Jump to content

Breastfeeding study used to misrepresent Breastmilk - by EB!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
65 replies to this topic

#26 lucky 2

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:47 PM

AV, when you are talking about a particular Cochrane review could you please either name the review or post a link to it, or both. So we (or maybe just I) can read it for myself.

I cannot take I take what you are saying seriously unless I have read it myself, especially the conclusions.
http://summaries.coc...m_field_stage:3
Here are the Cochrane summaries linked to Breastfeeding, from the most recent down, is the summary you are referring to here one of these?

#27 Beeeeeez

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:01 PM

Cm

Edited by biancabee, 03 March 2014 - 09:07 PM.


#28 Fright bat

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:02 PM

This is the summary of the review on the effect of exclusive breastfeeding for six months:

http://onlinelibrary...B9018019.f03t04

Please don't get me wrong - I think there are SO many good things about breastfeeding, and I genuinely think we should encourage and support it. All I want is women given accurate information, not brow beaten with guilt they might be 'harming' their babies.



#29 echolalia

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:09 PM

View PostOriental lily, on 03 March 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

Also that second article posted is  the biggest load of  insulting crap I have ever read.

No references to all those claims and consistently comparing formula feeding to exposure to tobacco smoke clearly shows why articles like the one this thread is about is needed for balance.

The references are at the bottom of the article.  However the point of the article isn't the research, but the way the language is used to describe the results of breastfeeding research.

The author isn't comparing formula feeding with smoking, she is comparing the language used to describe the risks of smoking with the language used to describe formula feeding.  It is an analogy, not a direct comparison.

#30 Fright bat

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:09 PM

I concede this one is breastfeeding for 3 months vs breadt feeding for six (not a direct formula/breastfeeding comparison). I'm on a phone and can only search a few years (why do websites try to make things easier for you by making thing mobile 'friendly'?). I'll dig up the other relevant one tomorrow.

#31 Liv_DrSperm_sh

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:15 PM

View Posttaddie, on 03 March 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

I actually don't think this study should have been publicised to mothers until it was examined by experts a bit more. I honestly expect there will be a large number of problems with the assumptions and what the outcomes imply, which is not what the study finds in truth.

I agree, but the same goes for all the other stupid little studies that get airtime! Breastfeeding studies are notoriously poorly designed, but there seems to be little outrage on here if they are confirming the bias.

Also, I think there is no evidence that anything in breast milk boosts the brain...is necessary for development sure, but boosts the brain? Sounds hinky.

#32 taddie

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:21 PM

Breastfeeding studies have proven there was a huge difference between formula feeding and breastfeeding on brain development at the period this study covers. Before 2002 every child that was formula fed and didn't somehow get supplimented DHA had deficient brain development. This study was made from data collected in the 1970s.

The title of the article was wrong and is still wrong.

You cannot in any semblance of good faith draw this conclusion from the study.

Since no-one is willing to accept it I will go and find the studies  and neurological texts that reference them in proof.

2013: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23167730
"Exclusive breastfeeding was associated with more optimal brain development compared with babies who were bottle-fed or never breastfed"


Edited by taddie, 03 March 2014 - 09:25 PM.


#33 Ellie bean

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:25 PM

View Posttaddie, on 03 March 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Before 2002 every child that was formula fed and didn't somehow get supplimented DHA had deficient brain development.

Taddie with all due respect I think you are actually harming your own cause with outrageous statements like this.


#34 Pooks Combusted

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:31 PM

View PostEBeditor, on 03 March 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

The actual headline on the article is "Breast is best - but other things matter too".

I love the headline. Because its true!

View PostEllie bean, on 03 March 2014 - 08:31 PM, said:

I've only got one thing to say- I bet nobody would be questioning the rigorousness of the study or suggesting it shouldn't have been published, if the conclusion were different.

Of course.

The thing is, this study is looking at the information in a different way to other studies, and it's suggesting that there are confounding factors which explain the better results of other studies for bfing babies. So even if we drag up every study ever done showing benefits of BM, it won't quash the doubts this study raises.

I look forward to more studies from a sociological perspective. I like knowing more about what parents can do to give their kids the best starts. Since I couldn't BF, I tried to do some other feeding practices which had evidence around bonding and benefits to babies (skin to skin, switching sides, primary career providing most feeds) and I wonder how much THOSE behaviours change outcomes too (and whether those behaviours might be different in parents who are FF a baby aft BF a previous one, for instance, vs. a first time mum FFing. All interesting stuff!

#35 Oriental lily

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:32 PM

actually I thought the difference was a couple of measly IQ points?

And IQ tests have always been questioned as a reliable indication of cognitive ability.

Yes I am eagerly awaiting  to see the peer reviewed scientific findings that show formula feeding causes 'deficient brain development'

#36 taddie

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:32 PM

View PostEllie bean, on 03 March 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

Taddie with all due respect I think you are actually harming your own cause with outrageous statements like this.

Its not an outrageous statement, it's the plain truth. You go and do a general google on the topic. I'm not going to deal with side issues arising from ignorance of the facts around the history of formula feeding and/or brain development.

Brains are made of DHA. Breastmilk of course contains DHA. Formula that is not GOLD formula did not have any DHA at all. Formulas with DHA were released around 2002. Every baby who wasn't breastfed and had no other supplimental DHA (all of them, not many cultures give fish to infants except perhaps those that feed congee) had suboptimal and brain development. The structures of the brain were so different in formula fed babies it was noticable in autopsies.  Between 6 and 10 IQ points were lost.

Fact. Can't deny it.

Edited by taddie, 03 March 2014 - 09:36 PM.


#37 Ellie bean

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:34 PM

If only I could blame my ignorance on being FF in the 70s, alas I was exclusively BF....

#38 Oriental lily

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:36 PM

No Taddie you go get references for YOUR statements.

I am not going to Google and sift through all the extremist breastfeeding fodder on the net.

#39 JAPNII

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:40 PM

View Postcatnapper, on 03 March 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

If EB really supports breastfeeding then its writers should really stop using the outdated "Breast is best" slogan, which actually does more harm than good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10368037

http://www.motherchr...urlanguage.html
If you want to support your cause don't quote links to articles that talk about smoking and FF in the same article or use the words 'artifical feeding'.

#40 taddie

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:42 PM

2013: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23721722

"The prevailing consensus from large epidemiological studies posits that early exclusivebreastfeeding is associated with improved measures of IQ and cognitive functioning in later childhood and adolescence. Prior morphometric brainimaging studies support these findings, revealing increased white matter and sub-cortical gray matter volume, and parietal lobe cortical thickness, associated with IQ, in adolescents who were breastfed as infants compared to those who were exclusively formula-fed."

#41 F.E.B.E

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:43 PM

Taddie, I thought what the new research was showing was that breastfed babies had more interaction with their mother during feeding and were from homes where children were read to from a young age, hence the improvement in IQ.

This also ties in with the study showing no difference in IQ between sibling test subjects, whether bottle fed or breastfed.

There ARE many proven nutritional and immunity benefits to breastfeeding and I don't think anyone would deny that.

I think we all want babies to get the best start in life and that is what we can take out from studies like these. If breast feeding is not possible, what else can we change in the artificial baby milk (formula) or in the home environment to ensure optimum development for a child?

#42 taddie

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:44 PM

Oh and for all those who poohed the idea that correct gut colonization was important to babies:


2013: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23433508

"The intestinal microbiota plays an important role in the development of post-natal gastrointestinal functions of the host. Recent advances in our capability to identify microbes and their function offer exciting opportunities to evaluate the complex cross talk between microbiota, intestinal barrier, immune system and the gut-brain axis. This review summarizes these interactions in the early colonization of gastrointestinal tract with a major focus on the role of intestinal microbiota in the pathogenesis of feeding intolerance in preterm newborn. The potential benefit of early probiotic supplementation opens new perspectives in case of altered intestinal colonization at birth as preventive and therapeutic agents"

Or you know, you could just breastfeed and get the probiotics you need the way you're supposed to.

#43 Soontobegran

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:48 PM

View Posttaddie, on 03 March 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Before 2002 every child that was formula fed and didn't somehow get supplimented DHA had deficient brain development. This study was made from data collected in the 1970s.


Can't believe you dared to say this.

Many a genius has been formula fed. Bloody hell.....imagine how smart they'd have been if only........... :wacko:

#44 JAPNII

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:50 PM

I can see this thread getting ugly as one poster races to find as many links as possible to prove her point and that anything else is just wrong.....oh dear.

And EB Editor - please call it Formula - not artificial milk!

#45 lucky 2

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:51 PM

View PostAvadaKedavra, on 03 March 2014 - 09:02 PM, said:

This is the summary of the review on the effect of exclusive breastfeeding for six months:

http://onlinelibrary...B9018019.f03t04

Please don't get me wrong - I think there are SO many good things about breastfeeding, and I genuinely think we should encourage and support it. All I want is women given accurate information, not brow beaten with guilt they might be 'harming' their babies.
What conclusions have you drawn from that study?
The study is about duration of bfing, it showed that babies that get 3-4 months of exclusive bfing (followed by combination feeding and solids with bfing continuing >6 months) are not much different from babies exclusively breast feed for 6 months.
What conclusions are you drawing from this and what is it that women must be informed about?
It doesn't compare formula fed babies with breastfed babies, it is about what effects the exclusive bfing 6 months has over only 3-4 months exclusive, with bfing continuing.
There were some extra in the exclusive bfed group, ie less GIT disease and some other benefits from the mothers.
I don't understand what your interest is in this particular study to be using it in this discussion?

eta, I only just saw your newest post.
Did you think that the Cochrane summary was comparing an exclusively breastfed baby with exclusively formula fed babies, and concluding that there wasn't much difference between the two?
I think it's really important to be careful when making strong claims about the conclusions of studies, just in case you or I have got it arse about and we end up spreading inaccurate information to women.

Edited by lucky 2, 03 March 2014 - 10:50 PM.


#46 taddie

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:53 PM

View PostEBeditor, on 03 March 2014 - 09:43 PM, said:

Taddie, I thought what the new research was showing was that breastfed babies had more interaction with their mother during feeding and were from homes where children were read to from a young age, hence the improvement in IQ.

This also ties in with the study showing no difference in IQ between sibling test subjects, whether bottle fed or breastfed.

This isn't new research.

This study used old data from the 1970s. It is not a "new" study in that sense, just a new organisation of old results.

New studies with new data might show what you propose if the children they studied were born after 2005 and there are STILL women out there using non gold formulas, which frankly I can't believe are still legal. No gold formula would have been available in this study period. Any new studies couldn't provide data for any cohort older than age 10 so wouldn't be able to draw the conclusions this study has regardless due to absence of data.

The study makes a mistake in its hypothesis in that lower class women breastfed at the time the data was collected. The stated confounding factor they propose explains their results "richer women breastfeed" did not exist at the time the data was collected.

It used a non acceptable defintion of "breastfeeding" which meant any breastmilk at all, ever. We know lots of women try to breastfeed and go to bottle fast.

It is so wrong to use a study like this to make the conclusions drawn.

View Postsoontobegran, on 03 March 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:

Can't believe you dared to say this.

Many a genius has been formula fed. Bloody hell.....imagine how smart they'd have been if only........... :wacko:

Yes, imagine. I dare to say a lot of things THAT ARE CORRECT.

#47 Oriental lily

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:54 PM

I guess every person who qualifies for Mensa must have been breast fed?

#48 LeggyBlonde

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:56 PM

View Posttaddie, on 03 March 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

Before 2002 every child that was formula fed and didn't somehow get supplimented DHA had deficient brain development.

Look, 1 it's anecdata, 2 it's bad form to mention your own IQ I am sure, but mine is 154.  'Reputable' sources put that in the "genius or near genius range".  What I am peeved about, is I was fed condensed milk as a babe, what with being adopted in the '60s and all, the nurses and doctors all said it was the thing to do, really. I COULD HAVE BEEN SMARTER.  Still my husband enjoys the fact that he pips me by 1 point, he was breastfed, but you all knew that right?

To think I could have been a LeggyGenius, instead of a LeggyBlonde.


Some posts and posters in this thread are a worry!  I will leave you all to work out which ones according to your own bias.

Ha, I posted after STBG, she made my point.

#49 purplekitty

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:58 PM

View Posttaddie, on 03 March 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

Or you know, you could just breastfeed and get the probiotics you need the way you're supposed to.
It's so simple.

Oh wait. No, it's not.

#50 Feral Kitty

Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:58 PM

Breastfeeding mothers in developed countries have worked long and hard to recognise breastfeeding importance. This has led to less discrimination in the workplace and paved the way for PPL, flexible work hours and breastfeeding breaks. Not every work environment allows for this yet and my only fear is that it will undo all of that.

In saying that, it's pleasing to see formula changing with more awareness of what babies need. Remember when the IQ articles and reports were done? Mothers everywhere were horrified and offended. Not that we can blame them. But it did force companies to look at formula in a new light and add something more to it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 
 
Advertisement
 

Top 5 Viewed Articles

 
Advertisement
 
 
 
Advertisement
 
 
Essential Baby and Essential Kids is the place to find parenting information and parenting support relating to conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids, maternity, family budgeting, family travel, nutrition and wellbeing, family entertainment, kids entertainment, tips for the family home, child-friendly recipes and parenting. Try our pregnancy due date calculator to determine your due date, or our ovulation calculator to predict ovulation and your fertile period. Our pregnancy week by week guide shows your baby's stages of development. Access our very active mum's discussion groups in the Essential Baby forums or the Essential Kids forums to talk to mums about conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids and parenting lifestyle. Essential Baby also offers a baby names database of more than 22,000 baby names, popular baby names, boys' names, girls' names and baby names advice in our baby names forum. Essential Kids features a range of free printable worksheets for kids from preschool years through to primary school years. For the latest baby clothes, maternity clothes, maternity accessories, toddler products, kids toys and kids clothing, breastfeeding and other parenting resources, check out Essential Baby and Essential Kids.