Breast Milk Sugars Give Infants a Protective Coat
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The benefits of breastfeeding are incredibly obvious and I now understand completely why most women claim that it is one of the most difficult things you will ever do. Despite being incredibly stressed out by the process, my partner, who holds a biology degree, understands the scientific justification for persevering and when she read this article she told me that it was one more fantastic incentive to keep on going regardless.
I simply wish that this form of research could be made readily available in an easy to understand format for new mothers who are debating with the breast or bottle argument.
Perhaps since the time we've had hands and been able to grind up food for babies, breast-feeding has been somewhat optional so there hasn't been much selection pressure on us for millions of years to keep breast feeding working well.
That's the only theory I've got.
Most mammals have mammaries that are purely functional and only round out due to filling with milk. Human female breasts are full for other reasons, too full in fact to be baby-friendly. Most other mammals also feed their offspring in plain view of others of their species, which means there is plenty of opportunity to observe how it is done. In human cultures, we debate the morality of -- gasp! -- breastfeeding in public. When it is done in public at all, it is handled very discretely so no one gets a glimpse of someone's breast or, god forbid, nipple. Not exactly a learning opportunity for any other women who happen to be around who might someday have a baby themselves and might want to breastfeed.
Part of my experience with this subject: I breastfed my oldest until he was nearly 2 and my youngest rejected the breast very early (due to lactose intolerance), breastfeeding full-time for only 10 days and part-time until he was 6 weeks old. And I helped my sister address some issues she had with her baby so she could successfully breastfeed.
What of human cultures outside the U.S.?
I breastfed publicly in my twenties. I believe I was discreet about it but people who knew me well seemed to be shocked by how casually I handled it. Since they couldn't tell I was doing so until I told them I was feeding my kid while walking around the store or sitting in a booth at an eatery, I didn't see what the problem was. To most folks, I appeared to be holding a baby in my arms wrapped in a baby blanket -- which I was. He just also happened to be getting a meal. So I know first-hand how gasp-worthy this is to some folks, even if you are being so discreet about it they didn't realize it was happening until it came up in conversation. (And I was in Germany on an American military post for some of it. It wasn't all in the U.S. or only around Americans.)
B) I have a parenting site that I want to develop more. I have been thinking since writing the above that I should probably post info about breastfeeding to it as well. It was extremely important to the well being of my oldest child, who has a serious health issue and needed the extra support it provided. That site has languished while I got myself well, started my life over post-divorce...yadda yadda. Thanks for the suggestion/encouragement. :-)
I always ignorantly assumed that the suction when a baby latches on pulls the milk from the breast and I was genuinely astonished to learn that when the baby latches on it actually triggers the brain into thinking 'I now need to release the milk' and the act of releasing milk is a cognitive one and not a physical one.
I don't think most people realise this fact and unfortunately the majority of the focus around breastfeeding is on the pro's and cons as opposed to the correct techniques and mentality required to feed successfully.
I can understand completely why it would appear easier for most mammals compared to humans as most mammals aren't aware how difficult the process may potentially be for obvious reasons.
Are modern women somehow fighting against nature in
the way they breastfeed? Have the "natural skills" been
lost in the modern lifestyle?
Evolution A/B testing only works at the level where something influences the ability of successive generations to survive. It also selects for whatever barely works.
As far as evolution is concerned, there is no difference between it being easy to do, and learnable. If all women end up learning (say, for other more experienced mothers), then there's nothing for evolution to select for.
It's unfortunate for the woman who has trouble at first (like my wife, for instance) but it clearly isn't evolutionarily significant.
Today 11 months later he is 24 Pounds, strong as an oxe and almost about to walk.
Besides being breast-fed we also practiced the kangaroo method, where my girlfriend would have him on her chest to maintain the symbiosis he would normally have benefitted from inside of her.
He was out of the hospital 5 weeks after he was born, 5 weeks before he was supposed to.
I don't know about the kangaroo method but obviously the breast feeding (which already started 5 days after he was born albeit in small quantity) helped him quite a lot.
When our baby switched to 1 feed per day I took take her out for a nice dinner to celebrate and to thank her for all her hard work.
Of course let us not forget another goo targeted at adults with an amusingly named "new" strain of Bifidobacterium longum. Oh wait: http://whatisbifidusregularis.org/ .
Large forumla companies, like Nestlé[1], have been doing marketing for decades like you are suggesting, when even today, we are just discovering all the things that breast milk does -- as the article closes with: Dr. Mills said. “So for God’s sake, please breast-feed.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) has created standards for marketing of Forumla and breast milk substitutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Marketing...
Which many large corporations still ignore.
She told a story about Nestle and the third world that was rather chilling:
The company, at some point, donated a large amount of formula to some third world country or other. (Sorry, it's been 15 years, so the details are sketchy). Short story: they convinced a lot of very poor women to use the formula. There was enough formula to last until their own breastmilk dried up. Nestle didn't send any more, and these women had no means to get more, and now, no breastmilk either. Lots of babies died.
Why would someone accept free formula over free breast milk? No one would be dumb enough to think that the free formula would last forever. While I don't deny that Nestle gave out free formula, I'm not convinced that new mothers switched to it en masse only to later realize (after their breast milk stopped flowing) that they'd have to pay to get more.
Serious, modern biologists still say things like this? Amazing. It is the biological equivalent of proof by lack of imagination.
Our kids were bottle-fed with breast-milk. I'm not sure where that fits in the breast vs bottle debate, and I of course didn't do a double-blind controlled trial to work out whether there were benefits - it simply suited our situation.
I have always been surprised at how judgmental people get of mothers and how they feed their babies. Some of the nurses in the maternity ward were amazingly self-righteous about it.
Not every mother can breast-feed, for various reasons (eg mastectomy). Fortunately in many countries there is a viable alternative. The mothers can often feel very bad about it, and having someone ram the obvious benefits of breastfeeding down their throat can be less than helpful, or healthy at that time.
Why I agree that the judgments are unwarranted,(in every case) the fact remains that it is scientifically proven that breast milk provides numerous health benefits over formula. If you were fed formula, you have, on average, a higher risk of everything from a childhood cold/flu to asthma to leukemia.
While every mother needs to make the best choice in her particular circumstance, choosing not to breastfeed for the sole sake of some convenience to the mother and/or others is not a responsible choice, in many people's opinions.
However, the mantra of "breastfeeding has been scientifically proven to have benefits" may be less solid than you think.
There is a strong correlation between mothers who choose to breastfeed and lower incidence of many adverse conditions. However, does this imply causality?
"Conclusions: A history of breastfeeding is associated with a reduced risk of many diseases in infants and mothers from developed countries. Because almost all the data in this review were gathered from observational studies, one should not infer causality based on these findings. Also, there is a wide range of quality of the body of evidence across different health outcomes."
> We found that a history of breastfeeding was associated with a reduction in the risk of acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma (young children), obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis...For maternal outcomes, a history of lactation was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, breast, and ovarian cancer. Early cessation of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression.
I'm not sure why you are so resistant to these studies, but it's clear that no amount of scientific research is going to convince you that there are clear benefits to breastmilk.
Have a look at the WHO study:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595230_eng...
For example:
"Even within the same social group, mothers who breastfeed are likely to be more health-conscious than those who do not breastfeed. This may also lead them to promote other healthy habits among their children, including prevention of overweight, promotion of physical exercise and intellectual stimulation. This may be particularly true in high-income populations. Because these maternal attributes are difficult to measure, it is not possible to include them in the analyses as confounding factors. Nevertheless, this possibility should be taken into account when interpreting the study’s results."
I'm not resisting studies - I'm reading them, rather than relying upon misinformation from other sources.
That's what I am talking about as well - mothers can be made to feel irresponsible and guilty when they fail to breastfeed for whatever reason, which cannot be good for postpartum depression.
That, my friend, is going to require a fuck of a lot of citations. You've managed at the same time to deny all of the science behind breastmilk benefits and significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed.
I don't think I have done this. I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed.
I think that you have denied all the science behind breast-milk not having significant advantages, by posting FUD about GlaxoSmithKlein being linked to all of those studies.
I'm not sure if you are picking up on the difference between association and causation.
I have not said that formula is better, and I don't believe it is. I think that the current dogma around breastmilk being worlds ahead is not justified by the scientific studies.
I am happy to change my mind and apologize for my truculence if I see the scientific data that the benefits are significant, causal, and proven. Got any links?
> significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed.
No, I didn't say that.
Except that they don't. That's why I quoted your link right back to you. While they say that for certain areas like a link to intelligence (which you will note I have not ever raised), they fully support numerous health benefits.
I should note that your link was a study of studies; one giant peer review done right before your eyes. It's pretty conclusive.
There is - supported by links that you submitted yourself - significant scientific evidence to suggest that breastfed babies receive health benefits that formula fed babies do not.
Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias.
My claim was that breastfeeding should be encouraged, and that your claim of scientific proof was less solid than you might think. I agree that I have not presented evidence that breastmilk is not a better option - I don't think that, and I certainly haven't said that, hence my lack of presentation.
I've asked for causal evidence that there are significant benefits from breast milk. That study's conclusion specifically warns against inferring it.
You've now changed your claim from "proven" to "suggest". I'm happy with that - I agree that evidence suggests it is a better option, I disagree that there is proof that people who are breastfed are healthier due to the breast milk. I know it is often repeated, but it is not true.
"The self-righteousness that exists is part of an ongoing effort to turn back 50 years or so of misinformation that existed in North America..."
Isn't this exactly the point? Nearly everything we've ever known about nutrition has at some point been 'proven' to be completely, 100% wrong. Maybe we shouldn't be so judgmental of people who make different choices?
I would also suggest that very few mothers choose not to breast-feed solely for convenience.
I am not as sure as you that it is a scientifically proven fact that breast milk provides numerous health benefits.
Whilst the recommendation nearly always is to use it (and no modern study suggests that formula is better) the studies are not as conclusive as I would accept as fact.
The confounding and self-selection effects in the studies, and the differences in formula and ethical considerations since the long-term studies were started cast uncertainty on any conclusion.
However, I understand that the majority of the information out there leads people to believe that it is a fact, and agree that the safe option is breast milk.
Edit: "basically every other study...has questionable ties to GlaxoSmithKline". Really? The WHO also says that the benefits are moderate, rather than "wonderful".
Are you a recent parent or are you otherwise directly experienced in witnessing the choices mothers make? I ask not only because the statement is little more than random opinion if you are not, and because I'm surprised that someone who is experienced would come to such a conclusion. It isn't the obvious path in a country where women return to work 6 weeks after giving birth.
the studies are not as conclusive as I would accept as fact.
Then you are self-selecting to support your own bias. The other link you provided in this thread made pretty clear assertions regarding this topic.
The research is pretty strong. Stronger than most other areas. While that doesn't mean it is perfect, it does mean that all signs point to the fact that formula is not an equal replacement in certain key ways.
That's a much softer position than "the fact remains that it is scientifically proven that breast milk provides numerous health benefits over formula. If you were fed formula, you have, on average, a higher risk of everything from a childhood cold/flu to asthma to leukemia." and one I could agree with.
Like I said, I don't agree with people being judgmental, I'm saying it exists to counter years of what can best be described as corporate propaganda.
I remember my friends mother recounting a story in which she was feeding my infant compadre in a shopping center, and a woman came up out of nowhere and pretty much berated her for not breast feeding. It is such a war between these women, and its ridiculous, since most mothers who don't really and honestly can't.
And quite frankly, as part of an army of formula fed humanoids, I'd like to think we all turned out just fine.
The woman you describe was rude, and I'm sure you did turn out fine. But the impetus for the debate is scientific evidence on what, statistically, is best for babies. "This isn't best" is not a personal slam to you or your mom, and "I turned out fine" isn't a counter-argument.
I think people are judgmental when a mother chooses to not breastfeed for no "good" reason, or no reason at all. Reasonable people would be fine with someone not breastfeeding if they absolutely couldn't or it was extremely difficult.
My wife breastfed and it was quite difficult at the beginning and then got easier and easier. She wanted to quit a few times, but pressed on. It's hard for her (and most people in the same situation) not to get judgmental when she hears of some mom having a rough day in the first week of the baby's life and throwing in the towel and switching to formula.
I thought that too, but I was told off by a passing lactation consultant.
Obtuse bitches that happen to be employed as lactation consultants notwithstanding.