Breast Feeding woo???

[fls]

The sad fact of the matter is that frankly, the best answer we have is "well, it has antibodies." Doing a chemical analysis on breast milk is reasonably easy. You do a chemical analysis, make a formula that's identical, and it's formula.

I just wanted to point out that formula isn't based on doing a chemical analysis of breast milk and making an identical product (for one thing, we don't know what all breast milk contains). It is based on altering cow's milk to more closely approximate the proportions and kinds of some of the ingredients (protein is made more easily digestible, specific sugars are added, the electrolyte content is reduced), but the chemical composition remains different in many ways.

Linda

 

[GreyICE]

I just wanted to point out that formula isn't based on doing a chemical analysis of breast milk and making an identical product (for one thing, we don't know what all breast milk contains). It is based on altering cow's milk to more closely approximate the proportions and kinds of some of the ingredients (protein is made more easily digestible, specific sugars are added, the electrolyte content is reduced), but the chemical composition remains different in many ways.

Linda

Sure, in many ways.

It is based on the chemicals that Breast Milk contains. No, we do not know the EXACT chemicals it contains (for one thing, it appears to vary based on a lot of things) but it is most certainly based on the sugars, proteins, enzymes, fats, and nutrients that breast milk contains.

If you really think there's some magical property of breast milk that makes it impossible to chemically analyze, I assure you, it's not so.

Modern formula is different, chemically, from breast milk in very few important ways.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Modern formula is different, chemically, from breast milk in very few important ways.

So there are a few important ways it differs? What are they?

 

[fls]

If you really think there's some magical property of breast milk that makes it impossible to chemically analyze, I assure you, it's not so.

I can assure you that it is not necessary for you to put words in my mouth that are nonsensical in order to assure me that some nonsensical idea does not apply.

Linda

 

[GreyICE]

So there are a few important ways it differs? What are they?

The following are monitored in formula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_formula#Nutritional_content

* Protein
* Fat
* Linoleic acid
* Vitamins: A, C, D, E, K, thiamin (B1), riboflavin (B2), B6, B12
* Niacin
* Folic acid
* Pantothenic acid
* Calcium
* Metals: magnesium, iron, zinc, manganese, copper
* Phosphorus
* Iodine
* Sodium chloride
* Potassium chloride

In addition, Wikipedia lists that most companies include non-mandated nutrients as well.

 

[GreyICE]

I can assure you that it is not necessary for you to put words in my mouth that are nonsensical in order to assure me that some nonsensical idea does not apply.

Linda

I just wanted to point out that formula isn't based on doing a chemical analysis of breast milk and making an identical product (for one thing, we don't know what all breast milk contains). It is based on altering cow's milk to more closely approximate the proportions and kinds of some of the ingredients (protein is made more easily digestible, specific sugars are added, the electrolyte content is reduced), but the chemical composition remains different in many ways.

Linda

Okay, since we can do a chemical analysis, care to elaborate on the many ways it's different, chemically?

 

[fls]

Okay, since we can do a chemical analysis, care to elaborate on the many ways it's different, chemically?

The fats are from vegetable, rather than animal source, so no cholesterol in formula and different proportions and types of fatty acids. Different proportions of milk proteins and amino acids. Many proteins that are present in human milk (enzymes, lactoferrin, hormones) are not present or are destroyed by processing in formula. More oligosaccharides in human milk.

Linda

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Can I also point out that expressing breastmilk whilst away from a baby is not always easy. Some people just cannot get the letdown reflex unless their baby is physically present. Sometimes I found it difficult to get a decent amount even when my baby was right there with me - despite the fact that I generally suffered from an overactive letdown reflex when actually feeding my baby. If I had to go work full time when my babies were small, I would have found it extemely difficult - even if I had the facilities to do it. I think any country that doesn't have a decent maternity leave policy (the situation is rapidly improving in this regard in the UK) is guaranteeing that they will have a low breastfeeding rate.

People have mentioned the pushing of breastfeeding as being counterproductive. I think the main problem is the policy of telling everyone it is better whilst simultaneously having very few people on hand who have a clue what they are talking about. Most midwives and health visitors have only a tiny amount of training wrt breastfeeding, and really have no clue how to help when things aren't working. I know one mother who were told by their health visitor that she wasn't producing enough milk for their child - merely because the baby wasn't gaining weight according to the chart (which at the time was based on mainly bottlefed babies). Another was told that she was physically incapable of producing enough milk when all that was wrong was that she hadn't got the latch perfect and therefore she wasn't getting a letdown reflex - luckily in this case the mother phoned a breastfeeding counsellor who helped her through it.

 

[GreyICE]

The fats are from vegetable, rather than animal source, so no cholesterol in formula and different proportions and types of fatty acids. Different proportions of milk proteins and amino acids. Many proteins that are present in human milk (enzymes, lactoferrin, hormones) are not present or are destroyed by processing in formula. More oligosaccharides in human milk.

Linda

Reasonably certain the fats in most milk comes from cow milk, so it's definitely an animal source.

As for the rest, they've done their best to balance out the fatty acids, and add what they can to the formula.

It's definitely not PERFECT, but it's certainly a triumph that they've gotten that close. They've hit up all the simple chemicals, and done what they can with the incredibly complicated carbon chains that are nearly impossible to analyze (things that are Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and stretch for 100s of atoms suck to analyze). Formula has come miles and miles, and suggesting it's just cow milk with some additives misses the point.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Reasonably certain the fats in most milk comes from cow milk, so it's definitely an animal source.

Not true, making formula involves:

partial or total replacement of dairy fat with fats of vegetable or marine origin

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

I would agree with you that formula is "adequate" nutrition, but it is still inferior in a number of ways to breastmilk - so I think it should be there basically just for when breastfeeding is not possible for whatever reason. I think too many people see it just as a lifestyle choice and still think that breast and formula are pretty much equivalent.

 

[Rocko]

People have mentioned the pushing of breastfeeding as being counterproductive. I think the main problem is the policy of telling everyone it is better whilst simultaneously having very few people on hand who have a clue what they are talking about. Most midwives and health visitors have only a tiny amount of training wrt breastfeeding, and really have no clue how to help when things aren't working.

Yeah, I definitely agree with this. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that in the UK there's apparently a shortage of midwives, so quite a few have been tempted out of retirement by good money - whether they have to undergo any training before restarting work I don't know, but I suspect not - the amount of contradictory information we were given was staggering, and intensely irritating.

I'd also have to say that many of the older midwives I dealt with were extremely opinionated, and did not like being questioned. This applied principally to breast feeding, but also many other topics - as far as many of them were concerned, it was a case of Listen To Me, This Is How It's Done, Now Shutup And Do It.

Generally they get away with it, because there's a natural deference to people in uniform in that environment. However, my entire family works within the NHS in one capacity or another - as have I -so I've been around those environments my whole life. They simply don't hold any mystique for me. I'm a scrupulously mannered person, but the simple act of politely questioning something (for example on the grounds we'd been told the exact opposite by the person on the previous shift) was enough to really, really put some of their noses out of joint.

The amount of information we were given as Immutable Fact, which transpired to be nothing of the sort when I researched it later was staggering. I think this ties into what Linda said:

That was the way I felt about the LaLeche League. But I felt comfortable pretty much ignoring them and doing all the stuff they said I wasn't supposed to do anyway.

I was also comfortable ignoring the information that was inappropriate or just plain wrong - but that's probably something that comes from familiarity with medical situations (I think I'm right in saying you're medical?). When you don't have that, it's a lot easier to think they're infallible, I reckon.

I don't wish for one second to impugn the majority of staff - they were overwhelmingly incredible; if I believed in angels I'd tell you that they watched over my son for 4 weeks straight. But there was a hardcore of older midwives who were extremely opinionated and yet had no real basis for those opinions other than "I've been doing this for years".

Ooops, sorry, that turned into a bit of a vent!

Thanks for the congratulations folks, I'm still coming to terms with it all, but it's awesome and I'm loving it. And I should have wished Joobz congrats too of course

 

[fls]

Reasonably certain the fats in most milk comes from cow milk, so it's definitely an animal source.

Nope. As Professor Yaffle pointed out, it is substituted with vegetable oils.

As for the rest, they've done their best to balance out the fatty acids, and add what they can to the formula.

It's definitely not PERFECT, but it's certainly a triumph that they've gotten that close. They've hit up all the simple chemicals, and done what they can with the incredibly complicated carbon chains that are nearly impossible to analyze (things that are Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and stretch for 100s of atoms suck to analyze).

But I hope that it's a bit clearer why it's not unexpected to find that human milk may have different effects than formula.

Formula has come miles and miles, and suggesting it's just cow milk with some additives misses the point.

Sure, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that, so no worries.

Linda

 

[JJM]

In his book "Viruses" (Scientific American Library, 1992) Arnold Levine (Professor of molecular biology at Princeton) claims that increased cases of polio in the first half of the last century were, paradoxically, due to improved sanitation (p. 64). In earlier times, babies were exposed to the virus in the (unsanitary) environment and the virus was attenuated by antibodies in the mother's milk; that gave the baby the opportunity to become immune to the (weakened) virus.

When sanitation protected babies from exposure to the virus, they did not develop immunity, and they were susceptible later. Vaccination solves this problem. However a baby is exposed to pathogens for which there are no vaccinations. The bottom line, assuming that antibodies in milk (protecting children) is a general principle, "formula" cannot replace breast-feeding for conferring immunity to various organisms.

GreyIce wrote "things that are Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and stretch for 100s of atoms suck to analyze" I have no idea where you came by that information with respect to the current topic. Sure, some random, unknown compound found in nature can be challenging to characterize; but, mammalian metabolites are rather, shall I say, well-known and easily identified.

 

[fls]

I was also comfortable ignoring the information that was inappropriate or just plain wrong - but that's probably something that comes from familiarity with medical situations (I think I'm right in saying you're medical?). When you don't have that, it's a lot easier to think they're infallible, I reckon.

I'm a doctor, so I think that was part of it. But one also (as pointed out by you and the OP) learns to distrust a particular attitude.

Linda

 

[GreyICE]

GreyIce wrote "things that are Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and stretch for 100s of atoms suck to analyze" I have no idea where you came by that information with respect to the current topic. Sure, some random, unknown compound found in nature can be challenging to characterize; but, mammalian metabolites are rather, shall I say, well-known and easily identified.

Really? What are all the enzymes in breast milk?

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

 

[Goshawk]

I think that something is being missed here, in the debate about how closely formula approximates human breast milk, chemically speaking. I think that y'all are missing that the formula industry Research And Development arm is not being driven by a noble and caring desire to come up with a formula that most closely approximates human breast milk--the formula industry Research And Development arm is being driven by a desire to come up with a formula that most closely approximates human breast milk, AND that uses cheap ingredients, AND that will make them a profit, AND is palatable to the baby (no point making product if the consumer refuses to consume it), AND is conveniently packaged.

They're not out to save the world; they're just out to come up with Product that will sell.

And of all those considerations, you just gotta know, that in a free market system, the consideration of using cheap ingredients and making a profit for the manfacturer is the most important one. They're not in the business of designing perfect baby formula--they're in the business of coming up with a bare-minimum baby formula that will pass the guidelines, the way dog food has to pass the feeding and maintenance guidelines, and still generate a profit.

So yeah, I think we can take it as read that there are bound to be differences, chemically speaking, between formula and human breast milk--because the industry doesn't care to invest the time, effort, and ingredients in order to come up with the absolutely perfect simulacrum of human breast milk. It's too expensive, and they don't need to--consumers will buy what's already on the market just fine.

 

[JJM]

Really? What are all the enzymes in breast milk?

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

Ahhhh. The University of Wiki.

You wrote "things that are Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and stretch for 100s of atoms suck to analyze" and I disputed that, particularly as it applies to mammalian systems. Now you want to know about enzymes. However, they are not covered by your statement since the only heteroatom you cite is oxygen. Surely, U of Wiki teaches that.

 

[GreyICE]

Ahhhh. The University of Wiki.

You wrote "things that are Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and stretch for 100s of atoms suck to analyze" and I disputed that, particularly as it applies to mammalian systems. Now you want to know about enzymes. However, they are not covered by your statement since the only heteroatom you cite is oxygen. Surely, U of Wiki teaches that.

Err, what did you think I was talking about? What do you suppose enzymes are made of? For the most part, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Other elements too, obviously, but carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen are the blocks.

Seriously, what did you think I meant? How else would you describe enzymes except as absurdly long catalytic carbon chains?

As for the university of wiki mate, don't think I haven't studied these things in an actual university. I never went beyond basic biology, no, it wasn't my major, but I certainly know what the heck an enzyme is. Wiki has a nice list.

 

[fls]

Err, what did you think I was talking about? What do you suppose enzymes are made of?

Proteins, which are composed of amino acids.

For the most part, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Other elements too, obviously, but carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen are the blocks.

Except that you've neglected to include the defining components of amino acids and proteins (amine groups and amide bonds).

Seriously, what did you think I meant?

It sounded, if anything, like a description of complex carbohydrates.

How else would you describe enzymes except as absurdly long catalytic carbon chains?

Technically, you might be able to describe them that way and get away with it (I will defer to JJM for nomenclature), but that would be an odd way to describe enzymes, since the 'backbone' of the chain consists of more than carbon. But, you didn't seem to describe it like that anyway (i.e. your words didn't indicate any specific meaning).

Linda

 

[JJM]

Err, what did you think I was talking about? What do you suppose enzymes are made of? For the most part, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Other elements too, obviously, but carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen are the blocks.

Nitrogen is a critical element in proteins, mate.

Seriously, what did you think I meant? How else would you describe enzymes except as absurdly long catalytic carbon chains?

You mustn't ask me to interpret what you mean. Enzymes are not long, carbon chains. The "chain" ("backbone") of an enzyme is NCC-NCC-NCC-repeat.

As for the university of wiki mate, don't think I haven't studied these things in an actual university. I never went beyond basic biology, no, it wasn't my major, but I certainly know what the heck an enzyme is. Wiki has a nice list.

As for the u of wiki, mate, you cited it. You could have cited recent books by Silverman, or Cleland, or Frey; even Chris Walsh's classic, 1979 text. You could have cited "Methods in Enzymology." Yet, you choose to cite the Internet's worst source of information.

You wrote

things that are Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and stretch for 100s of atoms suck to analyze

and I disputed that, particularly as it applies to mammalian systems. If you want to add enzymes to your list, you are still wrong about difficult analysis (pertaining to mammals).