Study on FF v BF

[Noodlebear]

It's always worse when you find yourself picking apart the argument you want to support lol. It's a good thing really though, I'd rather come to my own conclusion than be told what to think.

 

[bumpy_j]

Admin - Would you mind closing this please.

Sorry guys honestly wasn't an intention to bring up negative thoughts about any method of feeding. As long as the kid loved then that all that matters.

I really didn't like the closing sentence because I think both sides get as much of a tough time as each other (especially in regards to feeding in public), but I somewhat agree with the sentiment. When people bring in exaggerated statements about IQ points and the like to a feeding debate, I always roll my eyes a little. Will need to look at the study in more detail.

lol, I started writing you a mean post, because I thought "closing sentence" was referring to "As long as the kid loved then that all that matters." and that didn't make any sense to me to jump on her for random IQ stuff. God my baby brain is really bad at times. Sorry for the mean post I started to write but didn't submit.

Jheeze IMAGINE that shitstorm that would have ensued.

 

[MommyJogger]

To get back to the paper itself, I thought it was really sad how the conclusions from her paper seem to take away from what it looks like she's trying to get across through her work.
She makes extremely good statements about how important it is to support new mothers through social programs that allow them the benefit of the social standards that help their children thrive (and that she defines as the statistical construct causing previous studies to overestimate the long-term benefits in the outcomes she focused on), like longer maternity leave, access/ability to afford healthy food, less worry about financial strain, not having to work two jobs just to get by. But part of the push for these things is the idea that mothers need to be near their children for as long as possible after birth and on a social level, the availability (and acceptability) of formula as a breastfeeding substitute actually works against that, since most bosses, men, and older generations who run businesses, work in politics, and generally have a large influence on the availability of these programs are more likely to see it as "formula is an acceptable substitute, mother's are not required for the transfer of formula to infant, therefore mothers should have no problems going back to work, quickly, and with long hours". So the results of her study are more likely to have the opposite effect of what she had in mind. Breastfeeding as a social right is needed to play a big role in changing how policy makers and businesses view the role of women and their right to time off without penalty in the year following birth.

 

[My_First]

Which then actually makes the whole study less about how a baby is fed but more about bridging the socio economic divide, which, in hindsight is exactly what a sociologist would be studying as opposed to a medical researcher.

 

[MommyJogger]

Which then actually makes the whole study less about how a baby is fed but more about bridging the socio economic divide, which, in hindsight is exactly what a sociologist would be studying as opposed to a medical researcher.

Yes, sorry, her argument is that it's not the infant feeding method, but the social differences between bf and ff families (on a population level) that cause the discrepancies in these outcomes in other breastfeeding studies.
Though I think it's important to point out that in at least two other studies I can think of, they found a significant trend between the amount of breast milk received and ebf (meaning no formula) duration and these same outcomes. It's quite possible that the same social barriers between bf and ff in general could account for the differences associated with bf duration/amount, but it's much less likely than if all the previous studies had used boolean variables for bf/ff.
Her study would have been much more meaningful if they'd looked at the reasons for the dichotomous siblings, as well, but it seems to be ignored that there are multiple health issues that could be child-specific which would make a mother breastfeed where they would otherwise immediately choose formula.

 

[My_First]

Sorry it was a rhetorical question really as opposed to a challenging statement.... This is what the original post should have generated....

 

[emyandpotato]

The article pretty much says what my doctor said when I was really struggling. She said that WHO support BF because formula is popular in the third world where people think it's best, but actually because of unclean water/lack of sterilising facilities etc, it's way worse. But here there's only a little bit of a difference.

I didn't read the article as bashing BF at all, and I'm totally pro-BF. I just read it as talking about the research, and showing that perhaps FF isn't the end of the world. Which is quite nice to know.