Disputing the benefits of breastfeeding!

[Rach27]

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8443904.stm

It always shocks me for some reason when the beeb comes out with stuff like this. I suppose I like to think they are still impartial....

Don't get me wrong, women who try to BF but cannot, should not be made to feel guilty but I think this article is damaging because it might encourage less people to try and maintain breastfeeding.

How can you dispute the benefits of breastfeeding when you don't fully comprehend what is in it and how it works?! IMHO it's no much more than the raw 'ingredients' anyway.

Speaking as a mother who has struggled to BF, there were just too many positives to throw the towel in at the first hurdles! (Not suggesting that BF'ing is never too hard to overcome but that my issues clearly were and it was worth persevering!).

Personally, I resent the way our modern lives inhibit our connection with the natural word (and how that mostly always ends up lining someone's pocket).

/rant

I'll finish on a positive note from Michel Odent's 'Birth & Breastfeeding':

"On the day when human societies return to their role as protectors of the mother and baby instead of meddling in their relationship, then humanisation will naturally follow.

"The mother will again use her hands and arms to rock the baby, and the melodies and rhythmic sounds that flow from within her will lead to a rediscovery of the specifically human lullaby."

 

[Eve]

I find it a shame people publish things like this...

 

[lynnikins]

its not a helpful article for either sides of the issue imo

 

[aob1013]

Doubting the benefits of breastmilk .. Are they actually stupid??

 

[Rach27]

Yes.

It's like telling people they're silly for feeling guilty because actually, it's not really as good as everyone says.

Argh

 

[T-Bex]

 

[Rach27]

That was the emoticon I needed!!!!!!!

 

[trumpetbum]

This is based on a research piece but mixed with poor assessment of the results.
'Mid-pregnancy androgen levels are negatively associated with breastfeeding.

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
January 2010, Vol. 89, No. 1, Pages 87-94
Mid-pregnancy androgen levels are negatively associated with breastfeeding
Sven Magnus Carlsen*1,4, Geir Jacobsen*2 & Eszter Vanky*3,5

A poorly interpreted article imo, as it hashes together the peer reviewed evidence that there appears to be a hormonal correlation between breastfeeding 'performance' and mid-pregnancy hormones with the projection by Carlsen..not peer reviewed and imo a big jump, that this means that breastfed babies are only healthier because they were exposed to the optimum environment in the womb before birth. not because they were breastfed. The piece of research is useful in many ways, the huge ASSumptions and related poor journalism is NOT.

 

[MelanieAnn]

This is research from Sweden, famous for it's 99% breastfeeding rate (from memory, about 80% are still EBM at 6 months). In that situation, if a mum finds that she can't breastfeed, maybe, just maybe, it's because she can't breastfeed? We know that 99% of women can breastfeed given sufficient support - but there are a small minority, 1%, who cannot make a full milk supply (although that's not to say that they can't BF, just that they may struggle to EBF). So for this study to say that there are some mums who can't BF, and that they shouldn't feel guilty, IS STATING THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS. It doesn't translate here!!!!

And as for his suggestion that it doesn't make that much difference anyway.... well, there are studies and studies and studies that show that it makes a difference. Many of the studies control rigorously for other health-giving practices that parents do.

But in any case, it's a difficult to seperate out the practices. So, for instance, families that BF, are also more likely to bedshare, to be non-smokers, to eat a healthy diet, to interact positively with their babies and children, to be health-conscious. We know that breastfeeding means that these other positive choices are more likely. Seperating out the BF as a specific factor is hard, because if you BF you're likely to do the other good things too. IMO, it all starts with BF. Is it BF that causes the good outcomes, or the other behaviours that follow from the BF that cause the good outcomes? And if the other behaviours flow from BF, could you not say that the BF caused them too?

It all starts with BF. Of course, it's quite possible to be a good mum without BF - but BF is still really, really important.

Melanie

 

[Rach27]

This is research from Sweden, famous for it's 99% breastfeeding rate (from memory, about 80% are still EBM at 6 months). In that situation, if a mum finds that she can't breastfeed, maybe, just maybe, it's because she can't breastfeed? We know that 99% of women can breastfeed given sufficient support - but there are a small minority, 1%, who cannot make a full milk supply (although that's not to say that they can't BF, just that they may struggle to EBF). So for this study to say that there are some mums who can't BF, and that they shouldn't feel guilty, IS STATING THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS. It doesn't translate here!!!!

And as for his suggestion that it doesn't make that much difference anyway.... well, there are studies and studies and studies that show that it makes a difference. Many of the studies control rigorously for other health-giving practices that parents do.

But in any case, it's a difficult to seperate out the practices. So, for instance, families that BF, are also more likely to bedshare, to be non-smokers, to eat a healthy diet, to interact positively with their babies and children, to be health-conscious. We know that breastfeeding means that these other positive choices are more likely. Seperating out the BF as a specific factor is hard, because if you BF you're likely to do the other good things too. IMO, it all starts with BF. Is it BF that causes the good outcomes, or the other behaviours that follow from the BF that cause the good outcomes? And if the other behaviours flow from BF, could you not say that the BF caused them too?

It all starts with BF. Of course, it's quite possible to be a good mum without BF - but BF is still really, really important.

Melanie

Perhaps the formula companies are finding Sweden a tough nut to crack!

You make some really good points Co-sleeping made breastfeeding so much easier for us and to co-sleep, you shouldn't smoke or drink. And yes, you need a healthy diet to enable BF'ing. So that makes complete sense though, as you say, breastfeeding is at the root of it all.

Michel Odent also suggests BF'ing is easier in polygamous societies (due to less pressure on the one man/woman relationship) but I don't think I'll tell hubby that one!!

 

[littlepne]

The best line in that article:

"A mother should do what makes her happy."

 

[bky]

It's a bad interpretation of the scientific article.
I dislike the statement that 'that's the way it is'. I know it's well meaning but it's horrible to be brushed off like that. Do you know the US federal govt funds over 10x more research into male impotence than lactation failure? Yet in the US some studies indicate that up to 15% of women who intended to BF were unable to fully nourish their babies with breast milk alone. That's a pretty far cry from that 98-99% figure from Sweden (and the article is from Norway, but they have basically the same rates--and it's the percentage that START not that keep doing it).

Breastfeeding rates can be directly correlated with how a society lives. More natural societies have higher rates because evolution hasn't caught up with technology. Modern life throws things, including bfeeding, out of balance. It's ridiculous (and hurtful) to compare and expect to be able to live up to that. The support in Sweden goes to the point of having someone come to your house and help you pump around the clock!! I'm sure that might have helped me, if someone had held the pump on while I fed my baby off the other side. That's not just a 'little' extra support.

There are no drugs developed for increasing lactation--the ones that are used for it are for increasing digestion motility.
I'm glad somewhere is researching lactation failure, even if the head author ought to think before an interview.
Drs/Midwives etc not talking about (or even being educated about for the same reasons!) breastfeeding issues because they are afraid to appear anti-breast feeding or scare off prospective breast feeders leads those who develop breastfeeding issues to feel isolated, freakish and like they failed. And when people do not meet their nursing goals it makes them less likely to want to try again. 'Breastfeeding broke my heart once, why should I let it do so again?'

At the end of the day formula should be viewed as a medical device (whether that be for mother or baby issues). And it's certainly more than adequate for it's purpose which is keeping babies alive.

 

[bubbles123]

Women in Sweden, Norway etc also get 2 years maternity pay at 90%, fathers can have up to 3 months paternity leave (meaning there is always someone there to support women/ look after other children during the constant feeding at the beginning), as the previous poster said constant (free) access to lactation consultants 24 hours a day for as long as they need them, free childcare for children over 2 years (so they can concentrate on younger children and getting BF established), a completely relaxed attitude to nudity in public meaning no one would ever bat an eye lid to public nursing, a much more child friendly society where children are accepted everywhere... the list goes on and on. That's why 98% of women there manage to BF. If Britain/the USA adopted these things then maybe our BF rates would increase too. That's also why it's unfair to say that women in Sweden manage to BF so why can't women in the UK/USA... They manage it because they have A LOT of help that simply isn't available in other countries. (I'm not saying anyone here has said that, just using it as an example )

 

[Rach27]

Right! Oslo here we come....

 

[Eve]

Women in Sweden, Norway etc also get 2 years maternity pay at 90%, fathers can have up to 3 months paternity leave (meaning there is always someone there to support women/ look after other children during the constant feeding at the beginning), as the previous poster said constant (free) access to lactation consultants 24 hours a day for as long as they need them, free childcare for children over 2 years (so they can concentrate on younger children and getting BF established), a completely relaxed attitude to nudity in public meaning no one would ever bat an eye lid to public nursing, a much more child friendly society where children are accepted everywhere... the list goes on and on. That's why 98% of women there manage to BF. If Britain/the USA adopted these things then maybe our BF rates would increase too. That's also why it's unfair to say that women in Sweden manage to BF so why can't women in the UK/USA... They manage it because they have A LOT of help that simply isn't available in other countries. (I'm not saying anyone here has said that, just using it as an example )

Hmmmmmmmm I think I want to move there!!!!!!! lol

 

[bubbles123]

Ha, my hubby LOVES Norway.... we go there at least once a year. He really wants us to move there but I'm rather put off by the fact that it's dark in some parts for 6 months of the year... and that beer costs £10 a pint in a pub... And that they pay the highest rate of tax in the world (pays for all that lovely BF support!!) But yeah, they are wonderful people and they have such a lovely attitude to life - so natural. I shall tell you my weirdest Norway experience. And I swear it's true. Hubby and I were sitting in a busy park in Oslo when a young couple came and sat near us. And stood up and took off all of their clothes. They were completely naked. They sat down, got out books and started to read! And no one, I mean NO ONE batted an eyelid. It is a great country!

 

[lindblum]

quote:

Based on this one small cohort study, the claims that breast milk is of no benefit to health are unfounded. The study did not investigate whether breastfed babies were healthier or not, but looked only at levels of their mother’s hormones during pregnancy and their breastfeeding after giving birth.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/01January/Pages/Hormones-and-breastfeeding.aspx

There was no comparisson of b or f milk in the study... the writer must've had a mix up with the study in question! Or it's just a slow day for news.


did somemore reading:
While most of the studies found the longer a child is nursed, the healthier it was, he argued these babies' health was improved by their mothers having a healthier pregnancy.
He said the problems that caused mothers to be unwell and often have underweight babies also affect their ability to breastfeed and that made it seem as though the feeding method was responsible for a baby's health.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/body-soul/professor-sven-carlsen-wants-change-in-attidudes-to-breastfeeding-and-formula-milk/story-e6frfotr-1225817131638

I think that is the information they used to twist the story into. Basically if mummy to be is very ill or unhealthy during pregnancy then the researchers think the milk she gives to her baby isn't any better over formula milk.

However this theory was not tested in Carlsens' study.


More digging up
The researchers reviewed more than fifty international studies about the relationship between breastfeeding and health. Most studies concluded that the more children are nursed, the healthier the children – which on the surface is correct, Carlsen says.

“But even if this is statistically true, it is not because of breastfeeding itself. There are very few studies that have examined the underlying controls on breastfeeding ability” he adds.

The largest study that has been done on breastfeeding and health was undertaken in Belarus. More than 17 000 women and children were studied, and the children were followed until they were six years old. This study cuts the legs out from underneath most of the assertions that breastfeeding has health benefits, the researchers say. For example, the Belarus study found no signs that asthma and allergies were less prevalent in children who were nursed for longer than children who were nursed less.

The only area where the study concluded that breastfeeding confers a benefit was in mental abilities.

“It appears that children who are breastfed have a small IQ advantage”, Carlsen says. “But this needs to be confirmed in new, carefully planned and conducted studies.”
https://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?CultureCode=en&ItemId=65483

So that opionon wasn't based on his study. It seems to me this information is from the pre-experiment bit, when you do all your research and then decide what exactly your experiment wants to achieve. His study is on what affects production and quality of breastmilk as outlined by the nhs link (the first one).

This story is a jumbled up mess, almost clutching at straws to make a story.