3 ms·

Well good advice in general, even though the way you phrase your comment makes it look like you think breast feeding is no better than the formulas. I am a med

by aiilns 6y ago

Well good advice in general, even though the way you phrase your comment makes it look like you think breast feeding is no better than the formulas. I am a medical student and we have been told at uni from professors (paediatricians) that breast feeding _is_ better than formulas I think with regards to asthma or some other allergic stuff. There are reasons that mothers should not or cannot breastfeed and it's not the end of the world, but in general I believe they should. And really the weight of proof rests on the baby formulas to prove that they're OK. Even common sense suggests breast feeding is better, it's been the way people have been growing up for millenia all around the world.

suchire 6y ago
“It’s been the way people have been growing up for millennia all around the world.” I don’t think this is a very convincing argument. There are many, many things that have been around for millennia that just aren’t that great. We’ve been living without vaccines, antibiotics, antiseptics, antihelminthics, poor nutrition, extremely high rates of childhood mortality, and high rates of death by childbirth for millennia. That doesn’t mean that state of being or way of doing things is inherently good
- nemothekid 6y ago
  No, but the onus is on the new thing to prove to it is undeniably better. Before we had antibiotics there was a mountain of dubious products that could cure all manner of illnesses that did nothing. Secondly, I’m also dubious of the claims of formula feeding as it hasn’t been conclusively shown to be better, but yet Nestle has spent millions in marketing getting much of third world hooked on formula to their own detriment.
bhandziuk 6y ago
I think they're saying that if you don't breast feed (and it's not always a choice, some women's milk doesn't come in, some babies have a really hard time latching, sometimes they take so long to latch that even if milk would have been there it no longer is...etc) - if you don't breast feed that mother's should not feel guilt or feel like failed parents.
ragnese 6y ago
I do not claim that breast feeding is no better than formula. However, I am currently convinced that there is not yet sufficient evidence that breast feeding a child will likely lead to significantly better long-term outcomes than feeding formula. I'm a scientist. Not a medical scientist, but a hard science non-the-less. MDs are not (usually) scientists. They go off of what they believe the scientists are saying. But it's a game of telephone and you're now the fourth in the game (data -> researcher -> MD that is your teacher -> you). The studies I've seen (and I'm NOT an expert in the field or in the techniques used for these kinds of longitudinal, observational, social studies), mostly show very minor differences in long term outcomes. Honestly, the long term difference is probably much smaller than many other lifestyle choices you could make. Some sibling studies apparently have shown no significant difference in outcomes. Some try to control for socioeconomic status (how many people ever ask how they control for these things?) or various other factors, but these controls are not perfect. Perhaps most women want to breast feed, but some subset have underlying health conditions tied to not producing milk. Maybe that same underlying condition is present in their children, which causes worse outcomes and NOT the lack of breast milk per se. None of these studies can even account for stuff like that because most of them are self-reports and because underlying health conditions may never even be detected. It's very hard to do good science on humans. > And really the weight of proof rests on the baby formulas to prove that they're OK. I agree with that. I do think the proof is there, though. We've had at least of couple of generations of people who have grown up on formula and the studies that compare outcomes never show that formula fed babies grow into significantly worse-off adults. > Even common sense suggests breast feeding is better, it's been the way people have been growing up for millenia all around the world. One should never ever appeal to common sense when discussing something about science. Surely you remember that in Aristotle's time, even he considered it to be basically common sense that heavier objects would fall to Earth faster than light objects, right? Human brains are stupid. Common sense means nothing. It might mean less than nothing. And the sentiment of your statement is also debunked by a single contradictory example. There are many cases in which science/technology has done better for us than nature. Our own immune systems fall flat when presented with many illnesses until we introduce vaccines and medicine. It's entirely conceivable for use to create something that is even better for our bodies than nature has to offer. Nature, after all, is guided only by the selective pressure for us to barely make it to be old enough to procreate. That's all nature has optimized us for, at the end of the day.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Sure, I think we can all acknowledge that medically speaking, breastfeeding is ideal. But if it’s not feasible, mothers shouldn’t feel guilty about it. There are all sorts of ways you can provide for your child.

by aiilns 6y ago

suchire 6y ago

“It’s been the way people have been growing up for millennia all around the world.” I don’t think this is a very convincing argument. There are many, many things that have been around for millennia that just aren’t that great. We’ve been living without vaccines, antibiotics, antiseptics, antihelminthics, poor nutrition, extremely high rates of childhood mortality, and high rates of death by childbirth for millennia. That doesn’t mean that state of being or way of doing things is inherently good

nemothekid 6y ago
No, but the onus is on the new thing to prove to it is undeniably better. Before we had antibiotics there was a mountain of dubious products that could cure all manner of illnesses that did nothing. Secondly, I’m also dubious of the claims of formula feeding as it hasn’t been conclusively shown to be better, but yet Nestle has spent millions in marketing getting much of third world hooked on formula to their own detriment.

bhandziuk 6y ago

I think they're saying that if you don't breast feed (and it's not always a choice, some women's milk doesn't come in, some babies have a really hard time latching, sometimes they take so long to latch that even if milk would have been there it no longer is...etc) - if you don't breast feed that mother's should not feel guilt or feel like failed parents.

ragnese 6y ago

I do not claim that breast feeding is no better than formula. However, I am currently convinced that there is not yet sufficient evidence that breast feeding a child will likely lead to significantly better long-term outcomes than feeding formula. I'm a scientist. Not a medical scientist, but a hard science non-the-less. MDs are not (usually) scientists. They go off of what they believe the scientists are saying. But it's a game of telephone and you're now the fourth in the game (data -> researcher -> MD that is your teacher -> you). The studies I've seen (and I'm NOT an expert in the field or in the techniques used for these kinds of longitudinal, observational, social studies), mostly show very minor differences in long term outcomes. Honestly, the long term difference is probably much smaller than many other lifestyle choices you could make. Some sibling studies apparently have shown no significant difference in outcomes. Some try to control for socioeconomic status (how many people ever ask how they control for these things?) or various other factors, but these controls are not perfect. Perhaps most women want to breast feed, but some subset have underlying health conditions tied to not producing milk. Maybe that same underlying condition is present in their children, which causes worse outcomes and NOT the lack of breast milk per se. None of these studies can even account for stuff like that because most of them are self-reports and because underlying health conditions may never even be detected. It's very hard to do good science on humans. > And really the weight of proof rests on the baby formulas to prove that they're OK. I agree with that. I do think the proof is there, though. We've had at least of couple of generations of people who have grown up on formula and the studies that compare outcomes never show that formula fed babies grow into significantly worse-off adults. > Even common sense suggests breast feeding is better, it's been the way people have been growing up for millenia all around the world. One should never ever appeal to common sense when discussing something about science. Surely you remember that in Aristotle's time, even he considered it to be basically common sense that heavier objects would fall to Earth faster than light objects, right? Human brains are stupid. Common sense means nothing. It might mean less than nothing. And the sentiment of your statement is also debunked by a single contradictory example. There are many cases in which science/technology has done better for us than nature. Our own immune systems fall flat when presented with many illnesses until we introduce vaccines and medicine. It's entirely conceivable for use to create something that is even better for our bodies than nature has to offer. Nature, after all, is guided only by the selective pressure for us to barely make it to be old enough to procreate. That's all nature has optimized us for, at the end of the day.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

Sure, I think we can all acknowledge that medically speaking, breastfeeding is ideal. But if it’s not feasible, mothers shouldn’t feel guilty about it. There are all sorts of ways you can provide for your child.