6 ms·

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 o

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.

cromulent 16y ago
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." http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/brfouttp.htm http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/brfouttp.htm
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  From your link: > 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.
  - cromulent 16y ago
    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.
    - billybob 16y ago
      Surely statistics can be used to correct for this - compare affluent, educated, health-conscious women in both categories, for example?
    - run4yourlives 16y ago
      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.
      - cromulent 16y ago
        No, I'm not suggesting that. They do. Have a look at the WHO study: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595230_eng.pdf http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595230_eng... For example: "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.
  - cromulent 16y ago
    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.
jdminhbg 16y ago
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?
- cromulent 16y ago
  I'm also not convinced the choices are always for "convenience". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443904.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443904.stm
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    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.
    - cromulent 16y ago
      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".
      - 16y ago
mediacrisis 16y ago
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.
- billybob 16y ago
  "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.

cromulent 16y ago

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." http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/brfouttp.htm http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/brfouttp.htm

run4yourlives 16y ago
From your link: > 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.
- cromulent 16y ago
  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.
  - billybob 16y ago
    Surely statistics can be used to correct for this - compare affluent, educated, health-conscious women in both categories, for example?
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    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.
    - cromulent 16y ago
      No, I'm not suggesting that. They do. Have a look at the WHO study: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595230_eng.pdf http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241595230_eng... For example: "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.
- cromulent 16y ago
  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.

jdminhbg 16y ago

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?

cromulent 16y ago
I'm also not convinced the choices are always for "convenience". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443904.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443904.stm
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  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.
  - cromulent 16y ago
    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".
    - 16y ago

mediacrisis 16y ago

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.

billybob 16y ago
"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.