breastfeeding is not as beneficial as once thought

[AustinAmber]

I booted up today and saw this. Does anyone know anything about it? I don't even think it is a peer reviewed, published article and can't seem to find out any details about it like, who funded it. I haven't even read the whole thing yet, but just printed it out to do so.

[St. Margaret]

What a TERRIBLE article. Both the one researcher they kept quoting and the author (maybe this even more-- but was this just a press release from the researcher anyway?) used very loaded, biased language, regardless of any scientific information.

Sure, I believe that breastmilk makes NO difference, which is what this was saying! Yeah right.

[sweetpeppers]

I didn't read it, but whenever I see an article like that, I think, "how absurd!" You might as well write an article that says, "Fresh Fruits and vegetables are not as beneficial as once thought." And they do! That is why you don't get health information from the media.

Though I would like to see more studies where the diet/lifestyle of the breastfeeding mother is taken into account when they do these studies. You gotta figure someone who eats real food is going to have a healthier nursing babe than someone who lives on processed food, coffee and soda.

[Tofu the Geek]

Originally Posted by sweetpeppers

Though I would like to see more studies where the diet/lifestyle of the breastfeeding mother is taken into account when they do these studies. You gotta figure someone who eats real food is going to have a healthier nursing babe than someone who lives on processed food, coffee and soda.

I thought there was something around like this? And it showed that a healthy diet was of course better but that even the worst breastmilk was STILL better than formula? (barring breastmilk laden with illegal drugs and any other such thing that could harm the baby)

[crunchy_mommy]

I stopped reading when I got here:

If a mother is able to breastfeed, and does so, this ability is essentially proof that the baby has already had an optimal life inside the womb.

OK so if I had listed to all the 'advice' of the doctors & nurses the day after my son was born... and switched to formula... then that would be "proof" that he had a less than optimal womb experience & that's why he'd be in bad health???

But because I ignored the medical advice & chose to continue BF'ing, the fact that my DS has only been sick once, for one day, in his whole life, MUST be because he had a great life in the womb?!?!

That doesn't even make logical sense.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of the article.

[Tine]

Good grief, what crap. The article doesn't even have an author and doesn't link to the actual study, if there even is one. Whoever wrote it has a glaringly obvious bias against (or guilt about not) breastfeeding.

[naturalmummy]

absurd article! i just posted my thoughts to the "medical news" website. not sure if they will allow it to be posted since it is clearly calling out the lack of medical evidence and ridiculousness of their claim.
what makes me the most upset is that many people will read this article or even just the headlines and take it as fact and allow it to influence their decision on how to nourish their children. i thought we were beyond this debate and even the formula companies can't claim something that is so FAR from the TRUTH.

[AustinAmber]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy

I stopped reading when I got here:



OK so if I had listed to all the 'advice' of the doctors & nurses the day after my son was born... and switched to formula... then that would be "proof" that he had a less than optimal womb experience & that's why he'd be in bad health???

That's where I stopped reading too, it doesn't even make any sense. The sad thing is that someone might read this article and take it as the truth

[leaveit2beeker]

Medical News Today brings you hourly health news from well-regarded sources such as JAMA, BMJ, Lancet, BMA, plus articles written by our own team

And this 'team' at MediLexicon International consists of:

Catharine Paddock, PhD, Writer
Catharine has a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry with Physics and a PhD in Business Administration from the Manchester Business School at the University of Manchester, UK. She has also trained as a counsellor, specialising in cognitive behavioural and brief therapy. During 10 years in the computer and electronics industry in Germany and the UK, she worked as a technical writer, translator, editor and trainer of technical writers before moving into senior positions in quality assurance and human resource management. In 1991 she became a business writer and coach, working with individuals and groups in small and large businesses on issues ranging from general management to leadership, interpersonal skills, and emotional health. She also spent five years working with employee counselling organizations, running workshops, trauma debriefs and seeing clients in one to one therapy.

She may be a PhD, but I don't see a lick of medical background. As with the rest of the 'team'.

And the article is poorly written on top of it all! Ugh.

[calebsmommy25]

I am in absolute disbelief of this article. So appalling and offensive, I don't even know what to say.

[Claire and Boys]

So we know that for some women, hormone inbalances do cause problems breastfeeding. That isn't news. It makes sense that this would therefore cause poorer health outcomes for those infants.

Did they actually compare women that formula fed because of medical inability to breastfeed with women that formula fed by choice or for reasons such as work constraints and sabotage that would have otherwise been able to successfully breastfeed? Norway, where this study was conducted is a country whree 99% of women initiate breastfeeding, I wonder if this has influenced the researchers findings? If research found a correlation between poorer health outcomes of those babies whose mothers were physically unable to breastfeed, yet found little to no difference between exclusively breastfed babies and babies fed formula by choice, then that might possibly be a reasonable conclusion to make. This isn't at all clear from the study I read. It seems as if they found one correlation and just broadly applied that to all breastfeeding/formula feeding mothers - almost as if they were looking for said conclusion to start with and twisted the results to fit.

I wonder if there is any financial conflict of interest here.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

Did they actually compare women that formula fed because of medical inability to breastfeed with women that formula fed by choice or for reasons such as work constraints and sabotage that would have otherwise been able to successfully breastfeed?

Excellent point.

And I also have to wonder (due to how poorly the article was written) if the BF babies they studied were even EBF. I wonder if they actually had some formula in addition to BF'ing -- thus clouding the results some... Though if you say 99% of the country BF's then maybe I'm on the wrong track.

They also failed to account for the huge portion of moms that choose to FF before the baby is even born. Going back & reading more now 'cause I"m curious... The other thing I find appalling:

Breastfeeding is less common in younger women, smokers, women who have had preeclampsia or are overweight, or with lower birth weight or premature babies, or in women with PCOS, and when the child is a boy.

I can think of a million reasons besides testosterone/medical factors that would influence BF'ing rates in those populations!!

Oh and the best part:

The researcher believes it is time for nursing enthusiasts to calm down.

What kind of 'science' relies on such biased researchers?!?!

The real question is, what can we do to prevent other moms from believing this article? (Or any article or ad... OT but I got a pamphlet yesterday that said 1-year-olds should be getting most of their nutrition from solids & you shouldn't feed your child any peanut-containing product until age 7!!! How can they get away with making such claims?!?!?! And the poor moms that believe it...)

[MonkeysRUs]

The researcher S. Carlsen may have been quoted as saying that formula is as good as breastmilk, but that is certainly not what his research shows, or even what the research was about. If he was quoted correctly however, it certainly suggests a bias. After reading the original article, I can say that the newspaper articles are a good example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read, and why it's always important to go back to the original research.
The research was done to investigate a possible association between second trimester maternal androgen levels, and breastfeeding. Their conclusion was that maternal androgen levels in mid-pregnancy are negatively associated with breastfeeding. Considering the fact that Diana West and Lisa Marasco talk about the possible association between low milk production and maternal androgen levels in their book “Making More Milk”, this not a new idea. In the conclusion of the original article, the researchers admit that there are some weakness to their study, and then go on to say the following:

“Recent data from a well-conducted cluster randomized trial of breastfeeding seem to question many of the positive health effects for the child shown in observational studies. This raises the possibility that the statistical association between breastfeeding and offspring health depends on a common factor. We hypothesize that maternal gestational androgen levels may be this factor. If confirmed in future studies, one implication may be that the association between breastfeeding and offspring health is not purely an effect of breastfeeding, but is influenced by the intra-uterine endocrine milieu presented to the fetus.”

The randomized trial that they are referring to is the PROBIT trial, which was studying the effect of breastfeeding promotion, and both the intervention and the control group had (relatively) high breastfeeding levels. With a control group and an intervention group that include breastfed babies, naturally the results are bound to be weaker than if breastfed babies are being compared to formula fed babies, which was not the intent of the PROBIT trial. In other words, the researchers have a hypothesis based on a study that was not designed to look at the health of breastfed babies versus formula fed babies.

The newspaper articles suggest that the journalists either didn't read the actual research article, or they have no understanding of research. Either that or they're just looking to stir up controversy and sell more papers as usual. How sad that it is at the expense of mothers and babies.

[Latte Mama]

This article is offensive to me. Statements like "message to new mothers, relax" and "nursing enthusiasts calm down" are patronizing.

To state that formula is "just as good" as breast milk makes little to no sense! How can processed milk from another species be on par with fresh, live species specific milk?

They'll get plenty of people that will believe the nonsense in this article.

[Claire and Boys]

I think this is an excellent blog post responding to this study: http://www.breastfeedingmomsunite.co.../#comment-3436

[calebsmommy25]

Thanks for sharing the link to that blog.

[dollysods]

Part of my excerpt from a letter to our local newspaper reporting the study, hopefully may clarify things a bit. Keep your fingers crossed my letter gets published!!! It took me forever to track down the actual article. If you search in google for the journal name, eventually you will get a link to this months journal with a pdf of the article available. There were no disclosures of conflicts of interest--- funding appeared to be from the government according to my rapid review of the article this afternoon.

As a family physician, I was shocked and disappointed by your misleading reporting of Sven Carlsen's recent study regarding breasfeeding in your 1/7 article "Study: Breastmilk may not be best." Carlsen's research, as published in the January 2010 Acta Obstestricia and Gynecologia Scandinavica, was entitled "Mid-pregnancy androgen levels are negatively associated with breastfeeding" and was designed simply to test breastfeeding duration in relation to the level of testosterone levels present in the mother's blood during the second trimester of pregnancy. His findings, while medically interesting, in no way should be construed to state that formula and breastmilk are equivalent in terms of infant health as your reporting of his study implied. In fact, his research, as published, simply does not compare health outcomes of breastfed versus formula-fed babies. The health outcomes of breastfed babies that Carlsen has actually reviewed appear limited: in his reference section, he cites 3 different articles are all based on a single study, the PROBIT trial, looking at at cavities, childhood obesity, blood pressure, and child behavior in relation to breastfeeding. Any statements Dr. Carlsen has made to the press that "baby formula is as good as breast milk" are misinformed and matters of personal opinion.

[BabyBodi]

I am speechless.

[proudmomof4]

Dollysods's letter puts the study in a different context which makes a lot more sense given the high breastfeeding rates in Norway (as stated before).
For medical (or statistical?) dummies like me: "PROBIT" trial, anyone?

"The research was done to investigate a possible association between second trimester maternal androgen levels, and breastfeeding. Their conclusion was that maternal androgen levels in mid-pregnancy are negatively associated with breastfeeding. Considering the fact that Diana West and Lisa Marasco talk about the possible association between low milk production and maternal androgen levels in their book “Making More Milk”, this not a new idea." (MonkeysRUs)
... and sounds very logical to a non-med like me.

Quote:
Breastfeeding is less common in younger women, smokers, women who have had preeclampsia or are overweight, or with lower birth weight or premature babies, or in women with PCOS, and when the child is a boy.

"I can think of a million reasons besides testosterone/medical factors that would influence BF'ing rates in those populations!!" (crunchy_mommy)

Yes, definitely - like in listening to not-so-good advice from medical staff ("Your baby had a low birth weight, you should feed him formula so he can catch up." / "She sure is a big girl, you won't be able to make enough milk for her."), personal priorities ("I want to be able to smoke again."), feeling embarassed / insecure about own body, pressure from family and / or medical staff, being unprepared for breastfeeding ("Oh, I guess the nurses will show me."), pressure from partner ("Whose boobs are those anyway?")

No, I'm not gonna "calm down". See you girls at next month's meeting!

[AustinMom]

I don't even know where to start.....

"the baby's overall health is all determined before he or she is born." Ok, so then I can skip BF, and buying formula and just give him water right?

"the older a woman is, the more likely she is to breastfeed" this IMO is due to a very much so planned/wanted baby, and therefore, they want the best for their baby, so........they BF!!! Good choice "older women"!!

(talking about testosterone levels) "That is clearly why it is not as easy to breastfeed." Yeah, that and lack of support, lack of knowledge, lack of acceptance, and ARTICLES LIKE THESE!!!

"For the child, it looks as if increased exposure to testosterone as a foetus can lead to an increased incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes and polycystic ovary syndrome in girls." that is agreed by moms who got the "testosterone shot" didn't BF and non BFd babies have higher incidences of these....so, let's solve this with these poor mom who naturally have higher testosterone levels and get them to......yup you guessed it BREASTFEED!!!

"The researcher stresses that it is inappropriate to blame mothers who are unable to breastfeed as much as they are advised" No one BLAMES mothers who are UNABLE to BF, we blame the ones who choose not to for stupid reasons, like women who base their decision on articles like these

"the researchers say. For example, the Belarus study found no signs that asthma and allergies were less prevalent in children who were nursed for longer than children who were nursed less." Something they had in common THEY WERE ALL NURSED!!

"Breastfeeding should be out of politics" It's articles like these that PUT BF in politics.

"Baby formula is as good as breast milk" Ok, this is sad, he isn't pulling the formula company trick of "close to BM". GOOD AS???? Seriously, have you looked at the two?

"Carlsen believes that the strongest reason to encourage mothers to breastfeed is because of the environment. " OOOOOOOO, I would love for a LLL leader, Dr. Jack Newman, Ina May, etc to get hold of him after just this statement alone. Yes, I recycle and all, but BF is a health choice for all involved.