Hacker News Reader

It's quite well known that Australopithecus were outcompeted because they used to bottle feed.

> It is an expensive process so it must have an evolutionary advantage

It does, it means that newborns don't have to be born developed enough to get their own food.

The analysis is actually quite different. Bottle feeding has massive advantages for division of labor among parents. I did all the night feedings for my first two kids so my wife could get some much needed sleep. She didn’t have to pump which is often so much trouble it’s not worth it. Moreover, they now associate me with being the nighttime parent, so when they’re sick or having trouble sleeping I’m the one they come to, not mom.

Losing that flexibility would be worthwhile only if there was strong evidence that breastfeeding had advantages that can’t be replicated with formula. On that front it should be noted that the vast majority of GenX and older millennials were formula fed, as breastfeeding rates plummeted in the 1970s and 1980s. If there was a massive impact from that it would have been apparent.

It just feels weird to run this random experiment on my current child. Is evolution/biology wrong, and this processed stuff from the store better?? You'd have to have shocking amounts of studies to convince me it's better to have a baby eat that fake stuff than a mother's breast milk.

And finally, I think it's incredibly selfish to argue about equitably splitting feeding times, at the likely expense of your child's health and growth.

Young adults and men seem to be less healthy than ever. Plummeting testosterone, crazy rates of allergies, increased suicide rates, high depression.... But your right, if feeding them processed junk was bad, we'd see signs of it by now.

Young adults being less healthy than ever would argue against breastfeeding, which was at its nadir 2 generations earlier, and has been on the rise ever since.

The rates of breastfeeding in the U.S. have gone way way up over the past 30-40 years so I don’t think your theory fits the data.

I mean do you vaccinate your kids? I do—I don’t see that as an indictment on evolution.

Young adults and men are less healthy than ever because we play on our computers instead of tilling soil and fighting in wars.

Fighting in wars is good for your health? That's news to me.

Breastfeeding seems to have epigenetic[1] and microbiome[2] advantages that are unique.

It is associated with less GI infections, ear infections, asthma, lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol and risk of type 2 diabetes.

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261881391_Epigeneti...

2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S193131282...

Yes evidently many children grow up fine on formula. So given that the effect of breastfeeding is capped, it’s reasonable to choose to optimise for other factors such as practicality, father-child bonding time and so on.

As a counterpoint I’ll say that to the extent that the transfer of antibodies prevents or reduces infant illness, that is a win in the dimensions you describe on its own. A sick infant is both wildly impractical and hard to bond with.

For example, in this interventional cohort study with breastfeeding promotion [1], ”the percent of children having pneumonia and gastroenteritis declined 32.2% and 14.6%, respectively, after the intervention.”

[1] https://www.nec.navajo-nsn.gov/Portals/0/NN%20Research/Biolo...

> Yes evidently many children grow up fine on formula. So given that the effect of breastfeeding is capped, it’s reasonable to choose to optimise for other factors such as practicality, father-child bonding time and so on.

Does breastfeeding negatively impact father-child bond ? I find it highly unlikely. We do know for a fact that it’s better for health.

> Does breastfeeding negatively impact father-child bond

Exclusive breastfeeding (not exclusively feeding breastmilk, but exclusively breastfeeding) would to a certain extent, yes.

Do you have behavioral studies to back this up ? My breastfed girl is daddy’s daughter.

Exclusive breastfeeding means the mother's presence is essential, she has to be available most of the time as the primary care giver. Due to the way modern societies and nuclear families work, it's reasonable to assume that it's unlikely both partners would take long term leave to be with the infant, or that the father could be there anywhere near the same amount of time as the mother. So the infant would have far more time to bond with the mother than with the father. Whether this time alone is enough to guarantee a stronger bond is probably worth a separate discussion.

> Exclusive breastfeeding means the mother's presence is essential

In early stages of life the mother’s presence will never not be essential.

I’m talking about the logistics of men taking on more of the woman’s traditional caregiver role in couples where both people work. In that respect breastfed babies (or even babies who drink pumped milk) are much more dependent on their mothers. With our first two, who were bottle fed, it was more convenient for my wife to go on a business trip in the first year or two than me. My third was breastfed for six months, and he was highly reliant on my wife in a way the others were not.

And the science shows that the health benefits are minimal.

You keep saying the health benefits aren’t there, so you need to provide evidence.

All the nurses, midwives, and doctors I know declare otherwise

"Generation X and millennials are in worse health than their parents and grandparents were at their age.

That's the conclusion of a new study that looked at markers of physical and mental health across the generations."[1]

Of course, there could be many reasons for that.

[1]https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20210325/gen-x-mill...

Again, that'd be an argument against breastfeeding, given that millenials were born at a peak time for breastfeeding. Really, though, it's probably got nothing to do with breastfeeding.

The father can do everything except breastfeeding, so there’s no reason (except illness) to divide labour on exactly the thing that evolution built the mother to do.

Mothers probably don't need sleep, right?

Breastfeeding and sleep aren’t mutually exclusive.

They definitely are for some mothers. It is very difficult for many people to wake multiple times during the night and still get a good night's sleep.

I mean I'm sure it's tough but it's not forever. Also co-sleeping helps. Never understood why people get up to feed babies.

There are cots which attach to the parent’s bed and special blouses which allow for easy breastfeeding without undressing.

The whole process is as simple as dragging the baby over, taking one breast out and bringing them near to it. The baby will take care of the rest.

Mothers do get sleep, including during the day together with the baby. There are solutions out there for many frequent or rare problems. A good midwife and experienced mothers in the family / circle of friends are priceless.

Who gives a shit how evolution "built the mother"? It also built us to walk the plains and jog slowly after ruminants for hours on end to feed our tribes. In 2022, what the mother probably needs to do is get up in the morning reasonably refreshed and get in to her office.

The WHO and any local health org worth its salt cares. Parents that want the best for their baby do. The more appropriate question is who wants to ignore the medical consensus and why.

Of course some women can’t breastfeed and they deserve support. But downplaying the benefits of breastfeeding because it may hurt the feelings of some mothers is not the way to go.

It’s disappointing but not surprising that you’re saying that mothers need to go to work in the US. AFAIK in many parts of Europe they take many months off (often 6-12) to spend time with the baby. For some of them, it’s the only time in their life that they’ll get the chance to do that. Work can wait.

Why do mothers need to work in the US in the first 6 months of their baby’s life? Why can’t one of the richest countries in the world pay them to stay at home?

The rest of the thread discusses, and I think mostly debunks, the notion that breastfeeding is vitally important for infant health. I'm just here to take potshots at appeals to the naturalist fallacy, that if nature "designed" something some way, it's important for us to continue honoring that design. No, it isn't.

As for parental leave: why not pay men to stay home? Why the presumption that women must be the ones to sacrifice their careers? Because "breastfeeding"? That's a pitiful justification.

Thankfully nobody's likely to be reading HN for advice on breastfeeding, debunked or not. :-) They're going to look at the recommendations of the WHO, their country's equivalent or talk to their doctor or midwife. All of which would recommend breastfeeding, since that's the current scientific consensus. The EU in particular highlights the importance of breastfeeding for at least six months.

I'll say this though - breastfeeding can be a complete mystery for new parents and doctors are often clueless about it. A competent midwife which is familiar with the typical issues is priceless. It's good that there's formula available for those cases where the woman can't breastfeed or the baby is having difficulties and the parent's don't know what to do and can't find competent help.

In the EU, the parents get a number of months which can be split between them. Fathers in Germany for example take a few months off. Because breastfeeding, because moms often want to spend time with their babies and yes, sadly often also because they earn more.

> It is an expensive process

Even more so it's developing a formula milk industry; it's got to be a huge advantage.

> improves the baby’s immune system

I think it just protects them while they are fed, does not offer long term protection.

Anecdotally ours started to get way more sick in daycare after we stopped breastfeeding, but it also coincided with autumn season.

>It is an expensive process so it must have an evolutionary advantage.

>But from what I remember there is good evidence that it improves the baby’s immune system among many other things.

>So bottom line is in the absence of massive amounts of strong evidence against breastfeeding, by default you should favour it.

These are all bad arguments.

Perhaps instead of saying "this is bad", you should expand.

The way you phrase this makes it sound like your experiences (direct or indirect) with breastfeeding have been easy. You should know that it can be very difficult for a lot of mothers, in any number of ways.

Having such a strong prior on preferring it has made many people's lives much harder than necessary.

I didn't read that in the comment at all.

On the contrary, it was not easy at all but that’s a story for another day.

My argument is merely that our opening position, until proven otherwise, should be that the child benefits. (It can, unfortunately, simultaneously be hard for the mother and beneficial for the child. Many aspects of parenting are.)

And again I do think it’s important to note that huge numbers of children grow up well on formula. So if breastfeeding doesn’t work out for whatever reason there’s no reason to lose sleep over it. We can suspect it is beneficial and yet make a rational choice to forego it based on other factors.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that too many sacrifices by the mother in the name of breastfeeding can also be detrimental to the child.

There is a good reason they tell you to put your own oxygen mask on before helping your child in the case of a depressurizing plane.

If it doesn’t work then it doesn’t work, ok, use formula. But if those sacrifices are things like being tired, sore breasts, etc there are normal and there are solutions available.