My partner is currently breastfeeding our 14 week old baby boy and despite being born 5 weeks premature he just keeps going from strength to strength.
The benefits of breastfeeding are incredibly obvious and I now understand completely why most women claim that it is one of the most difficult things you will ever do. Despite being incredibly stressed out by the process, my partner, who holds a biology degree, understands the scientific justification for persevering and when she read this article she told me that it was one more fantastic incentive to keep on going regardless.
I simply wish that this form of research could be made readily available in an easy to understand format for new mothers who are debating with the breast or bottle argument.
Many women (including my wife) have to be taught how to breastfeed and for some or many it involves a lot of struggle to get right without pain or too much discomfort. From an evolutionary point of view why would the mechanism be so difficult to get right? Shouldn't it be easier and, well, natural? Are modern women somehow fighting against nature in the way they breastfeed? Have the "natural skills" been lost in the modern lifestyle?
My theory about this is that much collective knowlege of breastfeeding was lost during the years when baby formula was in vogue. I expect this to change, so that, by the time today's baby girls become mothers, they will be able to breastfeed without having to turn to professional "lacation consultants", relying on reestablished collective knowledge and the experience of their own mothers instead.
Are modern women somehow fighting against nature in
the way they breastfeed? Have the "natural skills" been
lost in the modern lifestyle?
No to the first, maybe to the second.
Evolution A/B testing only works at the level where something influences the ability of successive generations to survive. It also selects for whatever barely works.
As far as evolution is concerned, there is no difference between it being easy to do, and learnable. If all women end up learning (say, for other more experienced mothers), then there's nothing for evolution to select for.
It's unfortunate for the woman who has trouble at first (like my wife, for instance) but it clearly isn't evolutionarily significant.
One thing I was not aware of until we went to ante-natal classes was that the ability to breastfeed is triggered by a subconscious control in the brain.
I always ignorantly assumed that the suction when a baby latches on pulls the milk from the breast and I was genuinely astonished to learn that when the baby latches on it actually triggers the brain into thinking 'I now need to release the milk' and the act of releasing milk is a cognitive one and not a physical one.
I don't think most people realise this fact and unfortunately the majority of the focus around breastfeeding is on the pro's and cons as opposed to the correct techniques and mentality required to feed successfully.
I can understand completely why it would appear easier for most mammals compared to humans as most mammals aren't aware how difficult the process may potentially be for obvious reasons.
I suspect some of this relates to the evolutionarily recent increase in Brest size. If you compare how an ape breast feeds vs a human there is significant advantages to a flat chest.
I've always wondered this too. Most mammals seem to figure it out effortlessly.
Perhaps since the time we've had hands and been able to grind up food for babies, breast-feeding has been somewhat optional so there hasn't been much selection pressure on us for millions of years to keep breast feeding working well.
I've always wondered this too. Most mammals seem to figure it out effortlessly.
Most mammals have mammaries that are purely functional and only round out due to filling with milk. Human female breasts are full for other reasons, too full in fact to be baby-friendly. Most other mammals also feed their offspring in plain view of others of their species, which means there is plenty of opportunity to observe how it is done. In human cultures, we debate the morality of -- gasp! -- breastfeeding in public. When it is done in public at all, it is handled very discretely so no one gets a glimpse of someone's breast or, god forbid, nipple. Not exactly a learning opportunity for any other women who happen to be around who might someday have a baby themselves and might want to breastfeed.
Part of my experience with this subject: I breastfed my oldest until he was nearly 2 and my youngest rejected the breast very early (due to lactose intolerance), breastfeeding full-time for only 10 days and part-time until he was 6 weeks old. And I helped my sister address some issues she had with her baby so she could successfully breastfeed.
I'm sure others have done this already, but have you thought of putting this information on the web to teach other mothers? Considering that breastfeeding is so important on multiple levels, it couldn't hurt to have one more place for mothers to learn this skill.
A) I thought I had posted something to the web about that on someone else's site, but the link from my site to theirs is dead and the internet informs me the domain name in question has expired. So I can't even confirm if I did a breastfeeding story. (I think I did it as one of two contributions -- if I really obsess about it, I might be able to find it in my email somewhere.)
B) I have a parenting site that I want to develop more. I have been thinking since writing the above that I should probably post info about breastfeeding to it as well. It was extremely important to the well being of my oldest child, who has a serious health issue and needed the extra support it provided. That site has languished while I got myself well, started my life over post-divorce...yadda yadda. Thanks for the suggestion/encouragement. :-)
I would tend to assume that in cultures where the birth rate is sufficiently high, breastfeeding is sufficiently common and where such matters are handled more openly than is typical in the US, you would be less likely to hear people expressing bafflement as to why this seems to be so hard for some/many women when it seems like it ought to be "natural". My only point is that one of the differences between humans and animals is that some human cultures treat this in a rather secretive manner and we wear clothes and such.
I breastfed publicly in my twenties. I believe I was discreet about it but people who knew me well seemed to be shocked by how casually I handled it. Since they couldn't tell I was doing so until I told them I was feeding my kid while walking around the store or sitting in a booth at an eatery, I didn't see what the problem was. To most folks, I appeared to be holding a baby in my arms wrapped in a baby blanket -- which I was. He just also happened to be getting a meal. So I know first-hand how gasp-worthy this is to some folks, even if you are being so discreet about it they didn't realize it was happening until it came up in conversation. (And I was in Germany on an American military post for some of it. It wasn't all in the U.S. or only around Americans.)
Human babies are less well developed than newborns of most other species, so it can be harder for them to figure it out. We have to be born earlier or our heads would be too big.
My wife pledged first that she will breastfed our daughter for at least 1.5 year, then until 2 years, and now it's 26th month already and she still persevered to this day. It is surely a sacrifice for the mother, but very important for the health of the child.
If you don't mind me asking - why so long? Our pediatrician recommended my wife breastfeed our son a year. Beyond that, he said, there are no benefits.
Nursing is not a "benefit," it is normal. Forced weaning causes harm (for both mother and child). Not just strictly nutritionally, nursing is very much about physical contact and social relationships too. There's plenty of info if you type a couple words into google. A half century of formula advertising has created a lot of ignorance as fewer people have experience with nursing.
The normal feeding vs. formula feeding discussion is usually presented backwards. We shouldn't talk about the "benefits" of breastfeeding, we should talk about the harm of formula. Breastfeeding is the normal state. For rare medical conditions we can substitute formula. It's a medical treatment that in extenuating circumstances can save lives.
My son was born 10 weeks premature. He was right under 3 pounds.
Today 11 months later he is 24 Pounds, strong as an oxe and almost about to walk.
Besides being breast-fed we also practiced the kangaroo method, where my girlfriend would have him on her chest to maintain the symbiosis he would normally have benefitted from inside of her.
He was out of the hospital 5 weeks after he was born, 5 weeks before he was supposed to.
I don't know about the kangaroo method but obviously the breast feeding (which already started 5 days after he was born albeit in small quantity) helped him quite a lot.
I honestly have no intention of getting into a debate about the issue but at this point in time, a minimal amount of research will present you with an overwhelming number of proven benefits that breastfeeding has over bottle feeding.
There are definitely cons, and there are big cons but most of the cons are relating to the mother and not the baby.
I have yet to hear of any proven, significantly negative effect breastfeeding has on a baby.
It was designed by evolution to give babies the best nutrition.
From Wiki: These benefits include; lowered risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), increased intelligence, decreased likelihood of contracting middle ear infections, cold, and flu bugs, decreased risk of some cancers such as childhood leukemia, lower risk of childhood onset diabetes, decreased risk of asthma and eczema, decreased dental problems, decreased risk of obesity later in life, and decreased risk of developing psychological disorders.
For me, the fact that it's natural gives it a lot of appeal. I'm sure there are psychological benefits too - being breastfed is something babies instinctively want, so I'd bet it'd result in a calmer baby.
And all other substitutes are just that - substitutes. Baby formula was designed to emulate breastmilk; why not choose the original?
I think the credited view of evolution is that there was no design involved. It may indeed be true that the haphazard adaptations of breast milk to infant needs (and maternal limitations of resources) under selection pressure makes breast milk better food for babies than any human-designed infant formula, but that's an empirical question. It is possible in principle, at least, that human design could eventually make better (by whatever criterion you use to define "better") for human infants than breast milk.
You can just imagine the adverts of products containing these sugars now. One bite of some kind of goo containg these "inspired by nature" sugars gives the baby a 5px dashed #eeeeee border.
Of course let us not forget another goo targeted at adults with an amusingly named "new" strain of Bifidobacterium longum. Oh wait: http://whatisbifidusregularis.org/ .
Actually, the marketing of formula is a major issue in infant care, especially in poorer countries.
Large forumla companies, like Nestlé[1], have been doing marketing for decades like you are suggesting, when even today, we are just discovering all the things that breast milk does -- as the article closes with:
Dr. Mills said. “So for God’s sake, please breast-feed.”
When we were expecting parents, attending our birthing classes, one night was dedicated to breastfeeding, and taught by a lactation consultant, basically a nurse specializing in breastfeeding.
She told a story about Nestle and the third world that was rather chilling:
The company, at some point, donated a large amount of formula to some third world country or other. (Sorry, it's been 15 years, so the details are sketchy). Short story: they convinced a lot of very poor women to use the formula. There was enough formula to last until their own breastmilk dried up. Nestle didn't send any more, and these women had no means to get more, and now, no breastmilk either. Lots of babies died.
There is mention of accusations of Nestle giving away free powder for a limited time, but no specific story and Nestle denies the allegations.
Why would someone accept free formula over free breast milk? No one would be dumb enough to think that the free formula would last forever. While I don't deny that Nestle gave out free formula, I'm not convinced that new mothers switched to it en masse only to later realize (after their breast milk stopped flowing) that they'd have to pay to get more.
This is why it's so important to breast feed. Every time someone discovers something like this, it gets added to formula in a couple years, but it seems like every month something new comes out. Who knows what formula is missing that we just don't know about yet.
There's a lot of anecdotal evidence in this thread. I'll add something to that: I was formula fed and I am fine. So are lots of other people.
Our kids were bottle-fed with breast-milk. I'm not sure where that fits in the breast vs bottle debate, and I of course didn't do a double-blind controlled trial to work out whether there were benefits - it simply suited our situation.
I have always been surprised at how judgmental people get of mothers and how they feed their babies. Some of the nurses in the maternity ward were amazingly self-righteous about it.
Not every mother can breast-feed, for various reasons (eg mastectomy). Fortunately in many countries there is a viable alternative. The mothers can often feel very bad about it, and having someone ram the obvious benefits of breastfeeding down their throat can be less than helpful, or healthy at that time.
Very few mothers cannot breastfeed, in the grand scheme of things. The self-righteousness that exists is part of an ongoing effort to turn back 50 years or so of misinformation that existed in North America regarding formula vs. breast milk that caused women to turn away from breastfeeding in droves, mainly under the guise that formula was "better".
Why I agree that the judgments are unwarranted,(in every case) the fact remains that it is scientifically proven that breast milk provides numerous health benefits over formula. If you were fed formula, you have, on average, a higher risk of everything from a childhood cold/flu to asthma to leukemia.
While every mother needs to make the best choice in her particular circumstance, choosing not to breastfeed for the sole sake of some convenience to the mother and/or others is not a responsible choice, in many people's opinions.
Full disclosure: I was breast-fed and am perfect in every conceivable way.
"The self-righteousness that exists is part of an ongoing effort to turn back 50 years or so of misinformation that existed in North America..."
Isn't this exactly the point? Nearly everything we've ever known about nutrition has at some point been 'proven' to be completely, 100% wrong. Maybe we shouldn't be so judgmental of people who make different choices?
Sven Carlsen, the author behind this and basically every other study that forwards that breastmilk isn't as wonderful as it is (he's a lone voice) has questionable ties to GlaxoSmithKline.
I would agree that there is much misinformation out there.
I would also suggest that very few mothers choose not to breast-feed solely for convenience.
I am not as sure as you that it is a scientifically proven fact that breast milk provides numerous health benefits.
Whilst the recommendation nearly always is to use it (and no modern study suggests that formula is better) the studies are not as conclusive as I would accept as fact.
The confounding and self-selection effects in the studies, and the differences in formula and ethical considerations since the long-term studies were started cast uncertainty on any conclusion.
However, I understand that the majority of the information out there leads people to believe that it is a fact, and agree that the safe option is breast milk.
Edit: "basically every other study...has questionable ties to GlaxoSmithKline". Really? The WHO also says that the benefits are moderate, rather than "wonderful".
I would also suggest that very few mothers choose not to breast-feed solely for convenience.
Are you a recent parent or are you otherwise directly experienced in witnessing the choices mothers make? I ask not only because the statement is little more than random opinion if you are not, and because I'm surprised that someone who is experienced would come to such a conclusion. It isn't the obvious path in a country where women return to work 6 weeks after giving birth.
the studies are not as conclusive as I would accept as fact.
Then you are self-selecting to support your own bias. The other link you provided in this thread made pretty clear assertions regarding this topic.
The research is pretty strong. Stronger than most other areas. While that doesn't mean it is perfect, it does mean that all signs point to the fact that formula is not an equal replacement in certain key ways.
> all signs point to the fact that formula is not an equal replacement in certain key ways
That's a much softer position than "the fact remains that it is scientifically proven that breast milk provides numerous health benefits over formula. If you were fed formula, you have, on average, a higher risk of everything from a childhood cold/flu to asthma to leukemia." and one I could agree with.
I was adopted at 3 months old, and I have many friends who were also adopted in their infancy.
I remember my friends mother recounting a story in which she was feeding my infant compadre in a shopping center, and a woman came up out of nowhere and pretty much berated her for not breast feeding. It is such a war between these women, and its ridiculous, since most mothers who don't really and honestly can't.
And quite frankly, as part of an army of formula fed humanoids, I'd like to think we all turned out just fine.
"And quite frankly, as part of an army of formula fed humanoids, I'd like to think we all turned out just fine."
The woman you describe was rude, and I'm sure you did turn out fine. But the impetus for the debate is scientific evidence on what, statistically, is best for babies. "This isn't best" is not a personal slam to you or your mom, and "I turned out fine" isn't a counter-argument.
I agree that breastfeeding should be encouraged, particularly in 3rd world countries.
However, the mantra of "breastfeeding has been scientifically proven to have benefits" may be less solid than you think.
There is a strong correlation between mothers who choose to breastfeed and lower incidence of many adverse conditions. However, does this imply causality?
"Conclusions: A history of breastfeeding is associated with a reduced risk of many diseases in infants and mothers from developed countries. Because almost all the data in this review were gathered from observational studies, one should not infer causality based on these findings. Also, there is a wide range of quality of the body of evidence across different health outcomes."
> We found that a history of breastfeeding was associated with a reduction in the risk of acute otitis media, non-specific gastroenteritis, severe lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, asthma (young children), obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis...For maternal outcomes, a history of lactation was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, breast, and ovarian cancer. Early cessation of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression.
That's right. Associated, not causal. The problem is that mothers who are health-conscious, affluent, educated, etc are more likely to choose to breast-feed, as that is the recommended option by health providers. So, you can't say that the breast milk is the cause, simply that it correlates. Not a scientific proof, I'm afraid.
You're now suggesting that the authors of all of these studies failed to control the most obvious of outside factors?
I'm not sure why you are so resistant to these studies, but it's clear that no amount of scientific research is going to convince you that there are clear benefits to breastmilk.
"Even within the same social group, mothers who breastfeed are likely to be more health-conscious than those who do not breastfeed. This may also lead them to promote other healthy habits among their children, including prevention of overweight, promotion of physical exercise and intellectual stimulation. This may be particularly true in high-income populations. Because these maternal attributes are difficult to measure, it is not possible to include them in the analyses as confounding factors. Nevertheless, this possibility should be taken into account when interpreting the study’s results."
I'm not resisting studies - I'm reading them, rather than relying upon misinformation from other sources.
Also: "Early cessation of breastfeeding or not breastfeeding was associated with an increased risk of maternal postpartum depression."
That's what I am talking about as well - mothers can be made to feel irresponsible and guilty when they fail to breastfeed for whatever reason, which cannot be good for postpartum depression.
Sorry, are you now suggesting that someone being overly judgmental and perhaps not minding their business is a cause of postpartum depression?
That, my friend, is going to require a fuck of a lot of citations. You've managed at the same time to deny all of the science behind breastmilk benefits and significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed.
> deny all of the science behind breastmilk benefits
I don't think I have done this. I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed.
I think that you have denied all the science behind breast-milk not having significant advantages, by posting FUD about GlaxoSmithKlein being linked to all of those studies.
I'm not sure if you are picking up on the difference between association and causation.
I have not said that formula is better, and I don't believe it is. I think that the current dogma around breastmilk being worlds ahead is not justified by the scientific studies.
I am happy to change my mind and apologize for my truculence if I see the scientific data that the benefits are significant, causal, and proven. Got any links?
> significantly downplay a known medical condition as nothing more than feeling embarrassed.
I have linked to scientific studies, and meta-studies, that indicate that the benefits are not clear and that more research is needed.
Except that they don't. That's why I quoted your link right back to you. While they say that for certain areas like a link to intelligence (which you will note I have not ever raised), they fully support numerous health benefits.
I should note that your link was a study of studies; one giant peer review done right before your eyes. It's pretty conclusive.
There is - supported by links that you submitted yourself - significant scientific evidence to suggest that breastfed babies receive health benefits that formula fed babies do not.
Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias.
> Ergo, breast milk is a better option for a baby. You've presented nothing to support otherwise, beyond your own personal bias.
My claim was that breastfeeding should be encouraged, and that your claim of scientific proof was less solid than you might think. I agree that I have not presented evidence that breastmilk is not a better option - I don't think that, and I certainly haven't said that, hence my lack of presentation.
I've asked for causal evidence that there are significant benefits from breast milk. That study's conclusion specifically warns against inferring it.
You've now changed your claim from "proven" to "suggest". I'm happy with that - I agree that evidence suggests it is a better option, I disagree that there is proof that people who are breastfed are healthier due to the breast milk. I know it is often repeated, but it is not true.
Of course "bottle-fed with breast-milk" is equivalent to breast-fed.
I think people are judgmental when a mother chooses to not breastfeed for no "good" reason, or no reason at all. Reasonable people would be fine with someone not breastfeeding if they absolutely couldn't or it was extremely difficult.
My wife breastfed and it was quite difficult at the beginning and then got easier and easier. She wanted to quit a few times, but pressed on. It's hard for her (and most people in the same situation) not to get judgmental when she hears of some mom having a rough day in the first week of the baby's life and throwing in the towel and switching to formula.
There are some studies that point to many benefits of the act of breastfeeding itself, but I think from a health/scientific perspective I think it's stretching things to suggest that putting your milk in a bottle and then into your baby's mouth somehow reduces the benefits.
Obtuse bitches that happen to be employed as lactation consultants notwithstanding.
The studies I have heard of talk of the benefits of skin-to-skin contact while feeding, which can easily be done with a bottle too. I'm not aware of any studies that point to any benefit of nipple vs. artificial nipple.
Those women who have difficulty producing enough milk should know that (in the US at least) that there are mother's milk donation programs that can help out. Those women who can should donate.
The benefits of breastfeeding are incredibly obvious and I now understand completely why most women claim that it is one of the most difficult things you will ever do. Despite being incredibly stressed out by the process, my partner, who holds a biology degree, understands the scientific justification for persevering and when she read this article she told me that it was one more fantastic incentive to keep on going regardless.
I simply wish that this form of research could be made readily available in an easy to understand format for new mothers who are debating with the breast or bottle argument.