Make mine Kettle Corn

That was my first thought. Second thought was egg studies. The scientists mean well but keep contradicting themselves. Eggs are bad, eggs are good, maybe eggs are bad again? Ugh!

Study had to funded by Gerber with expected results. Thus we have the studies odd conclusion.

And the other things the study looks at are long term benefits (not short term), which are associated with breast feeding.

But I couldn't find the article itself - and I never trust reporting on an article to be accurate. All sorts of things may impact whether the report matches the article (reporters often get things wrong), or (if it does) whether the article itself has any validity.

In this case, I would wonder about the fact that the researcher is a sociologist, the size of the study, the order of birth, and changed family circumstances from one child to the next, accuracy of memory (it appears to be a retroactive study).

I'm glad you pointed out that the researcher is a sociologist, as well as reiterating the fact that this is a study about long term, as opposed to short term benefits.

I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that there is definitely, from a biological standpoint, short term benefit which makes breastfeeding well worth it. If the mother can do it. (Many can't for a variety of reasons, and there should be no shame in that). But while the study may acknowledge the immunological benefits, I don't see how it can play much of a positive role in research that is focusing on long term outcomes.

In other words, I've always been of the opinion that most, if not all, of the benefits are short term in nature anyway.

I've heard of studies in the past that suggested long term benefit, but have always been much more dubious about those, for the same reasons the researcher lays out. However, I too would like to know more about the particulars.

After 2-3 months, the baby's digestive tract is developed enough to destroy the antibodies in breast milk. So they can't help provide immunity after that point, they can only provide protein.

believing those formula pamphlets.

I'm "claiming" that you have made a silly, easily refuted statement about breastmilk.
Here it is:

"The immunological benefits go away pretty quickly.
After 2-3 months, the baby's digestive tract is developed enough to destroy the antibodies in breast milk. So they can't help provide immunity after that point, they can only provide protein."

You have no evidence to back this up. Is that why you want to change the subject?

Like 50 or 60 years or more. Are there different rates of things like type 2 diabetes or heart disease? Differences in age at onset of dementia? Things like that. We have no idea of the true long term effects of suboptimal nutrition in infancy.

And I say this as someone who had to mostly formula feed due to low milk production.

through the economy, so it's better.

Anything to make a profit. It's all that matters.

The message is intended to mislead the target market of new mothers. Infants and toddlers who are breastfed have lower rates of many other childhood illnesses, fewer doctor visits, etc. And it is quite essential for preemies for brain and retinal development. Plus, preemies fed artificial formulas are more likely to develop severe intestinal problems.

Someone has formula to sell.

pumping more money through the economy so people have jobs that support them and their families is a very bad thing...

I think this is up to each new mother to decide. Nobody else.

My wife is a certified nurse midwife and a lactation consultant. She helps new moms with their decisions.
Just saying there's money in marketing formula and there is way less available to help mom's figure it out, one way or another.

of propaganda from the formula industry.

pressure and near bullying of the la leche people. I wasn't even awake yet (c section, cut from the navel down) and there they were! I opened my eyes expecting to see my sister, my cousin and my new sons. Nope. I had them removed.

They didn't even send a lactation consultant or breast pump for almost two days after they delivered my twins via c-section, and I believe that had something to do with my failure to ever build up a decent supply.

Of course, I should have taken the initiative and said something right away, but I was a little disoriented, what with the premature delivery, c-section and preeclampsia.

It would be nice if they could find some sort of middle ground between bullying and total neglect.

or how long it stays in the body. Maybe that's why they didn't send someone to you sooner.

I was in the hospital for 5 days, because I was a single mom they wanted to make sure I could get around without pain or yanking out the staples. I saw them again on one of my walks down the hall. One of them started to say something to me, but didn't.

Please don't think of yourself in terms of "failure". You didn't fail anything.

I was a doula for a woman who had twins via c-section with exactly the same anesthetic and in the same hospital. They had her breastfeeding both babies within the hour. They as much as admitted to me later on that the reason for the delay was that I got lost in the shuffle and they simply forgot about me.

And I'm not thinking of myself in terms of "failure". Only my ability to build up a decent milk supply, which certainly was a failure. I don't feel any "guilt" or "failure" about my breastfeeding difficulties (and I did still partially breastfeed for around 6 months) but I do feel a sense of loss and regret, and will not allow anyone to tell me how I "should" feel about it.

I'm sorry that you took what I said about failure the wrong way. I wasn't trying to tell you how to feel, I misunderstood what you said.

I was never bombarded with false info during my pregnancy or after.

My sons are no less healthy for being bottle fed.

She worked in newborn nursery at a hospital for a number of years and now works at an OB/GYN office. She sees the misleading info from lots of reps.

There were no reps there, and nobody approached me.

Among other things, this is another reason for more leave for new mothers, esp. PAID leave.

Poor & working moms can't afford to breast feed. All new moms should have access to lactation nurses, receive a breast pump, bottles, storage containers, & all of the other supplies necessary to continue breastfeeding after the return to work. All work places should provide a room to feed or pump & a fridge to store pumped milk.

It is almost impossible for many moms to continue to breastfeed after 6 weeks.

The access to lactation counseling & support is critical. I think home visits would be great.

I was fortunate to be able to breastfeed my child. It was harder than I thought it would be. My lactation nurse & my pediatrician helped us to learn together. (my little guy did not want to nurse efficiently at first.) We did great after a bumpy start. He weaned himself at 18 months. We did supplement with formula as needed. He is now a big and healthy preschooler!

They'll be all right. I was on 2% milk as an infant because I threw everything else up. I should be a gibbering, sickly dullard, by some accounts but I've done all right. I breast fed one of my sons for half a year, the other son had reflux, refused to nurse, and it took us a while to find a formula he would accept. I don't even remember what it was we landed on. They are both doing fine, healthy, A students. Just feed them and love them.

Another thing, this study doesn't take into account the physical, mental and emotional health benefits to the mother.

Nor does it consider the effect of breast-feeding on infant and toddler health and development (i.e. number of sicknesses, ear infections, etc.).

Young moms feel guilty when they can't maintain breastfeeding, for whatever reason. This study will at least help them not feel guilty, which is a good thing.

I felt like such a failure when I couldn't exclusively breastfeed my kids beyond a few weeks. Exhaustion from every-two-hour feedings, 24 hours a day, took its toll. I'm sure sleep deprivation is the main reason for postpartum depression.

I had twins. It was just too many mouths to feed and my body couldn't keep up. My sons are happy, healthy 27 year olds.

This is one of those issues that I think others should just not poke their noses into. It doesn't do any new mom any good to be made to feel guilty or like she's a bad person.

also care about.

that as is often the case, the term "breastfed" is not clearly defined among the siblings, nor was duration nailed down.

The article is sensationalized, naturally.

JMHO but if there's no difference and breastfeeding is cheaper and other studies have shown it to be better for early childhood development, that's what I'd choose.

affects the development of teeth, and can cause jaw problems in developing infants. That is undisputed in dentistry.

of baby formula to new mothers in the 3rd world. The mothers used the formula because it was more modern, scientific and (for some) allowed them to work and leave the baby with others. The problems were that the formula was mixed with impure water and/or was watered down because the mother couldn't afford to buy enough. 3rd world babies were better off being nursed - human milk from the breast was generally safer and more nutritious.

So - for irony - Welcome to the new 1st World: the convenience store in town keeps the formula under the counter - too many people were stealing it because they didn't have the cash to buy it. (and BTW - we're talking mostly poor whites here). If someone had taken the time and effort to offer proper teaching, maybe some of these mothers could have nursed their babies.

6 wks away from work, let alone, have the privelege of being able to nurse their babies or have a job that allow them to pump their milk thru their shift, store the breast milk in a work fridge, and also afford a pump (they aren't cheap).

are not employed. Truthfully, they need an opportunity to be in school somewhere with a day care center.

I'll start out here with a preface - I was once upon a time a 'militant' breastfeeding advocate. I breastfed all 4 of my kids in terms of years. And although their dad has allergies, as do I (and I have asthma too) our kids are insanely health and no asthma in any of them, even though statistically with 2 parents with allergies, there should be something with allergies of some kind in at least half of them. But nothing. I think breastfeeding babies is one of the best decisions you can make for your kids - and I had to work hard at it too, it didn't come easy for me, that's for sure. Name the breastfeeding problem, I had it. But I was determined. I think too many women give up too easily.

That said - what you say is also true. 6 weeks away from work is fucking pitiful. I live in Canada where mat leave is a whole YEAR. Honestly, if I had a baby and knew I had to get back to work in 6 weeks, I'm not sure I'd bother with breastfeeding. At 6 weeks we were JUST getting 'in the groove' of breastfeeding. Going to work at that point would've destroyed the 'relationship' anyway. It would've been beyond stressful to try to keep it up. Also, my kids ALL refused a bottle at that point...I can't imagine having to switch them to a bottle while I was at work...there would've been a week or 2 of total, all out screaming 'round the clock while they starved themselves. No, if I knew I had to go back to work that early, I would've pumped but started them on a bottle right away and probably supplemented. I cannot see, even myself, a 'militant', trying to breastfeed in those circumstances.

To me, I think the problem is a lot of women, as you said, don't really HAVE a 'choice'. Breastfeeding should be a 'choice' but if, like you said, a woman has to go back to work before the breastfeeding relationship is solidified, a woman isn't accommodated at work, works shift work, isn't getting paid enough for a proper breastpump, has no where to store breastmilk, etc then it's no longer a 'choice'...she's being forced to do things a certain way as a means of survival and in this day and age, I see it as a woman's rights issue. Women should at least have the choice.

To a person, they are fascinated and appalled at our lousy social safety net!

is better than thousands of years of evolution? You were just referring to how this profit-making concept
was sold, right?

20th century.

Of course, those supporting GMO crops have much better reasons than "it's more scientific".


Understand, I support real science, but object to anything new and/or man-made being labeled "more scientific".

instead of older children who were no longer benefiting from the mother's antibodies?

And the baby's digestive tract breaks down mom's antibodies after about 3 months. So the benefit of those is only early on.

as infants, depending on how much they're still nursing.

The study in the OP doesn't change this research, because it only applies to children from 4 - 14, who are no longer breastfeeding.

From a government web site:

http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/why-breastfeeding-is-important/

Breast milk fights disease – The cells, hormones, and antibodies in breast milk protect babies from illness. This protection is unique; formula cannot match the chemical makeup of human breast milk. In fact, among formula-fed babies, ear infections and diarrhea are more common. Formula-fed babies also have higher risks of:
Necrotizing (nek-roh-TEYE-zing) enterocolitis (en-TUR-oh-coh-lyt-iss), a disease that affects the gastrointestinal tract in preterm infants.
Lower respiratory infections
Asthma
Obesity
Type 2 diabetes
Some research shows that breastfeeding can also reduce the risk of Type 1 diabetes, childhood leukemia, and atopic dermatitis (a type of skin rash) in babies. Breastfeeding has also been shown to lower the risk of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).
Return to top

Breast milk is less nutritionally dense, so the baby drinks more of it. Which means the baby is better hydrated. That is what helps with ear infections, diarrhea and similar diseases.

Or so we've been told 2 years ago, and again 4 months ago.

with antibodies. On the other hand, the baby consumes a larger volume of milk, so continues to receive protection from the antibodies. It is a misconception that these antibodies are destroyed in the baby's digestive system.



http://blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2013/01/08/how-does-breastfeeding-protect-against-hiv/

Without human milk, infants are effectively missing a piece of their immune system; secretory IgA antibodies, for example, are abundant in milk and act in the infant’s gut. Proteins like lactoferrin have antimicrobial activity. The component that has been highlighted recently as preventing HIV transmission is a family of molecules made of strings of sugars. They’re called Human Milk Oligosaccharides.

Although they are made of sugar, HMOs aren’t digested by the infant.We used to think they must be “prebiotics” consumed by the bacteria that live in the baby’s gut, and that’s often true; one bug, Bifidobacterium infantis, consumes the lion’s share of the short-chain HMOs.

By tailoring the exact mix, moms are selecting particular types of bacteria for their child’s gut, in much the same way you can attract certain birds to your yard by the types of seed you put in your bird feeder. This explains, at least in part, why breastfed babies have dramatically different gut flora than babies that drink formula – even one bottle of formula can change their gut microbiome forever.

You said: "And the baby's digestive tract breaks down mom's antibodies after about 3 months. " According to the source below, "like many other host resistance factors in human milk, Lysozyme is relatively resistant to proteolysis and to denaturation resulting from the high acidity within the stomach."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=134

Many of the whey proteins in human milk have direct protective effects against infection. Lactoferrin, one of the dominant whey proteins in human milk throughout lactation (Table 6-5) (Butte et al., 1984a; Goldman et al., 1982, 1983a,b), inhibits the multiplication of siderophilic (iron-absorbing) bacteria by competing with these microorganisims for ferric iron (Bullen et al., 1978; Stephens et al., 1980).

SNIP

Lysozyme is a protein in human milk that affords protection in two different ways: it breaks down susceptible bacteria by cleaving peptidoglycans from their cell walls (Chipman and Sharon, 1969), and it acts in concert with other components in human milk to kill microbial pathogens. High concentrations of this protein are found in human milk throughout lactation (Butte et al., 1984b; Goldman et al., 1982, 1983a,b), whereas concentrations in cow's milk are very much lower. Like many other host resistance factors in human milk, lysozyme is relatively resistant to proteolysis and to denaturation resulting from the high acidity within the stomach.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/5/941.full

The protection conferred by breastfeeding was related to the levels of IgA class enterovirus antibodies in breast milk, which seemed to be more important than transplacentally acquired antibodies. This is logical, because the primary replication of enteroviruses occurs in gut mucosa, where breast milk antibodies can directly neutralize the virus in the intestine and prevent its subsequent spread to the circulation. The protective effect was related to exclusive breastfeeding rather than total breastfeeding, suggesting that there may be a dose-effect related to the greater amount of breast milk ingested by exclusively breastfed infants. In addition, protection correlated with enterovirus IgA levels, supporting true biological effect rather than the influence of potential confounding factors, like family size or socioeconomic status.

http://adc.bmj.com/content/78/3/235.full

We have shown that mothers maintain a steady output of IgA throughout the first year of lactation, that there is a difference in the concentration of IgA secreted by each breast, and there is a variation throughout the year according to season. The seasonal changes are due more to fluctuations in milk IgA concentrations than the weights of milk ingested. These findings confirm and extend those of other studies of lactating mothers in both the developing and developed world,4-6 and underline the potential value of prolonged breast feeding in infancy. Human milk has been shown to confer protection against several enteric and respiratory infections,2 8 and in circumstances of poor hygiene and high risk of infection it is likely to be of significant importance to the suckling infant.

IgA acts at the mucosal surface of the gastrointestinal tract to protect against potentially harmful microbial and food antigens. Although the infants continued to ingest a constant amount of IgA each day, the amount relative to body weight decreased. The length of the small intestine increases by 56% during the first year of postnatal life, in parallel with an increase in body weight of 55% and length of 50%.9 IgA survives passage through the gastrointestinal tract10 and its detection in the faeces of breast fed infants throughout the first year suggests that the amounts ingested remain sufficient to provide mucosal protection in spite of the increasing surface area of the gastrointestinal tract.

And, ideally, babies are supposed to be exclusively breastfed until they're 6 months old.

Those proteins that have direct protective effects against infection continue throughout lactation, though depending on how much milk the baby is still consuming, s/he will receive less as time goes on.

Also, lysozyme is an antibody. Your conversations with your experts have left you uninformed. If you could prove your opinions with links, I'm sure you'd have done that by now.

dictionary.com

in·fant
noun
1.
a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysozyme

Lysozymes, also known as muramidase or N-acetylmuramide glycanhydrolase, are glycoside hydrolases. These are enzymes (EC 3.2.1.17) that damage bacterial cell walls by catalyzing hydrolysis of 1,4-beta-linkages between N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine residues in a peptidoglycan and between N-acetyl-D-glucosamine residues in chitodextrins. Lysozyme is abundant in a number of secretions, such as tears, saliva, human milk, and mucus. It is also present in cytoplasmic granules of the polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs). Large amounts of lysozyme can be found in egg white. C-type lysozymes are closely related to alpha-lactalbumin in sequence and structure, making them part of the same family. In humans, the lysozyme enzyme is encoded by the LYZ gene.[1][2]

http://www.antibodies-online.com/abstract/Lysozyme+(LYZ)+ELISA+Kit/

Lysozyme (LYZ) ELISA Kit Abstract
LYZ encodes human lysozyme, whose natural substrate is the bacterial cell wall peptidoglycan (cleaving the beta[1-4]glycosidic linkages between N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetylglucosamine). antibodies-online currently ships Lysozyme (LYZ) Antibodies (158), and to destinations worldwide.

The fact that we don't generally stick with the official label when talking doesn't change the official label. An article in a journal is going to stay with the official label, or explicitly state the age.

throughout lactation.

The study in the OP only looked at babies POST lactation, ages 4 - 14, so it is not considering the benefits to the baby's health while it is still nursing.

My sister, who wasn't breast fed, had multiple ear infections that left her with a hearing loss in one ear. I don't see that in the list of items they were looking at.

"body mass index, obesity, asthma, hyperactivity, parental attachment and behavior compliance, as well as scores predicting academic achievement in vocabulary, reading recognition, math ability, intelligence and scholastic competence."

And there could be other factors, such as adult obesity, that wouldn't be shown in this study. I just read research appearing to show that babies who are born as a result of c-sections have an increased risk of obesity as adults.

The study in the OP only shows that certain factors in children in a certain age-range aren't affected by breastfeeding. That's all it shows.

For example, that hearing loss should have affected "scores predicting academic achievement in vocabulary", which would affect "scores predicting (...) scholastic competence." Hearing loss slows language acquisition.

That's why they chose such broad categories. Instead of trying to run down every single possible effect, they picked things that can be affected by many things. If they had found a higher or lower rate of "achievement in vocabulary", then a follow-up study would try to figure out why.

As for your specific example, we could also use my sister as an example if you'd like. She was breast fed. Damn near every single cold during her childhood became an ear infection. So that would kind of indicate breast feeding wouldn't have altered your sister's outcome. Though we'd need data instead of anecdotes to really sort that out.

Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 04:44 PM - Edit history (2)

She's also just as bright as everyone else, even though she was discovered to have a hearing loss in one of her ears -- the one that kept getting infected. Fortunately, she has two ears.

There have been lots of studies that show that breastfed infants have fewer ear infections. You're not really going to dispute that, are you?

Again, the study in the OP didn't make the global claims that some think it made. It studied a limited number of factors in a limited age-group. That's it.

Many other studies have shown benefits, both to this age group and to adults.

http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/benefits.asp

Breast-fed children are less likely to contract a number of diseases later in life, including juvenile diabetes, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, and cancer before the age of 15

for the last 2 years.

But maybe you can't, since you think lysozyme isn't an antibody.

Edited that post to add a link to antibodies.

Antibodies do not catalyze reactions.

between saying an antibody is an enzyme and a certain enzyme is an antibody.

You can even buy lysozyme at antibodies-online

http://www.antibodies-online.com/abstract/Lysozyme+(LYZ)+ELISA+Kit/

Lysozyme (LYZ) ELISA Kit Abstract
LYZ encodes human lysozyme, whose natural substrate is the bacterial cell wall peptidoglycan (cleaving the betaglycosidic linkages between N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetylglucosamine). antibodies-online currently ships Lysozyme (LYZ) Antibodies (158), and to destinations worldwide.

Because that's what an enzyme is. A protein or protein-nucleotide hybrid that catalyzes chemical reactions.

Benefits to he mother. The study even confirms that all things being UNequal, breastfeeding is a significant benefit. In other words the benefit MAY be slight for middle class families with resources to compensate in many other ways. But the fact remains that in poor communities and these world countries, breastfeeding provides many measurable and durable advantages.

whichever they chose, bottle or breast.

no discernible difference in the health of either kid as the grew up.

There is more face-to-face time. I wouldn't have traded breast-feeding my two children for anything.

sad and moms who don't want but feel pressure to do prob feel frustrated.

These emotions might affect baby more than certain nutrients or enzymes or connection time with baby.


Tikki

nervous or worried the baby would pick up on that.

I bottle fed my sons. I don't feel that there was any lack of connection time with them. I could not take my eyes off of their sweet little faces and talked to them softly the whole time. There is no love like that mama/baby love in the world.

She was up every 2 hours for weeks, determined to do it. The baby didn't gain weight, got jaundiced (which is a known phenomenon among breastfed babies) and fell off the growth curve. Finally, her pediatrician told her to use the bottle.

Within 2 weeks that baby was gaining weight and sleeping 4 hours at a time. Now the baby's a healthy, chunky darling and mom isn't going psychotic from sleep deprivation.

So yeah. If you can breastfeed, that's great. But if you can't, then do what you need to do for baby to keep growing.

In caveman days, babies were raised in communities, and if a woman couldn't produce enough milk, there was probably some other nursing mother with a little extra. But today, there aren't any wet nurses handy, and if you don't have enough breast milk, your baby could starve if you don't supplement.

Breastfeeding and jaundice: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000995.htm

believed to be a normal antioxidive effect) is the result if "not enough breastmilk". In other words, it happens when mothers and babies don't get an optimal start with breastfeeding. It's too bad about your daughter in law and precious grand baby.

Or perhaps in the presence of a pitbull?

My understanding is that breast feeding is way better than bottle feeding,
unless there is some problem like a drug or toxin in the breast milk.

I think infants should have the bodily contact with the mother, feeling
her heartbeat and skin; and they get extra immunity and a lesser
propensity to obesity all during life.