So I just read yet another pro-breastfeeding article that makes me want to scream. It's on a study done that apparently concluded that babies who are breastfed for at least four months have greater lung capacity than babies who either were not breastfed or breastfed for less than four months. The study sounds so odd to me ... it was done on the Isle of Wight in the UK, where about 1,000 kids who were born in 1989 were tested for their lung capacity at the age of 10. So how strange is it to take a bunch of 10-year-olds and assume that their lung function depends purely on whether or not they were breastfed for four months. Am I missing something here?? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28471503/
The researchers asserted that it takes more effort for babies to suckle a human nipple than one on a bottle, and therefore breastfed babies are getting more exercise, directly and positively impacting their lungs. (Say what??)
Just more ammo for the "breast is best" advocates.
All user-generated information on this site is the opinion of its author only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. Members and guests are responsible for their own posts and the potential consequences of those posts detailed in our Terms of Service.