What are your thoughts on this interesting question? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 200 Old 11-07-2008, 06:05 PM
 
2xshy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: montreal
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
this was asked a while ago, there is a poll somewhere on here...

That said I would nurse.
the breastfeeding relationship I have with my daughter has been tremendously important to my growing into the kind of mother I am and I wouldn't trade that for anything. I honestly think (for me personally) that the being needed 24h a day 7 days a week for nourishment with out reprieve in the beginning was so hard on me but I really needed it. I feel if i could have given her a bottle or had someone else take her because she took bottles I would have connected less with her and would have taken more time away from her. Obviously this isn't the case for everyone but establishing this relationship was one of the hardest things I have ever done and it really has taught me so very very much.

: feminist mama to DD 04/08
2xshy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#122 of 200 Old 11-07-2008, 11:04 PM
 
bri276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Babies that are given bottles have distinct beginnings and endings to their feeds...babies that nurse can do so much more "continuously"...sometimes nursing actively, sometimes passively, sometimes popping on for just a little sip, sometimes a long leisurely meal, sometimes taking a lot of milk quickly, sometimes not. It is so much more of a flowing process.
Again, being aware of the difference and trying to apply it while bottle-nursing can make a vast difference. My DD definitely bottlefed like a breastfed baby. When she was born, she might take a few sips and then stop and then 10 minutes later take more. It could take her 45 minutes to finish a couple of ounces because she couldn't use a traditional nipple, and definitely ate continuously vs. every three or four hours or something. Your statements reflect what a lot of mdc breastfeeding mothes tend to think of as bottlefeeding, when they have never actually done it, or never witnessed anyone trying to do it in a way that mimics breastfeeding from the tap as closely as possible.

Quote:
I do remember hearing that when a baby suckles at the breast, the mother's body will make antibodies to germs found in the baby's saliva. That isn't something that will happen if a baby doesn't actually nurse...that baby just gets antibodies to things the mother is exposed to, however the actual process of breastFEEDING can stimulate the mother to produce antibodies to things the baby is exposed to.
Easily remedied. Babies drool plenty (at least mine did!). You take a swab off their chin and stick it on your nipple before pumping or anytime throughout the day. I did this consistently because I was aware of the benefit. My DD was almost never sick until a year after I stopped pumping.

As far as the other benefits you quoted about diabetes, cancer, etc. I think if you read the research you'd find pretty clearly that these are indeed due to breastMILK vs. what type of nipple it's coming out of. The hormones and nutritional content are left intact in fresh breastmilk when it is expressed into a bottle. And as you yourself stated, these studies are not specifying whether the baby gets bottles of breastmilk or not; from the vast majority of breastfeeding mothers I know, I'd be totally shocked if they were able to find enough mothers to base a study off of who never gave bottles of breastmilk.

DD1 7/13/05 DD2 9/20/10
bri276 is offline  
#123 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 01:18 AM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE][As far as the other benefits you quoted about diabetes, cancer, etc. I think if you read the research you'd find pretty clearly that these are indeed due to breastMILK vs. what type of nipple it's coming out of. The hormones and nutritional content are left intact in fresh breastmilk when it is expressed into a bottle. And as you yourself stated, these studies are not specifying whether the baby gets bottles of breastmilk or not; from the vast majority of breastfeeding mothers I know, I'd be totally shocked if they were able to find enough mothers to base a study off of who never gave bottles of breastmilk. /QUOTE]


Actually, in order to really study breastmilk vs. formula in the manner you suggested, there would have to be a study comparing mothers who NEVER nursed and ONLY fed breastmilk in bottles, vs. those who only fed formula in bottles. I would be shocked if they could actually find enough mothers who EP and NEVER nursed to do such a study. Plus, it is considered unethical to deny a baby breastfeeding, so all breastfeeding studies are done from statistical analysis of records and retroactively. It is quite difficult.

Properly done research tries to account for all the variables. That is why drug studies use a placebo, and not "nothing" as the control. If a researcher is doing research on an injectible drug, they will study participants who were injected with the drug, vs those who were injected with a placebo or control solution (not those who didn't recieve any injection). This is to take into account the effect of the injection itself as well as the effects of the subject KNOWING they got the drug. They need to make sure that the results are from the drug, and NOT from the injection.

In breastfeeding research, there are often all types of confounding factors such as race and socio-economic class that need to be adjusted for.

One of those "confounding factors" is the fact that formula is generally given in bottles and breastmilk is given from the infant suckling at the breast. The studies just aren't designed to separate out the effects of the actual milk from feeding method. Of course, you can say it "makes sense" that it is due to the milk..and that may be true. Just like it "makes sense" that a fever after an injection of X drug is due to the drug and not the injection, however without a "control" (injection with no drug)...that result can not be reached. And, since there is no "control for method of delivary" in breastmilk studies, we can't reach the conclusion that the results are likely due to the milk ONLY and that method of delivary plays no role.

Also, in order to study breastmilk, it needs to be removed from the breast. Therefore, it is quite tricky to actually do analysis and determine if the all the nutritional properties are the same on the outside as on the inside. I know there have been u/s studies showing that as the baby suckles, fat droplets are actually released into the milk *as the actual nursing takes place*.

There is no doubt that breastmilk is powerful stuff and VASTLY superior to formula, and if one CAN'T breastfeed, then EP and bottle-feeding is a wonderful thing. And, of course bottle-nursing is a wonderful, loving thing a mother can do. No one is denying that and the idea of swabbing the baby's saliva on mother's nipple is ingenious. I would venture to guess however, that most mothers who EP don't do that, and odn't do the "bottle-nursing" method you mention I greatly admire anyone who takes the time to bottle nurse and EP...that is a wonderful thing to do :

My point is (as I think was Diane Weissingers) that much effort should be made on getting a baby (with latching difficulties) actually suckling on the breast, rather than just focusing on breastmilk. And certainly mothers who are away from their babies (due to work/school), etc. could make the effort to actually nurse when they ARE with their babies, and their babies will reap the benefits of breastMILK while away from them, and ALL the benefits of breastfeeding while with them.

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#124 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 01:34 AM
 
lactivistmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Posts: 456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is a very interesting thread! I would definately choose the breastmik in a bottle. and with my 1st dd. I EP'ed for 10 months..(my only other choice at the time was formula). She refused to breastfeed and I didn't have the support/resources at the time to get her back on the breast, so I pumped until she was 15 months old. I was exhausted, but I did it..

"If we are to heal the planet, we must begin by healing birthing."
~Agnes Sallet Von Tannenberg
lactivistmama is offline  
#125 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 04:08 AM
 
bri276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Actually, in order to really study breastmilk vs. formula in the manner you suggested, there would have to be a study comparing mothers who NEVER nursed and ONLY fed breastmilk in bottles, vs. those who only fed formula in bottles. I would be shocked if they could actually find enough mothers who EP and NEVER nursed to do such a study.
Italics mine- I didn't meant to suggest any manner, just fyi, I don't know if you took my post the wrong way. My parents are both physicians and I have a child with special needs. I spend more of my free time than I'd care to admit reading and researching medical studies, so I'm not unaware of the difficulty in studies like these. But again, I think it's more than likely that many of the "exclusively breastfed" babies in studies comparing formula to breastmilk are exclusively breastMILK fed, but not exclusively breastfed from the tap. It would be difficult, with nearly half of mothers working, and many more than that choosing to leave their infants with sitters from time to time, to find a group of hundreds of breastfeeding women who never fed a bottle of breastmilk- that was my only point. Once again, as in the case of vaccines, I wish "they" knew about mdc because we have plenty of willing participants that fit criteria most of the general public does not!

DD1 7/13/05 DD2 9/20/10
bri276 is offline  
#126 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 08:09 AM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ah..I see what you are saying. A mother who both breastfeeds and pumps/bottles still has a baby who is getting benefits from actual breast suckling, so the breast suckling would still be a confounding factor in any research. My point is, we really don't know what (if any) factors/benefits are lost when milk is pumped and fed in bottles, instead of an infant actually suckling. It is such a new (and fascinating ) field of research.

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#127 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 11:40 AM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wouldn't a population of EPing moms help remove the confounding factor of sucking? Or identify if there are the same benefits if the baby only nurses at the tap for a week or whatever?

Also, I know of several women who had to EP with their first and then were able to easily nurse at the tap with their second child.
sapphire_chan is offline  
#128 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 12:10 PM
 
Draupadi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Breastmilk from a bottle.
Bottlefeeding mothers bond with their babies, don't they?
While I love breastfeeding and cuddling with my DS, it's the milk that's the important thing- not the breast.
When we wean, do we still snuggle and cuddle and hug our children? Of course, we do!

Sheila, mother to William and Min Hee, wife of David
Draupadi is offline  
#129 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 12:42 PM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Wouldn't a population of EPing moms help remove the confounding factor of sucking?
As far as I know, there haven't been any studies done using a population of EPing moms. Such a population would be quite hard to come by, IMO.

I have known 2 people IRL that EPed..and countless mothes who have EBF (w/o bottles). EPing is very, very time consuming and expensive (renting a hospital-grade pump). From talking to moms who have pumped (for short periods of time), it was pretty much an all-consuming process between pumping, cleaning the pump, preparing bottles, cleaning bottles, feeding baby.

The research hasn't been done, so we just DON'T KNOW.

It wasn't long ago that people said formula was just as good as breastmilk.

While we now know that isn't true, there seems to be a trend where the MILK is the important thing and people are saying that breastmilk in a bottle is just as good.

The point is, we don't know that. The research hasn't been done. And, there IS research showing benefits to actual suckling at the breast (proper jaw development, proper eye coordination, hormones released (in both mom and baby) from infant suckling, the fact that fat droplets are released into the milk *while suckling occurs*. The breastfeeding part is about so much MORE than just bonding. If you are talking about the mother, fertility suppression is due to actual suckling....pumping will generally not supress fertility to the same extent that nursing does. I believe that fertility supression is a vital part of the way that breastfeeding protects against breast cancer.

Focusing on breastMILK instead of breastFEEDING is detrimental to babies and mothers, IMO.

Yes, bottles and pumping do have their place and are valuable tools IF necessary. Just like formula is a valuable tool, IF necessary. And obviously breastmilk in a bottle is vastly preferred over formula in a bottle.

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#130 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 01:40 PM
 
loraxc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In the Truffula Trees
Posts: 4,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As a former EP'er who has had dysfunctional and painful nursing relationships with both children, breastmilk from a bottle, all the way.

I find the whole discussion a little hurtful, actually.

ETA, on this:

Quote:
If you are talking about the mother, fertility suppression is due to actual suckling....pumping will generally not supress fertility to the same extent that nursing does.
Not true for me. I EP'ed till 15 months and my periods did not return until I completely weaned from the pump.

Quote:
Hearing that a LLL-endorsed speaker would rather feed her baby formula than bottlefeed really does pack a bit of a wallop for those of us who don't have much of a choice about bottlefeeding and already have enough guilt floating around from those who think daycare, or even a stay at home parent (other than the baby's mama) is inferior for the baby.

While it can raise some interesting questions as have been discussed here, I do think it's important to point out that there are no women with formula-filled breasts who will be or are affected by this question or the LLL speaker's position on it. However, there are an awful lot of pumping, bottle-feeding mamas who can't help but notice that the LLL speaker is giving the thumbs-down to bottlefeeding breastmilk.
Excellent points; you really nail it here, I think.

grateful mother to DD, 1/04, and DS, 2/08

loraxc is offline  
#131 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 02:14 PM
 
loraxc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In the Truffula Trees
Posts: 4,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Turns out I have more to say.

The other thing that bothers me about the "formula in a breast" response is the way it embodies the "can't happen to me" mindset in terms of your baby's health. Such a reponse basically assumes that your baby can handle being FF and that there is no chance he or she won't develop health issues down the road that might make you look back and terribly regret FF. My first kid turns out to have asthma--it is expensive, scary, dangerous, and upsetting for all of us. Her health was actually great when she was a baby; she didn't develop the asthma till about 3. I feel bad enough about weaning at 15 months, but I can't imagine how bad I'd feel if I'd hypothetically chosen formula in a breast for bonding or jaw development or whatever and then had to wonder if I'd chosen that over, potentially, her actual LIFE and HEALTH.

grateful mother to DD, 1/04, and DS, 2/08

loraxc is offline  
#132 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 02:30 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xshy View Post
this was asked a while ago, there is a poll somewhere on here...

That said I would nurse.
the breastfeeding relationship I have with my daughter has been tremendously important to my growing into the kind of mother I am and I wouldn't trade that for anything. I honestly think (for me personally) that the being needed 24h a day 7 days a week for nourishment with out reprieve in the beginning was so hard on me but I really needed it. I feel if i could have given her a bottle or had someone else take her because she took bottles I would have connected less with her and would have taken more time away from her. Obviously this isn't the case for everyone but establishing this relationship was one of the hardest things I have ever done and it really has taught me so very very much.
I agree with this totally. I was not a particularly maternal person before children. In fact, most of my family was shocked that I decided to have children LOL! The nursing relationship really did more for me along the path of becoming a mother, IMO, than any other form of infant feeding.

I also think that we tend to perceive those mothers who nurse as "lucky." Nursing is not always easy with no one ever there to take over a feeding, to give mom an extra hour or so of sleep at night, etc. I'm not saying that EBF is easy, but neither is BFing. I have the utmost respect for mothers who make EBF a reality or their children. If I were working, I don't know how long I would have been able to give my girls BM. So, major kudos to pumping moms!

Wherever each of us stands on this issue, we should at least be able to appreciate and consider the other side and not bash those who chose differently, or take offense because not everyone agrees.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#133 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 05:32 PM
 
bri276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
hormones released (in both mom and baby) from infant suckling, the fact that fat droplets are released into the milk *while suckling occurs*.
The hormones are released while pumping. I could FEEL it...huge hormone surge. I'm not sure why fat droplets wouldn't be released due to a pump sucking vs. a baby. My milk had lots of fat as evidenced by the thick layer of it on the top of the milk if it was in the fridge for a while (and my very fat baby, lol). Are you saying pumped milk has less fat?

Quote:
If you are talking about the mother, fertility suppression is due to actual suckling....pumping will generally not supress fertility to the same extent that nursing does.
I don't know why you think this. I didn't get a postpartum period for 17 months, and didn't begin to actually ovulate until well after that (I get serious ovulation pain so I can tell). I get the feeling you think the body can differentiate between an infant or a machine suckling at it to a huge extent...if it were so incredibly different, the milk wouldn't be produced.

Again, I would never advise EP'ing when there's a choice. it's a huge PITA. But it's also well, well worth it!!

DD1 7/13/05 DD2 9/20/10
bri276 is offline  
#134 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 06:20 PM
 
Sandstress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post
I do remember hearing that when a baby suckles at the breast, the mother's body will make antibodies to germs found in the baby's saliva. That isn't something that will happen if a baby doesn't actually nurse...that baby just gets antibodies to things the mother is exposed to, however the actual process of breastFEEDING can stimulate the mother to produce antibodies to things the baby is exposed to.
No, this is inaccurate. The baby's germs stimulate mom's immune system to make antibodies even if there's no mouth-nipple contact. There are no special "immune sensors" in the breast. The transfer of baby's germs works when baby drools, sneezes, kisses, etc.
Sandstress is offline  
#135 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 06:29 PM
 
Romana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandstress View Post
No, this is inaccurate. The baby's germs stimulate mom's immune system to make antibodies even if there's no mouth-nipple contact. There are no special "immune sensors" in the breast. The transfer of baby's germs works when baby drools, sneezes, kisses, etc.
This is my understanding as well. It's one of the reasons we're so driven to kiss our babies - it has a true biological function in exposing us to the germs our babies have, so we can produce antibodies in our milk and help the baby's immune system.

I also agree that while pumping, you get the same hormone surge. Same letdown. Same fatty milk. You can feel it.

While I got AF back pretty early with dd because she really didn't night nurse at all, I still pumped until she was 14 mos old. It wasn't until I stopped pumping that I was able to get pregnant again (and it happened the first cycle after I stopped pumping during the day). I think it's very likely it was suppressing ovulation.

I think if you're regular about pumping and do it in a way that rather mimicks a fed-on-demand baby that it probably is as effective as EBF without pumping. The reason it might not be, generally speaking, is that many women don't make sure they pump often or long enough, or they do some formula feeds as well as pumping because it can be difficult to maintain supply if you're not pretty diligent about pumping a lot.
Romana is offline  
#136 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 08:02 PM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I'm not sure why fat droplets wouldn't be released due to a pump sucking vs. a baby. My milk had lots of fat as evidenced by the thick layer of it on the top of the milk if it was in the fridge for a while (and my very fat baby, lol). Are you saying pumped milk has less fat?
No, I was simply stating that when a baby nurses, it gets the *changing* milk *as* the change occurs.


Quote:
No, this is inaccurate. The baby's germs stimulate mom's immune system to make antibodies even if there's no mouth-nipple contact. There are no special "immune sensors" in the breast. The transfer of baby's germs works when baby drools, sneezes, kisses, etc
mouth to nipple contant gives much longer and more intense exposure to germs than just kissing, sneezing and drooling would. Germs need a point of entrance into our body for us to make antibodies to them. That is why washing hands is so important in preventing the spread of illness. The most common points of entrance are the mouth and nose. Since the nipple secretes milk, it would make sense to me that it is also a "point of entrance". If milk can get out, then germs can get in. It's not something you think about normally, since normally it isn't exposed to other people's sneezes and coughs, yk,

Unless a baby is drooling or sneezing into your mouth or nose, or you frequently kiss your baby on the lips...I don't think there will be the same transfer of germs.

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#137 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 08:40 PM
 
Sandstress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post
No, I was simply stating that when a baby nurses, it gets the *changing* milk *as* the change occurs.
I don't know why this would be important.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post
mouth to nipple contant gives much longer and more intense exposure to germs than just kissing, sneezing and drooling would. Germs need a point of entrance into our body for us to make antibodies to them. That is why washing hands is so important in preventing the spread of illness. The most common points of entrance are the mouth and nose. Since the nipple secretes milk, it would make sense to me that it is also a "point of entrance". If milk can get out, then germs can get in. It's not something you think about normally, since normally it isn't exposed to other people's sneezes and coughs, yk,

Unless a baby is drooling or sneezing into your mouth or nose, or you frequently kiss your baby on the lips...I don't think there will be the same transfer of germs.

The breast per se isn't an immune organ. It excretes the fluid that contains the cells and antibodies. The "germs" are received and processed in the upper aerodigestive tract, where there is lymphoid tissue naturally. There is no lymphoid tissue in the breast, and the skin of the nipple and areola contains as many specialized antigen presenting cells as any other part of the skin (except probably parts like the foreskin, but that's another discussion).

There are a million and one reasons to nurse instead of bottle feed EBM, but this just isn't one of them.
Sandstress is offline  
#138 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 08:50 PM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I don't know why this would be important
might be a factor in obesity prevention, learning satiety, comfort sucking without necessarily getting the fattier milk, oral satisfaction, etc.

What makes you think it wouldn't be important?

Who are we to say that ANY part of breastfeeding is not important?

Research is always coming out with studies showing how things that we thought *didn't* matter, do in fact make a difference.

There are just so many things we don't know. The biological norm is for babies to be fed at the breast. I am just flabbergasted that people are arguing that the "at the breast" part doesn't matter.

AGAIN...this isn't any putdown against moms who put breastmilk in bottles. That is a wonderful thing a mother can do for her baby, and I greatly admire that. Mothers who do so are certainly doing a lot to contribute to their baby's health and wellbeing.

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#139 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 08:53 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Um, silly question again, how would breastfeeding formula as in the hypothetical choice of the impossible give antibodies, fatty milk as the baby nurses, etc?
sapphire_chan is offline  
#140 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 09:03 PM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wasn't talking about breastfeeding formula (or the question, anymore). Obviously that is impossible. I mean, if breasts made formula that formula would be breastmilk, yk.

I am merely making the point that the "at the breast" part is an important part of breastfeeding. It's not just "all about the milk:

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#141 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 09:16 PM
 
Sandstress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post
might be a factor in obesity prevention, learning satiety, comfort sucking without necessarily getting the fattier milk, oral satisfaction, etc.

What makes you think it wouldn't be important?

Who are we to say that ANY part of breastfeeding is not important?

Research is always coming out with studies showing how things that we thought *didn't* matter, do in fact make a difference.

There are just so many things we don't know. The biological norm is for babies to be fed at the breast. I am just flabbergasted that people are arguing that the "at the breast" part doesn't matter.

AGAIN...this isn't any putdown against moms who put breastmilk in bottles. That is a wonderful thing a mother can do for her baby, and I greatly admire that. Mothers who do so are certainly doing a lot to contribute to their baby's health and wellbeing.
I'm not sure I've read anyone say that the " 'at the breast' part doesn't matter."

But for a person in a position of influence (LLL) to say something like nursing with formula is better than bottlefeeding with breastmilk is insane.

And...I'm really going out on a limb here... for the overall health and well being of the baby then yes, the substance of breastmilk itself is the most important thing. No matter how it's delivered.
Sandstress is offline  
#142 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 09:17 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post
I wasn't talking about breastfeeding formula (or the question, anymore). Obviously that is impossible. I mean, if breasts made formula that formula would be breastmilk, yk.

I am merely making the point that the "at the breast" part is an important part of breastfeeding. It's not just "all about the milk:
Sorry! I jumped too suddenly back to the original topic. I do get what you're saying. I just thought that it was interesting in the context of the theoretical choice.
sapphire_chan is offline  
#143 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 09:41 PM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE][But for a person in a position of influence (LLL) to say something like nursing with formula is better than bottlefeeding with breastmilk is insane/QUOTE]

I don't think she was really saying that...I mean the whole question was nonsense anyway. If formula came from breasts, than formula would be breastmilk, yk.

I think her point is that the "at breast" part is important and that people who work with breastfeeding mothers need to be careful not to get too caught up in the milk part, at the exclusion of the breast part. I have read that there is a growing trend towards EPing (in cases where it isn't necessary).

I could see scenarios where a mother with sore nipples or a sleepy baby, or a jaundiced baby, or severe engorgement, etc. decides to just pump and bottle-feed instead of working through the issues to actually nurse. Of course, obviously pumping is better than just weaning and going to formula, but we do need to acknowledge that some of the benefits are lost when the milk isn't taken straight from the breast.

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#144 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 09:58 PM
 
Sandstress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=ameliabedelia;12569569]
Quote:
[But for a person in a position of influence (LLL) to say something like nursing with formula is better than bottlefeeding with breastmilk is insane/QUOTE]

I don't think she was really saying that...I mean the whole question was nonsense anyway. If formula came from breasts, than formula would be breastmilk, yk.

I think her point is that the "at breast" part is important and that people who work with breastfeeding mothers need to be careful not to get too caught up in the milk part, at the exclusion of the breast part. I have read that there is a growing trend towards EPing (in cases where it isn't necessary).

I could see scenarios where a mother with sore nipples or a sleepy baby, or a jaundiced baby, or severe engorgement, etc. decides to just pump and bottle-feed instead of working through the issues to actually nurse. Of course, obviously pumping is better than just weaning and going to formula, but we do need to acknowledge that some of the benefits are lost when the milk isn't taken straight from the breast.
Nursing at the breast is important. People who are in a position to help mothers do need to acknowledge that. But if they're working in that field (LC, nurse, etc) then they need to stick to provable facts as well. When the benefits of nursing are things like lower need for braces later in life then maybe that should take a back seat to things like allergies and complications of prematurity. Maybe the trend in EPing is only that people are realizing that it's possible and feasible- not that they're choosing it over nursing.
Sandstress is offline  
#145 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 10:16 PM
 
bri276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
IMO there will never be a triend towards EP'ing that would significantly decrease the occurance of nursing at the breast. A very strict, time consuming schedule is necessary to even establish and maintain supply. This is incredibly difficult while caring for one infant, let alone for mothers who have more than one child. I think the main message to give to mothers who think it might be more convenient to EP is not that their breastmilk won't be as good for their babies (because there's simply no reliable scientific evidence that supports that idea), or that bottles will ruin their relationship with their baby, but that breastfeeding- once they get past any initial difficulties- is easier all around, and that pumping alone may never supply adequate milk to their infant. Low supply is a huge problem for many more EP'ing mothers- the pump just doesn't always do a great job at "demanding the right supply".

Quote:
Of course, obviously pumping is better than just weaning and going to formula, but we do need to acknowledge that some of the benefits are lost when the milk isn't taken straight from the breast.
Yes, bottlefeeding is bottlefeeding, and will always affect oral development (until a perfect model of a fake breast is created, lol). But no one has proven that breastmilk loses nutritional, immunological, hormonal, or any other benefits to a statistically significant degree, or that it negatively impacts the mother/child bond in and of itself. Sending that message out with no evidence does more harm than good. Half of mothers work or go to school, or both, and have to pump at least occasionally. If people begin to imply the breast is actually more important than the milk, with no evidence to support this, and plenty to support the other side, how many mothers would just go buy formula instead? It's not black and white. It's not all about the milk, or all about the breast. It's all about what's best for the baby, which is breastmilk no matter which way it's delivered.

DD1 7/13/05 DD2 9/20/10
bri276 is offline  
#146 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 10:28 PM
 
Romana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bri276 View Post
Yes, bottlefeeding is bottlefeeding, and will always affect oral development (until a perfect model of a fake breast is created, lol). But no one has proven that breastmilk loses nutritional, immunological, hormonal, or any other benefits to a statistically significant degree, or that it negatively impacts the mother/child bond in and of itself. Sending that message out with no evidence does more harm than good. Half of mothers work or go to school, or both, and have to pump at least occasionally. If people begin to imply the breast is actually more important than the milk, with no evidence to support this, and plenty to support the other side, how many mothers would just go buy formula instead? It's not black and white. It's not all about the milk, or all about the breast. It's all about what's best for the baby, which is breastmilk no matter which way it's delivered.
I really agree with this perspective.
Romana is offline  
#147 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 10:46 PM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I never meant that the breast was more important than the milk....obviously the milk is very important...that's why we are talking about antibodies and fat content of milk. I don't think anyone is saying the breast is more important than the milk.

Quote:
It's all about what's best for the baby, which is breastmilk no matter which way it's delivered.
No, what's best for baby is breastFEEDING. Breastmilk is obviously a part of that. In cases were breastfeeding is not possible (for whatever reason, be that a baby with special needs who is unable to nurse or a mother that has to work) than breastmilk in a bottle is by far the preferred alternative. Obviously what is best, is not always possible (or even preferable in a specific circumstance..it is obviously preferable for a baby to have a home and breastmilk in a bottle than to be homeless and nursed, yk).

It's hard to explain without sounding like mothers that don't just nurse are somehow bad mothers. I promise, that is NOT what I mean. Life isn't perfect...we don't all live in a perfect world. If mother has to work/school and pump, that is okay. Giving breastmilk in a bottle is best *for that particular mother/baby pair* due to that family's circumstances. I know, I oftentimes am unable to live up to the "ideal". That is okay. We do the best with what we have given the circumstances we live in.

Quote:
But no one has proven that breastmilk loses nutritional, immunological, hormonal, or any other benefits to a statistically significant degree, or that it negatively impacts the mother/child bond in and of itself
Has anyone proven that it doesn't?? Since it's an unknown, which side do you err on? I prefer to err on the side of the biological norm.....

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#148 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 11:10 PM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
IMO there will never be a triend towards EP'ing that would significantly decrease the occurance of nursing at the breast
Well, there definitely IS a trend to bring out the breastpump and bottles when breastfeeding gets tough (due to sore nipples, engorgement, sleepy baby, low weight gain, etc.) I have heard many mothers say things like "my nipples got really sore and were bleeding so I started pumping and feeding bottles and now I can't get my baby to latch on". So, no they aren't thinking from the very beginning, "oh, I am just going to EP" but the fact that they did bring out the pump/bottles early on can/does create more problems and may lead to a premature end to the nursing relationship. Of course, in some cases that pump/bottles was necessary, but in other cases it wasn't and did more harm than good. Since, as you said, very few mothers can actually keep up an EPing relationship..it takes a HUGE amount of time and dedication to do so.

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
#149 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 11:27 PM
 
Sandstress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ameliabedelia View Post



No, what's best for baby is breastFEEDING. Breastmilk is obviously a part of that.

Has anyone proven that it doesn't?? Since it's an unknown, which side do you err on? I prefer to err on the side of the biological norm.....
1. EPing moms ARE breastfeeding moms. What else would you call it? My DD drank BREASTMILK exclusively for most of her first year. She was exclusively breastfed. To say otherwise is intentionally hurtful, in my opinion.

2. There are many studies about the collection, storage, and delivery of breastmilk, and how it affects the immune elements and overall quality.
Sandstress is offline  
#150 of 200 Old 11-08-2008, 11:49 PM
 
ameliabedelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I am
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1).
I'm sorry, it's not meant to be hurtful. Breastfeeding means being fed at the breast. The dictionary definition is:

breast-feed   /ˈbrɛstˌfid/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [brest-feed] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -fed, -feed⋅ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to nurse (a baby) at the breast; suckle.
–verb (used without object) 2. (of a baby) to nurse.
3. to nurse a baby.


I would call putting pumped milk in a bottle, breastmilk-feeding or bottle feeding breastmilk.

Homeschooling mom to 4 joy.gif

 

My Home Remedies Website treehugger.gif

ameliabedelia is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off