Breast Feeding woo???

[joobz]

My wife has recently given birth to our second child. Everyone is healthy and happy, and I couldn't be more pleased.

However, while at the hospital, I noticed the rather excessive promotion for breastfeeding, with poster claiming how good it is for the childs' immune system, developement, allergies.... The laundry list of pros made my skepti-senses tingle. I plan on doing some looking into it, but it seems like a large number of wooish claims.

I was wondering if anyone had any information regarding how true many of these claims are.

FOR EXAMPLE:
One of the claims was the baby getting the mother's antibodies to help prevent infection. This made no sense to me. In an adult, injested antibodies do not make it accross the intestinal walls and are likely to be denatured in the stomach or degraded in the small intestines. (it's rare for proteins to get across the intestinal walls). Unless the infants intestine is more permeable, I can not see how milk borne antibodies will help the child.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Most of the claims are true, except, I think, the allergy one. At least, I breastfed and my youngest son had terrible allergies as a baby.

Breast milk include several anti-infective factors such as bile salt stimulated lipase (protecting against amoebic infections), lactoferrin (which binds to iron and inhibits the growth of intestinal bacteria) and immunoglobulin A protecting against microorganisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding#Benefits_for_the_infant

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Oh, and congrats on the kid!

 

[trvlr2]

Congrats, Joobs!

 

[Goshawk]

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.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

There's also the issue of allergies being activated by having foreign substances introduced too early, which a diet of solely breast milk for the first six months (or so) will avoid.

And let me pile on the congrats too, Joobz!

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Baby stomach contents are less acid than adults, which may account for the antibodies not getting whacked, chemically speaking.

The lower acidity is why babies as susceptible to the spores of our old friend C. Botulinum when eating honey.

...and I believe I speak for us all when I say, WOOT! BABY!! UNBALANCED MIND THREE 'SCLAMATION POINTS YAY!!!!

 

[joobz]

Thank you everyone, for your kind words. We are doing very well. Well, except for my 22month old son, who hasn't quite warmed up to having a sister just yet.

As for the breastfeeding thing, Thanks goshawk. That those sources helped explain my concerns. It seems that there is a permeability issue with the infant intestines and that antibodies which line the intestine may help inhibit oral pathogen infection.

Although, this does raise more questions.
1.) From what sources (except for nipple surfaces) would an infant receive an infection orally?
2.) Isn't the occular and pulmonary routes the primary pathways for infections?

 

[Goshawk]

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

Babies don't need to ingest germs in order to get sick, same as you or I. You can catch a cold by getting the cold virus on your hands and then touching your face; you don't have to actually swallow, or inhale, the cold virus.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cold+virus

Colds may also be passed through direct contact. If a person with a cold touches his runny nose or watery eyes, then shakes hands with another person some of the virus is transferred to the uninfected person. If that person then touches his mouth, nose, or eyes, the virus is transferred to an environment where it can reproduce and cause a cold.
Finally, cold viruses can be spread through inanimate objects (door knobs, telephones, toys) that become contaminated with the virus. This is a common method of transmission in child care centers. If a child with a cold touches her runny nose, then plays with a toy, some of the virus may be transferred to the toy. When another child plays with the toy a short time later, he may pick up some of the virus on his hands. The second child then touches his contaminated hands to his eyes, nose, or mouth and transfers some of the cold virus to himself.

Babies get sick from Mommy's hands, unless Mommy's living in a plastic bubble. There are germs on money, on doorknobs, on other people. When Mommy shops at Kroger, there are germs on the merchandise she handles, left there by previous shoppers. The world is teeming with bacteria and viruses, and they get spread by hands.

So anytime Mommy picks up her baby without disinfecting her hands first, she's transferring bacteria and viruses to her baby. But it's important to understand that this is a Good Thing--this is how the baby builds up immunity to the common, everyday germs that are all around.

2.) Isn't the occular and pulmonary routes the primary pathways for infections?

Not according to all those health services people who keep urging us to wash our hands frequently.

 

[trvlr2]

Joobz. Babies put EVERYTHING in mouths, noses, whatever. Keep your hands clean, and baby on clean surfaces, as possible, sick folks away...Tell your son he will be able to beat sis to mom , first, with any stories

 

[DoubtingStephen]

Congratulations, and best wishes to your entire family!

Not only is breast milk the ideal food for infants, introducing some other foods too soon, as would be necessary if not breastfeeding, increases the risk of an allergic reaction.

Dairy products are especially likely to provoke gastric difficulties if started too soon. Grains with complex proteins can also evoke an allergic reaction if introduced too soon.

The hospital was wise to encourage breast feeding, humans are mammals after all. Sometimes what seems like woo can prove to be good science.

 

[casebro]

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

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?

 

[joobz]

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?

Antibodies are only effective against the antigen that they are selective towards. If the mother doesn't have an antibody against that pathogen, then they won't help the baby either. I do not know if humans have antibodies against lactobacilli, but I'm guessing that we don't.

 

[joobz]

Not according to all those health services people who keep urging us to wash our hands frequently.

I believe you missunderstood my statement.
From your quote

The second child then touches his contaminated hands to his eyes, nose, or mouth and transfers some of the cold virus to himself.

The virus still must enter our system through the eyes, nose or mouth. Like I said, I was under the impression that the nose and eyes were significant entry ways.

The antibodies that would be milk borne would protect the infant from pathogens via the mouth pathway, but doesn't protect against the nose and eye pathway.

 

[Capsid]

I believe you missunderstood my statement.
From your quote


The virus still must enter our system through the eyes, nose or mouth. Like I said, I was under the impression that the nose and eyes were significant entry ways.

The antibodies that would be milk borne would protect the infant from pathogens via the mouth pathway, but doesn't protect against the nose and eye pathway.

The breastmilk antibodies get into the bloodstream and then they can transudate membrane surfaces including the eyes and nose where they can protect against infection. Eyes/nose and mouth are also protected by lysozyme.

 

[Dr. Imago]

The whole thing aroud breastmilk is part scientific and part political.

It's scientific because for 10's of thousands of years, human babies survived on breastmilk just fine. It was the past 50 years that formula was developed and offered as a "superior subsitute" for human breastmilk. Subsequent studies (and there are numerous ones) showed that it was "inferior" because it didn't provide IgA, which does have a protective effect on an immature immune system - and children who weren't breastfed tended to develop more gastrointestinal and allergic complaints. Likewise, many feel that the maternal-child bonding that takes place during breastfeeding is critical, and this has been studied as well. Additionally, the "let down" reflex is important, especially early, in releasing oxytocin from the pituitary gland in the mother and creating more effective uterine contraction and involution back to pre-pregnancy state. Lastly, the is a tendency to overfeed infants when you give them formula (also borne out by studies). All of these are scientifically based, and even intuitive reasons, to breast feed.

It's political in that breastmilk costs money. When manufacturers first started making infant formula, they heavily marketed it as a superior alternative to breastmilk without the science to back up that claim. It was also marketed to third-world countries, and many indigent mothers started using it instead of breastmilk. They often "cut" the portions to make a can of supplement last longer, and the results were mildly malnourished babies. Doubly sad, especially when a perfectly natural and effective source of nutrition was available from the mother.

In the end, it probably does not pose a huge risk to formula-feed an infant. It will add cost to your bottom line. But, many infants (including preemies) are solely formula fed and do just fine. Studies show that it is probably most prudent to breastfeed for at least the first few weeks while colostrum is flowing from the milk ducts. After that, it's a coin toss (literally).

~Dr. Imago

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

It's political in that breastmilk costs money. When manufacturers first started making infant formula, they heavily marketed it as a superior alternative to breastmilk without the science to back up that claim. It was also marketed to third-world countries, and many indigent mothers started using it instead of breastmilk. They often "cut" the portions to make a can of supplement last longer, and the results were mildly malnourished babies. Doubly sad, especially when a perfectly natural and effective source of nutrition was available from the mother.

<snip>

I thought another problem was that formula requires water to be added, which in the third world is often contaminated with organisms which cause diarrhea, a significant cause of death of children in the third-world?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's the AAP policy statement on breastfeeding:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;115/2/496

ABSTRACT

Considerable advances have occurred in recent years in the scientific knowledge of the benefits of breastfeeding, the mechanisms underlying these benefits, and in the clinical management of breastfeeding. This policy statement on breastfeeding replaces the 1997 policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics and reflects this newer knowledge and the supporting publications. The benefits of breastfeeding for the infant, the mother, and the community are summarized, and recommendations to guide the pediatrician and other health care professionals in assisting mothers in the initiation and maintenance of breastfeeding for healthy term infants and high-risk infants are presented. The policy statement delineates various ways in which pediatricians can promote, protect, and support breastfeeding not only in their individual practices but also in the hospital, medical school, community, and nation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although economic, cultural, and political pressures often confound decisions about infant feeding, the AAP firmly adheres to the position that breastfeeding ensures the best possible health as well as the best developmental and psychosocial outcomes for the infant. Enthusiastic support and involvement of pediatricians in the promotion and practice of breastfeeding is essential to the achievement of optimal infant and child health, growth, and development.

 

[joobz]

The breastmilk antibodies get into the bloodstream ...

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.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

When my first son was a baby he got chickenpox, but only got a very mild case. The doctor said this was probably because he was fully breastfed and it was my immunity fighting it off - and warned me that this meant he probably wouldn't be fully immune and would get it again when he was older. He did.

Re antibodies, this seems relevant:

http://www.drgreene.com/21_552.html

Regardless of the way this occurs, breastfeeding does lead to a significant reduction in all sorts of infections.