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.
Add a Comment18 Comments
Breast feeding is wholly natural. I agree with Susan that, fundamentally and if possible, the choice is the mother's to breast feed or not. It's a personal decision, maybe even a medical decision in the case of a health issue for the mother or child.
What would you tell the less fortunate mothers in rural countries who cannot afford any other method? I think people here are taking for granted that women at large have any choice in this matter.
JMHO
January 9, 2009 - 8:22pmThis Comment
Pointed here by RachieHeather on Twitter.
In 1989 the UK was entering a big recession. Breastfeeding is a cheaper method of feeding children than powdered products. It's also heavily promoted as being healthier. Thus, for parents with a heavy pro-health bias or who were trying to save some pennies, or both, breastfeeding was probably the feeding method of choice.
Now, back to the recession. This was the era where parents who could afford it and who were less vigorously concerned about their kids health were ushering in the world of video games. On the flip side, parents more concerned with saving pennies or promoting their children's health through exercise would instead get their kids outdoors to play soccer.
Sports vs video games? Might explain a bias in lung capacity ;)
Never underestimate the power of socioeconomic status to influence a study.
BTW I'm unbiased on this subject.
-Diggie
January 8, 2009 - 10:40pmThis Comment
File this in the category of Ignorance Disguised as Choice.
Breastfeeding and Formula feeding are not two equal and different "options" that are as inconsequential as you make them sound. Formula feeding caries serious health risks that we are only just beginning to understand. What we know right now is that the previous two generations of "formula-feeders" have now exposed their children to cancers and other health risk factors that breastfeeding would have protected them from. There is mountains of medical evidence to prove this.
It is a baby's birth right to be breastfed. It is our job to feed them properly, instead of mainlining McDonalds (or its liquid equivolent) into their system.
Think about it this way: the previous generation did all kinds of terrible things to this planet in the name of convenience or advancement. We're trying to clean up a lot of those messes now. This is the same issue with breastfeeding. Every single health organization in the world recommends breast over formula, and formula companies even have to have warning labels on the sides of the cans TELLING their consumers that they shouldn't be using their product. Sound familiar? Sounds like the warning label on a pack of cigarettes, if you ask me. So why aren't mothers listening? Because they don't know the truth. You clearly don't know the truth if you think that there is any argument about breast being the only way we should be feeding our offspring.
Breastfeeding is a feminist issue. Our gender, and our generation, have been undermined and hurt by the FORMULA companies and their bogus propaganda. It's time to take back our bodies and its abilities.
Or, we can keep buying their cigarettes and formula, and tell ourselves it's our "choice" to let them do this to us.
TheFeministBreeder
January 8, 2009 - 11:52amhttp://thefeministbreeder.typepad.com
This Comment
FeministBreeder,
I'm surprised by your comments, and view it as unfortunate that you feel the need to "scare the health" into women!
Formula is in no way, shape or form equivalent to cigarettes, and using scare tactics is an antiquated educational technique.
I hear that you feel strongly about breastfeeding and would like to suggest (if you are open to suggestion??) that you can help women become better advocates and empower them with information, studies, statistics and research, rather than telling them to "look it up, it's public information on Google..." from your follow-up post (this post did not provide any data; it was pure emotion and off-putting).
In my experience, the best educators and advocates are the ones who openly provide the information and current research, including any limitations that were found in the study (and there are always limitations!), and allow women to make the best choice for their situation. If you feel strongly about the study, say so!, but pushing only makes people retreat...which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to do, I assume.
Can you provide some concise, updated, credible information from studies and research that you have read, with a bibliography for follow-up? I am curious and would like to learn more about your point-of-view.
thanks
January 8, 2009 - 3:48pmThis Comment
Either my links are not being displayed on your computer, or you didn't actually look at either of my posts. I actually provided 3 links to credible and proven sources, which in turn, provide more and more and more information, along with the resources cited. The US Dept. of Health link actually provides downloadable PDFs of many scientific studies that back the "propaganda" as the OP put it. The KellyMom.com site has pages and pages of sources cited.
I went ON to say that mountains of information can be found via a simple Google search, if my "sources" weren't good enough for the previous poster. Perhaps my 3 links couldn't be trusted... but a person could, easily enough, find their own.
I ALSO provided a link to my blog which has an "about" section and pretty much everything a person could want to know about little ol' me. What more could a person ask for?
You seem to have be ignoring the print right on the screen, and continuing to argue that I have not provided proof of my statements. I'm not sure how else I can do that if what I have provided is going to be ignored.
TheFeministBreeder
January 8, 2009 - 9:34pmAND HERE IT IS AGAIN: http://thefeministbreeder.typepad.com
and if Links don't show up on your computer - Google me!
This Comment
To compare formula with cigarettes sounds a little ignorant to me... I'm curious to know where you've gotten your info that formula causes cancer. Are there any scientific studies to back that up? Honestly, I don't see how you can say that across the line, breastmilk is always better than formula. What about the breastfeeding moms who are taking meds, from over the counter stuff to anti-depressants, that haven't been tested in infants? And the moms who drink alcohol or smoke while breastfeeding? Or who eat junk food with preservatives? I'd say formula would be a heck of a lot healthier in those instances.
January 8, 2009 - 12:15pmThis Comment
If I were to try to list all of the studies here that PROVE that formula puts babies are risk for cancer, infectious diseases, and ill-health in general.... well, it would be just as long as a list for all the studies that show how terrible smoking is.
I suggest you start here - at the US Department of Health and Human Services - http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/index.cfm?page=home
Here's another quick link to risk factors:
http://www.breastfeedingtaskforla.org/ABMRisks.htm
This is public domain information. I also recommend doing a simple Google search, and you will find pages and pages and pages of medical journals, scientific studies, policy & position statements, and tables showing how much breastfeeding protects us from.
Breastfeeding also helps protect MOTHERS from breast cancer. So the benefits are not purely one-sided.
And the body filters many toxins out of the breastmilk before it reaches the baby. It has been proven that it is better for a baby to get breastmilk from a smoking mother than to be fed formula.
http://www.kellymom.com/health/lifestyle/smoking.html
All the facts are there. Whether people choose to ignore them to the detriment of their child (and their own health) is purely a personal decision. Just don't act like you didn't know.
January 8, 2009 - 12:34pmThis Comment
I disagree with the word "propaganda" but I am re-posting my post from a different site on the same topic posted by Kristin.
January 6, 2009 - 8:34pmI was on the fence. Not an advocate either way. Saw the pros and cons. Lots of pressure to BF; but also provided samples and coupons by hospital (provided by the formula people). My baby was a preemie and feeding her (or the potential to feed her) was one of the few things I could do for her so it was important to me to pump and store it. I ended up nursing her in full or part for 16 months. Mostly because I was cheap and formula is expensive, and it was more convenient for me to not have to mix formula in the middle of the night or to tote it around when we were out. At first she was fed nutrients via an IV, then Breast Milk via the bottle and then we both figured out how she could nurse. At one point she wasn't getting enough so I had to supplement with formula. Then back to breast milk only. I was fortunate that her daycare allowed Breast milk in frig and handled it appropriately but she also always had a spare formula bottle available. During the last months, it was only morning and night, and more for comfort than nourishment. IMHO, I think BF is healthier in general for the average typical mother/baby but not everyone can/should BF. (I also could be wrong.) It was a way for me to encourage myself to eat healthily. I think it helped me lose some of the baby weight. I don't know about the better bonding - I think when you get up, feed, comfort, diaper - you're bonded or in bondage. I had a good experience with it; others I know did not. I agree that it is your personal decision - not the dr, the baby daddy, your friends, neighbors, parents ... I do think that much of the recent hoo haw stems from our society's sexualization of the female breast. I had to learn to nurse my baby in an open hospital NICU and it mattered not to me if anyone saw me. Once we were out in public I did try to be discreet so as not to offend. I wasn't "militant" either way. If you want to and it works for you - go for it. If not, find a solution that works for you, and go for it. Judging others' choices takes too much effort. We as women need to be supportive of each other. Work outside the home for money moms. Stay at home moms. Married, single, divorced, lesbian moms. Old moms, young moms. Common thread: mom. Life can be a challenge - let's give each other a break.
This Comment
Some people are for it and some are against, no biggie, except the ones that talk bad about the other. Then we need to sit back and look at ourselves, would we like our children to talk to someone else that way. NO. With my oldest, I did not breastfeed nor did I want to. Why? Because I just didn't. No real explanation, just didn't feel "right" for me. With my youngest, my husband and I talked about it before she came. I told him I didn't want to, he told me he's like me to at least consider it. So, my Jules came and I tried but it didn't work. I went to two lactaid consultants (if that is what they are called, oops) and they tried to help me...but she didn't latch on. I tried for two full weeks 150% and still nada. Was I glad she didn't latch? Perhaps. Was my husband glad I tried? Definately. I wonder if Jules felt my discomfort when attempting and just didn't latch....who knows...but she's now 15 months... beautiful and healthy...just as my others. To eachs own!
January 6, 2009 - 2:43pmGlendaleMom
This Comment
My wife just asked my opinion on this issue which from the postings has shifted to an ethical discussion. I cannot tell if all the postings came from women and I am the only guy getting my nose in dangerous turf. But I will assume this forum allows for everyone's opinions.
We have one child and my wife is expecting twins in March. We both work, she is a pediatrician and I am a professor of philosophy and ethics. So, here are my two cents on this topic first as a professional:
1. Kristin and Kelley from a pure ethical perspective you both assume that the "choice" of a mother against the "choice of another human being - the baby" is greater in value. Enmanuel Kant talks about the "right to no harm" as a societal ethical issue. This has nothing to do with religion! It is pure and simple ethical analysis. Let's assume that instead of breast milk this was an issue a mother's refusal to access medical care for her baby in the name of choice, then the child dies as a result of her choice. Was that choice the right one? And YES society has the right to judge. We do it all the time. We judge politicians, religious leaders, conservative and liberals. Judging is not one sided, that is why we have a free society that seeks what is best for its survival. We do not need ethical anarchy, do we?
If scientific evidence shows that nutrients in mother's milk are of higher quality than formula, and the mother has not medical restrictions to provide this source of nutrients to her offspring, but she chooses to bottlefeed instead, are her actions ethical? She may be potentially denying a healthier life to her baby, and the report from MSNBC is just the beginning to the slippery slope...
2. As a father, I could not be more appreciative to my wife's choice of wanting to breastfeed our twins the same way she did our son. She has a busy practice and we will work as a team to ensure the necessary amounts of breast milk are pumped for both babies. As many twins tend to be born prematurely, we will always face the possibility of having to opt for formula if the medical need arises. But we will try our best to give our babies what mother nature designed her body for, the most nurturing process of life. Her choice is hers, but based on what is best for the babies not what is best for her. Pure and simple, selfless decision. We do not judge those women whose circumstances as such that even if they wanted to breastfeed could not possibly do it. But we judge those who having the " natural nutritional source" deny it to their baby. The same way we judge those parents who let kids smoke, use drugs, drink alcohol, or give their kids birth control pills at age 11. My wife can tell you the horrible stories of young kids she sees in her office whose parents act unattached from the consequences of their choices as parents. Yes, my wife can judge, I can judge, WE as a society have the right to judge when we think we have gone too far in many areas of our lives including health. I will judge those parents who:
1. Choose to smoke during pregnancy
January 4, 2009 - 5:45pm2. Use drugs during and after having a baby
3. Feed their children junk food to the point of creating an obesity and diabetes epidemic in our society thus causing the cost of healthcare to sky rocket.
4. Push their kids to multiple sports disregarding the immature physiology of their young bodies to the point of causing long term injuries and multiple surgeries.
My list is long, but I have made my point as a man, father, husband and a professional who is committed to teaching students to know the difference between right and wrong choices....
This Comment