for it not to happen to us, just wanted to mention that a lot of "supply issues" could be avoided.

This is only relevant if breastfeeding rates are all linked to milk supply - this study is saying that increased levels of testosterone in pregnancy adversely affects milk supply.

It's not relevant for women who don't initiate breastfeeding for social pressures, it doesn't explain breastfeeding which doesn't continue because of latch issues, oversupply issues etc, etc, etc.

That's a large piece of the puzzle missing.

yes but shona, what the researcher is saying is that many of the benefits of breastfeeding (which he points out are in any case stistically small- significant but small)may actually be an effect of the low testosterone levels pre birth. As low testosterone itself creates an advantageous situation for good milk supply, then it may be that its is not the actual bf itself that is causing the benefits- have I made sense?

Yes, you make sense but

a) correlation does not prove causation

and

b) many, many people who don't bf don't have low milk supply

They are saying that excessive testosterone can cause problems with milk supply.

They are saying that excessive exposure in utero to testosterone can cause adverse affects in children.

Then they are linking the two. The question is whether it's reasonable to link the two and then apply it to the population at large to say that the reason babies who are ff aren't as healthy as bf babies (on a population level) is because they were exposed to testosterone in the womb.

I'll try to read the paper and see what their sample size was.

181

I agree with him. I bf both my ds's. But I did it becasue i wanted to. and I think the benefits of bf are over-hyped. I haven't seen that much scientific evidence that it benefits the child that much health wise.

I have read the study on bf reducing type 2 diabetes, but I didn't find it that convincing. I wanted to, but couldn't. I am a type 1 and dh is a type 2.

But it´s convenient and you don´t have to mess about sterilising bottles!

That alone is good enough-and it ensures "me time" with baby!

UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative statement on new breastfeeding research News item 07 January 2010

News

Subscribe to news and research updates

Newsletters

RSS feeds

Search news

Other news stories

Commissioning guidance for breastfeeding published

Breastfeeding helps babies sleep at night

Study show success for nurse-family partnership pilots

UNICEF emphasises child health benefits of breastfeeding

Baby Friendly response to recent coverage of breastfeeding
View full listing

News RSS feed | About RSS

Information on Breastfeeding rates

Breastfeeding could cut risk of metabolic syndrome

Study show success for nurse-family partnership pilots

UNICEF emphasises child health benefits of breastfeeding

National Breastfeeding Awareness Week launches

Winsford looks to breastfeeding to reduce gastroenteritis
View full listing

Information on Support for breastfeeding

Mothers' experience of bottle feeding
Full listing

A number of newspaper articles have today reported on a Norwegian study which has found an association between higher levels of male hormones in pregnancy and the ability to breastfeed after birth. The authors are reported to have extrapolated from their findings that mothers? ability to breastfeed is entirely down to these hormone levels. They are also reported to have claimed that exposure to high levels of testosterone before birth account for the differences in health outcomes between breast and bottle fed babies. The findings of this small study are of interest and may warrant further investigation. However, the claims made in relation to these findings do not account for the large differences in breastfeeding rates between countries, with some having 99% of mothers successfully breastfeeding. They are also contradicted by the large body of evidence which shows that levels of successful breastfeeding can be increased by a range of improved support interventions.

The claims made relating to the health outcomes of breastfeeding do not account for the dose response found in many studies, which show that babies breastfed exclusively or for longer periods have the best overall outcomes.

The study does not account for or tally with the known mechanisms for how breastmilk protects against illness. For example, breastmilk contains a range of anti-infective properties including immunoglobulins, white cells, anti-inflammatory components, enzymes and non-antibody factors such as lactoferrin and the bifidus factor.

The body of evidence for the benefits of breastfeeding is very large and comes from a wide range of studies into many different illnesses, carried out by numerous researchers in many different universities. Systematic reviews of the literature have also been carried out and are especially useful, as they are able to eliminate weak studies and combine the findings of all the high-quality papers in order to demonstrate with the greatest reliability whether a protective effect truly exists. It is important to note that there is variability in the quality and depth of evidence in relation to some illnesses which is why the authors of these reviews tend to call for further research to clarify the finding. It remains the case, however, that the evidence for the advantages of breastfeeding is strong.

The two most recent and influential reviews were carried out by the Agency for Health and Research Quality and the World Health Organization and are summarised below:

Ip S, et al (2007) Breastfeeding and Maternal Health Outcomes in Developed Countries. AHRQ Publication No. 07-E007.Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

This review carried out in the USA screened over 9,000 papers and used evidence from 400. It refers only to health outcomes in developed countries. The review found that breastfeeding is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of: acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, obesity, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, childhood leukaemia, sudden infant death syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, maternal breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Link.

Horta B et al (2007) Evidence on the long-term effects of breastfeeding. WHO.

This paper reports on a series of systematic reviews to assess the effects of breastfeeding on blood pressure, diabetes and related indicators, serum cholesterol, overweight and obesity, and intellectual performance. It found a significant reduction in the incidence of obesity and overweight and type 2 diabetes. It also found that breastfed babies had lower systolic blood pressure, lower cholesterol and better performance in intelligence tests. Link.

Although the protective effects of breastfeeding on gastroenteritis and respiratory infections have not been questioned, attempts have been made to dismiss these in developed countries as mere ?tummy upsets? or ?coughs and colds?, whereas in reality a reduction in severe infection resulting in hospitalisation has been found. The Millennium Cohort Study is a nationally representative longitudinal study of 18,819 infants who were born in the UK in 2000-2002. Data on infant feeding, infant health, and a range of confounding factors were available for 15,890 healthy, singleton, term infants who were born during this period. This study found that 53 per cent of diarrheal hospitalisations each month could have been prevented by exclusive breastfeeding and 31 per cent by partial breastfeeding. A total of 27 per cent of lower respiratory tract infections could have been prevented each month by exclusive breastfeeding and 25 per cent by partial breastfeeding. Quigley M et al (2007) Breastfeeding and Hospitalization for diarrheal and respiratory infection in the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study. The full paper can be found here.

It is important to be aware that the protective effect of breastfeeding is stronger in relation to some illness, notably gastroenteritis, than it is for other illnesses such as allergies. This does not mean that there is no protective effect against those other illnesses, rather that the risk to the bottle-fed baby is greater for some illnesses than for others. Importantly, where the evidence shows a slight protective effect of breastfeeding, this can still be the result of well performed research. Therefore, to describe the evidence as weak because of a lower degree of protection is inaccurate and misleading. It is important to note that a small protective effect of breastfeeding against a significant illness will have a dramatic effect across a population.

The role of the Baby Friendly Initiative and of health professionals is to give pregnant women and new parents the full facts about infant feeding based on the best available evidence in an objective and non-judgemental manner in order to allow informed decision making. We then need to help mothers to make decisions appropriate to their circumstances and to support them in their decision whatever that may be.

It is absolutely true that the factor in not bfing isn't always low supply.

However, the only way I could get my newborn daughter to put weight on was to give her formula. When I was bfing she nearly ended up in special care. Frequently on mn people smugly proclaim 'all women can bfeed'. Partly this is true, but not all women can bfeed equally.

FWIW my daughter was under 7lbs (I'm a strapping 5'10 so she was according to customised chart about 10th centile). She grew rapidly lengthways and was really quite skinny till about 7 months, suggesting to me that she was smaller when born than she should have been. My breasts did not grow at all when I was pg and she was emptying them fully when bfed while diving off the growth chart.

This article is useful in that in one way it makes me feel a bit less bad but in another it says that the long term health risks in such children are in fact still there but for a different reason. It shouldn't be taken out of context though - there are still clearly benefits to bfing. However, many on here do make out that it is the be all and end all - it is one factor amongst many others.

The effect on mothers of failing to bf also needs to be taken seriously because it is hard.

"Hmm, I am not convinced. What about women in countries where they have a much higher bf rate, or women before formula was invented? Or are they saying women in this country at this time experience more testosterone during pregnancy?"

Well maybe they'd have died Bertie? As someone else said most ffing is not down to low supply anyway.

Also, historically, when people lived in closer communities babies weren't necessarily bf by their own mothers. Also, they were often given cow's milk. It's not correct to assume that all babies were bf before formula was invented.

This siont new is it?

Its also not conclusive- as someone with asd kids (linked by some to testosterone exposure in utero) and a high risk of ASD myself, i've beenaware of this as linked research.

But I amalso aware that being able to BF means I feel I am doing allI can to help him have a great start espite quite high odds of problems, and that in itselfmakes it worthwhile;add in the practical benefits anda casein intol and I'm hooked

'are they saying women in this country at this time experience more testosterone during pregnancy'

theymight be,some researchers see a rise in asd (others put it down to other factors) which would suggest yes based on that testosterone theory.