Breast Feeding woo???

[ponderingturtle]

I really didn't delve too deeply into that particular subject because it's quite off topic for the thread, but, since it was brought up:

While I agree that it's not the smartest thing to do (starting a family, or even adding to an existing family) when one is in dire financial straits, the reality of life is that most people do not plan their children. I certainly didn't plan mine, nor did the majority of mothers I know. There are quite a few of us who were told by doctors that we couldn't get pregnant, and guess what? The doctor was wrong. There are also quite a few for whom birth control did not work as advertised. Then there are those who refrain from chemical or barrier forms of control due to religious beliefs -- those same religious beliefs also preclude denying their husbands, by the way -- or allergic reaction (latex allergies, for example). Then there are those who were the victim of sexual assault. And then, there are those who are young and stupid and think "oh, it couldn't happen to me."

Non Latex condoms are pefectly available. Most of this seems to be choice, ignorance, or failure of birth control. As to the last one, when practiced properly it is very unlikely.

 

[pgwenthold]

No, we don't know why, yes, it's somewhat frustrating. I've seen no research that has any particular mechanism for this working.

The fact of the matter is, statistically, it has to be working. Best thoughts are basically the mother's body changes the milk as the baby is maturing to better suit the needs of the baby (chemically, this is going on). It appears there's some general feedback mechanism going on there (that or the body is just estimating things pretty well).

It's not surprising this feature of our body is reasonably well evolved, since obviously infant health is one of those characteristics that kicks evolution into high gear.

I heard similar claims when I went to BabyFest a couple of weeks ago. The composition of breast milk does change over time (and not just due to colostrum differences), so there is something dynamic going on.

Moreover, mechanisms are not always understood. For example, one of the comments was that breastfed babies are found to have lower incidence of diabetes. Now, that isn't an immunity thing, is it? And granted, there could be confounding factors, but the result is definately there. I'll admit, it is much more reassuring to me to hear claims of effects without mechanisms than the much more common mechanisms without effects (aka attempts to explain why homeopathy works, or remote viewing, etc). When the claim is, "This is what is found; heck if we know why it happens" at least you know that an effect has been observed.

My question at the BabyFest, which wasn't answered as well as I would have liked, is how much breastfeeding is needed to see the benefits. The presenter suggested that there was just a correlation, in the longer, the more protection, but I'm not sold on that. For example, I don't think two months will be twice as good as 1 month, since I would suspect there is a big benefit initially, with then smaller improvement after that. Are there really not diminishing returns after 6 months? It's hard to imagine there isn't, but then again, I'm speculating.

The most important thing I learned from the presentation (given by the lady who will be our lactation consultant): Breastfeeding should not hurt.

 

[GreyICE]

I heard similar claims when I went to BabyFest a couple of weeks ago. The composition of breast milk does change over time (and not just due to colostrum differences), so there is something dynamic going on.

Moreover, mechanisms are not always understood. For example, one of the comments was that breastfed babies are found to have lower incidence of diabetes. Now, that isn't an immunity thing, is it? And granted, there could be confounding factors, but the result is definately there. I'll admit, it is much more reassuring to me to hear claims of effects without mechanisms than the much more common mechanisms without effects (aka attempts to explain why homeopathy works, or remote viewing, etc). When the claim is, "This is what is found; heck if we know why it happens" at least you know that an effect has been observed.

My question at the BabyFest, which wasn't answered as well as I would have liked, is how much breastfeeding is needed to see the benefits. The presenter suggested that there was just a correlation, in the longer, the more protection, but I'm not sold on that. For example, I don't think two months will be twice as good as 1 month, since I would suspect there is a big benefit initially, with then smaller improvement after that. Are there really not diminishing returns after 6 months? It's hard to imagine there isn't, but then again, I'm speculating.

The most important thing I learned from the presentation (given by the lady who will be our lactation consultant): Breastfeeding should not hurt.

Also, it's entirely possible that some of the effects are due to demographic differences not being properly accounted for. Hah, gets more confusing, as always.

The presenter was right - there's definite documented benefits, and it certainly can't hurt, so err on the side of caution.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

My question at the BabyFest, which wasn't answered as well as I would have liked, is how much breastfeeding is needed to see the benefits. The presenter suggested that there was just a correlation, in the longer, the more protection, but I'm not sold on that. For example, I don't think two months will be twice as good as 1 month, since I would suspect there is a big benefit initially, with then smaller improvement after that. Are there really not diminishing returns after 6 months? It's hard to imagine there isn't, but then again, I'm speculating.

<snip>

My advice: 1 month is probably too short, 10 years is just weird.

 

[pgwenthold]

Also, it's entirely possible that some of the effects are due to demographic differences not being properly accounted for. Hah, gets more confusing, as always.

Actually, my phrase of the last week has been "confounding factors."

The presenter was right - there's definite documented benefits, and it certainly can't hurt, so err on the side of caution.

Besides, it's cheaper.

 

[pgwenthold]

My advice: 1 month is probably too short, 10 years is just weird.

I don't know if we can really say "too short." 1 month is definately better than not at all, right? And I still assert (baselessly, true) that whereas 2 months is better than 1 month, it's not twice as good.

I don't think it's a binary scale of "too short" and "long enough," but I'd like to see the effectiveness curve. I really doubt it is linear from day 1. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see a big step at the beginning, a good linear growth for a few months, followed by a tapering off.

I always find the "still breastfeeding at 2 years old" thing to be kind of weird, though.

 

[fls]

I don't know if we can really say "too short." 1 month is definately better than not at all, right? And I still assert (baselessly, true) that whereas 2 months is better than 1 month, it's not twice as good.

I don't think it's a binary scale of "too short" and "long enough," but I'd like to see the effectiveness curve. I really doubt it is linear from day 1. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see a big step at the beginning, a good linear growth for a few months, followed by a tapering off.

I always find the "still breastfeeding at 2 years old" thing to be kind of weird, though.

Perhaps this thread will help you understand the shape of the curve.

Linda

 

[Capsid]

Moreover, mechanisms are not always understood. For example, one of the comments was that breastfed babies are found to have lower incidence of diabetes. Now, that isn't an immunity thing, is it?

Type I diabetes mellitus (juvenile diabetes) is an autoimmune disease caused by T cells attacking the Islet of Langerhans beta cells in the pancreas.

 

[Vitnir]

Breastfeeding is pushed hard in Sweden as well but I don't think we got that much help with it. Since my wife literaly (almost) had to stay awake for another 72h to breastfeed after a difficult delivery and when the baby had lost more than 10% of her weight they caved in and gave us formula. I'm more inclined to, if we get another child to give them an icy stare and "shut up and give us some formula".
We never got to the point where the baby could be fully fed on breastmilk, we had to add formula 1-2 times a day. In hindsight we should have given the baby formula so my poor wife could get some sleep, but you tend to take advice from authorities literally when you are unsure.

 

[luchog]

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

Everyone knows the heads are the tastiest and most nutritious part.

 

[tesscaline]

Everyone knows the heads are the tastiest and most nutritious part.

I like mine chocolate covered.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Moreover, mechanisms are not always understood. For example, one of the comments was that breastfed babies are found to have lower incidence of diabetes. Now, that isn't an immunity thing, is it?

Type I diabetes mellitus (juvenile diabetes) is an autoimmune disease caused by T cells attacking the Islet of Langerhans beta cells in the pancreas.

Formula fed babies also tend, across broad populations, to be overfed. This, in part, may result in more lipogenesis and increased adipose tissue in neonates and infants, subsequently making them more prone to Type 2 Diabetes mellitus later in life. This would be a non-immunologic factor.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Prometheus]

Here's one I hadn't heard before: When we told the breast-feeding specialist who came to visit us in the hospital that we gave our first child both mother's milk and formula (she wouldn't take breast-milk from a bottle), the woman looked horrified and told us that even occasional formula would "wash away the protective coating which breast-milk forms on the lining of the baby's stomach."

We plan to ignore her warning.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Here's one I hadn't heard before: When we told the breast-feeding specialist who came to visit us in the hospital that we gave our first child both mother's milk and formula (she wouldn't take breast-milk from a bottle), the woman looked horrified and told us that even occasional formula would "wash away the protective coating which breast-milk forms on the lining of the baby's stomach."

We plan to ignore her warning.

Her reasoning is all wrong, but mixed feeding does seem to reduce some (but not all) of the benefits of exclusive breast feeding (I think the benefits with respect to allergy protection are based on exclusive breastfeeding). But if the choice is really between mixed feeding and totally formula fed, mixed feeding is still better.

 

[Prometheus]

Her reasoning is all wrong, but mixed feeding does seem to reduce some (but not all) of the benefits of exclusive breast feeding (I think the benefits with respect to allergy protection are based on exclusive breastfeeding). But if the choice is really between mixed feeding and totally formula fed, mixed feeding is still better.

What is the correct reasoning, then? And how much of a reduction in protection is there with mixed feeding?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Basically, with respect to the allergy protection, the age at which a "foreign" substance - like cow's milk - is first introduced is the important thing. The longer you wait, the better. this is also the issue wih delaying weaning until about 6 months with breastfed babies.

There is also an issue with using bottles interupting the feedback systems for the mother's milk production, so that milk is more likely to dry up and the mother can't feed for as long as she would wish (and also that infants who are introduced to a bottle very young sometimes begin to reject the breast).

But I think the benefits re obesity and some other things (immune system protection from infections) are not lost completely with mixed feeding.

 

[Prometheus]

Basically, with respect to the allergy protection, the age at which a "foreign" substance - like cow's milk - is first introduced is the important thing. The longer you wait, the better. this is also the issue wih delaying weaning until about 6 months with breastfed babies.

There is also an issue with using bottles interupting the feedback systems for the mother's milk production, so that milk is more likely to dry up and the mother can't feed for as long as she would wish (and also that infants who are introduced to a bottle very young sometimes begin to reject the breast).

But I think the benefits re obesity and some other things (immune system protection from infections) are not lost completely with mixed feeding.

Thanks. With our first child, we did both (about 75% breast-fed) for a little more than a year. Initially, we tried giving her breast milk from a bottle when Mom was working, but she wouldn't take it--she only accepted formula from the bottle and breast milk from the breast. At present, Mom's not working so we have time to decide whether or not to continue with 100% breast-feeding.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Beware, some babies are very stubborn. My younger son only ever had one bottle of formula in his life. The only reason he took it was because it was at a house he did not live in, and I was gone for a while (going to a funeral, sigh). When I was horribly sick with some stomach bug and barely had any milk, he would still not take a bottle.

He was also very late in starting to eat solid foods, starting only at about six months (oh, the doctor was not very pleased with that!). He was weaned at two years.

He survived and his worse allergy is some hayfever (just like me, it is genetic), and on Wednesday he graduates from high school as a Washington State Scholar (top 10% of entire state)! Sorry, had to brag.

In other words: Do not worry.

 

[Tapio]

OP, congrats! Hope everything goes well.

Let the anecdotes continue. We had 3 kids (a single and twins) in a bit over a year. The last one to stop breastfeeding (yes, they all stopped it by themselves) was 7 months old when he did. By that time my wife had been either pregnant and/or breastfed for a bit over 30 months in a row. Imagine! I've never felt such respect...

Anyway, since we had 3 under 1,2 year-olds at once, their feeding was sometimes quite a nightmare. So, when my wife was too exhausted to breastfeed, I gave the twins pumped mother's milk from the bottle. Since we'd learned something from our firstborn, we started doing so right from day 1. That way it worked. Seen many baby's unable to do both, it's often either/or (though my brother's 1 month-old boy does 'em both...hmm...).

Where we live the midwives are brilliant in all aspects, except supporting a new mothers beginning of breast feeding. It's really a shame, since what Rocko shared about the mother's shame of not being able to breast feed is truly something even normal, full-time babies mothers experience...

As happy as I feel for you, I'm so grateful those days are gone for us. The doctor just called a few days ago and confirmed I'm officially sterile .

ETA: HC, did you say six months was late to start on solids? Here they suggest definitely not to start any sooner than six months...

 

[casebro]

Do newborns have something like 'leaky gut', allowing more stuff like proteins/antibodies to flow into their bloodstream? That's also why you shouldn't feed solid food too young?