Breast Feeding woo???

[sphenisc]

Momma's kisses are the source of all of our germs that cause cavities in our teeth.

Hmm, any study re: cavity rate in breast fed vs formula fed kids? If those ant-bodies are protective of the stomach, they ought to help the mouth, no?

This is a dangerous typo - please do not feed your baby ant-bodies.

 

[Gene L]

I think there's an advantage to breast feeding. I was a breast-fed baby, as were most of the babies around where I was born.

My daughter was not, and she was lactose intolerant. I don't know if breast milk carries an enzyme to prevent this, wouldn't be surprised if it did.

 

[Capsid]

For how long can the infant's stomach allow for the migration of antibodies? According to the study posted by Goshawk,it's only the first ~48 hours that the intestines are that leaky (at least for cows).

After that, it'd be impossible for antibodies to get across the intestinal walls.

We had a thread on this topic before. As I recall, the immunoglobulins can cross the gut epithelium and this may be active rather than passive and occurs for as long as the infant is breastfed. Also the placenta of bovines and humans is different in that human placenta allows immunoglobulins to transfer to the foetus but not so in cows and hence the need for the leaky guts in cows in the first 48 hours to facilitate rapid uptake of immunoglobulin in to the bloodstream.

 

[Capsid]

Lactose intolerance is due to a shortage of lactase; that would be due to a genetic predisposition rather than a correlation with being breastfed.

Or do you mean cow's milk protein intolerant?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I think there's an advantage to breast feeding. I was a breast-fed baby, as were most of the babies around where I was born.

My daughter was not, and she was lactose intolerant. I don't know if breast milk carries an enzyme to prevent this, wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Here's an article about lactose intolerance and breastfed babies. I haven't read it yet, but it might have an answer to this.

http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/lactose.html

But as ever we can't reall draw any conclusions from these sorts of anecdotes. My kids were both breastfed, but were still cows milk protein intolerant (to the point that I had to remove the offending products from my diet, as otherwise it got into my breastmilk and made them vomit (a lot)).

 

[Gene L]

Lactose intolerance is due to a shortage of lactase; that would be due to a genetic predisposition rather than a correlation with being breastfed.

Or do you mean cow's milk protein intolerant?

My daughter was intolerant to baby formula. Don't know what part of it specifically. She had to go to soy, which stinks worse than about anything.

 

[fls]

My daughter was intolerant to baby formula. Don't know what part of it specifically. She had to go to soy, which stinks worse than about anything.

Why couldn't she be breast fed?

Linda

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Because it is quite difficult to establish breastfeeding once bottlefeeding is established?

 

[fls]

Because it is quite difficult to establish breastfeeding once bottlefeeding is established?

Not as obviously as I thought )), I meant 'in the first place'.

Linda

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Not as obviously as I thought )), I meant 'in the first place'.

Linda

Actually, it was pretty obvious that was what you meant. I was just being a pain.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Actually, it was pretty obvious that was what you meant. I was just being a pain.

Hey! That's my job!

 

[jimbob]

Farmers raising pigs, cows, and horses have known for some time now that the colostrum, or first milk, is packed with antibodies, and that it's vital for the new baby animal to get it. I can provide cites from an assortment of horse-, cow-, and pig-raising governmental websites if you like.

As for people...

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/002451.htm

Breast milk contains valuable antibodies from the mother that may help the baby resist infections.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/breastfed.html

Breast-fed babies have fewer illnesses because human milk transfers to the infant a mother's antibodies to disease. About 80 percent of the cells in breast milk are macrophages, cells that kill bacteria, fungi and viruses. Breast-fed babies are protected, in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including pneumonia, botulism, bronchitis, staphylococcal infections, influenza, ear infections, and German measles. Furthermore, mothers produce antibodies to whatever disease is present in their environment, making their milk custom-designed to fight the diseases their babies are exposed to as well.

The issue of the antibodies not being digested might be explained by the baby's changing digestive tract. In swine...

http://ohioline.osu.edu/b869/b869_27.html

Sow colostrum contains antibodies that are directly absorbed through the pig's intestinal tract during the first 24 to 36 hours of life, but another group of antibodies (IgA) is also present in the mature milk of the lactating sow. These latter antibodies are not absorbed, but remain in the intestinal tract, attach to the villi, and protect the intestinal lining against pathogenic bacteria. After the pig is weaned, these milk antibodies (IgA) no longer are supplied. Until the pig develops its own immune system, the intestinal tract of the pig is susceptible to disease conditions.

Nutrients are absorbed in the small intestine through microscopically elongated villi. Although digestive enzymes are produced by the pancreas, the tips of the villi in the small intestine also contain digestive enzymes. Upon weaning, the villi become shorter in length, and the digestive enzymes from the villi are temporarily lost.

It's logical to assume that something similar happens in homo sapiens.

I am not sure how "long" a time you were thinking of, but my father used to work for the UK's MAFF and when I born in the early 1970's he was most insistant that we were to be breasfed.

He had looked at the papers showing significantly reduced calf-mortality if they had colostrum in the first 24 hours.

In many respects, because the burden of proof is lower, certain types of advances seem to be faster in agricultural medicine than human medicine.

 

[GreyICE]

It's mildly to moderately beneficial for a lot of diseases, and may be mildly beneficial to early brain development.

In other words, if you can manage it, it's pretty much all positive. There are ways to obtain breast milk without necessarily breastfeeding, and as far as I know, there have been no studies that suggest the benefits go away if you store it for a short period of time 'outside of the natural container' so to speak. That may help with a lot of the time concerns.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I just think this is an interesting example where people marketing and promoting a product, not necessarily in the patient's (in this case babies') best interest, were allowed to make claims that were not supported with an evidence base.

~Dr. Imago

 

[GreyICE]

I just think this is an interesting example where people marketing and promoting a product, not necessarily in the patient's (in this case babies') best interest, were allowed to make claims that were not supported with an evidence base.

~Dr. Imago

It's what marketers do!

I mean look at these two products:

"Scientifically formulated Milk Substitute - May be used as a substitute for breast feeding if the mother is sick, on prescription medication, or unable to produce milk. Scientifically formulated to be as close to real breast milk as feasible to produce.

Warning: May mildly to moderately increase the risk of several diseases."

"Better than Milk - give your infant the boost they need. Specially formulated to be better than real breast milk! No more embarrassing breast feeding, no more uncomfortable moments, no more interruptions! Just use our special formula and the child will have the best. It's safe, it's easy, and it's cheap. It's your life - do what's best for it and for your child!"

 

[Goshawk]

In many respects, because the burden of proof is lower, certain types of advances seem to be faster in agricultural medicine than human medicine.

Oh, absolutely, no argument there. And the farmer doesn't have to contend with issues of social and public acceptability, and the "Done Thing". My three kids were all born in 1984, 1987, and 1990, I breastfed all of them, and even in 1984, in urban America (Dallas, Texas), there were people who considered breastfeeding "icky" somehow, "nasty", because it involved, like, your breast [shudder] ! Being, like, naked ! With a baby, like, sucking on it [oh noes] ! Formula was considered much better because it was, like, sanitary or something. Scientific. You could measure it, and sterilize it and stuff, but breastfeeding was thought of as primitive, unsavory in some way.

The La Leche League had an uphill battle against a lot of social constructs, I'm tellin' you. I envy these women today who have no qualms about breastfeeding in the middle of the mall, albeit with a tactfully arranged shawl; I would never have dared try it, it just wasn't the Done Thing in the circles I moved in. Even at church, where I was surrounded by similarly forward-thinking Boomer moms also all breastfeeding, we all tactfully withdrew to the back of the sanctuary when it was feeding time, so as not to give offense to other members of the congregation.

 

[six7s]

Congrats!

1.) From what sources (except for nipple surfaces) would an infant receive an infection orally?

For human infants:

• 22-month-old siblings fingers
• grandmother's noses
• bath water
• etc

For other mammals (that can walk within hours of birth):

• the whirled

 

[Dr. Imago]

Congrats!

1.) From what sources (except for nipple surfaces) would an infant receive an infection orally?

For human infants:

• 22-month-old siblings fingers
• grandmother's noses
• bath water
• etc

For other mammals (that can walk within hours of birth):

• the whirled

Well, that's actually a whole separate argument (re: all germs are bad).

~Dr. Imago

 

[Rocko]

Why couldn't she be breast fed?

Linda

Can't speak for the original poster, but in our case, our baby just never took to the breast. He was born 7 weeks early, which is - apparently - before the breast feeding reflex kicks in (he was 33 weeks, normally that starts in at about about 36). He was fed initially through a tube, and then from a cup. Maybe he got used to that, but for whatever reason, he just never took to the breast. We had lots of help from the breast feeding specialist on ICU, but he just wouldn't do it; we spent a month trying, but every time he'd just scream and cry. As you can imagine, that was a fairly stressful month.

After about 4 weeks we just gave up, and my wife spent 3 tedious months expressing breast milk and bottle feeding him it before the duplication of effort involved just became too much and we shifted over to formula.

Whilst I agree that breast is best (I did quite a lot of poking around at the time to see the science behind it), the constant, ceaseless pushing of it can, IMO, be counterproductive. We spent a month on ICU, where we got to know lots of other parents of premature babies. Of the four of us who got on well enough to discuss it, all were having tremendous problems both with the act of feeding and the quantities they were producing. What dismayed me was the guilt that they all admitted to feeling, as though they were somehow failing their children. Obviously that seemed both totally unfair on them, and also I suspect the stress probably wasn't helping with both the efforts to breastfeed and the quantity they were producing.

Pure anecdotal evidence: he's 5 months old now, and doing brilliantly

 

[GreyICE]

Well, that's actually a whole separate argument (re: all germs are bad).

~Dr. Imago

Huh? The vast majority of germs (bacteria) that we pick up are harmless. A small number are quite helpful to our body. A slightly larger number than that are actually harmful.

Germs, as you put it, frankly mostly just don't care about us.