BF descreases SIDS deaths but formula does not increase SIDS?!?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
BF descreases SIDS deaths but formula does not increase SIDS?!?
22
Wed, 06-08-2011 - 3:10pm

On the comment section of a news article about an anti-co-sleeping study published, someone commented about formula feeding increasing the risks of SIDS. Someone else countered the following: "There is no evidence that formula feeding increases the risk of SIDS. Just because breastfeeding may decrease it does not automatically mean that formula increases it.". Now many I'm missing something here but isn't that statement simply illogical. If BF'ing decrease the rate of SIDS then it does so in comparison to those babies are who not being BF'd which in the U.S. generally means they are FF'd. But if you look at it from the opposite POV then you could say the FF'ing increases the rate of SIDS compared to the rate of SIDS amoung BF'rs, in other words FF'rs have an increased risk of SIDS. It's seems to me that "BF'injg decrease the risk of SIDS" and "FF'ing increase the risks of SIDS are simply saying the same thing but from different norms or at least that is the way I logically interpret those statements. Is there something I'm missing here or do you agree that the statement "Just because breastfeeding may decrease it does not automatically mean that formula increases it." has a logical flaw in it?

Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-10-2008
I definitely agree with your assessment of that statement.
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-13-2008

Yours is the only logical conclusion to draw.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2010
teresagem wrote:

Yours is the only logical conclusion to draw.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005

For years I didn't understand why some people were all up in arms against the slogan "Breast is Best".





iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2010

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005

Yes, the baseline is whatever you're comparing it to, and that's the problem. People are equating the status quo (formula) with normal development, so they frame actual normal development (from breastmilk) as a benefit.





iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004

I can't believe it took me so long to understand that breastmilk doesn't decrease the risk of ANYTHING.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
While I agree that it's not *inaccurate* to say that breastfeeding decreases the risks of anything if you use formula as the norm, but I think it inappropriate to use formula as the norm. BF'ing should be used as the norm as it is how the majority of the world's mothers feed their children. When you use formula as the norm you create all sorts of problems in how people view BF'ing. There are many "problems" that BF'ing mothers run into that are not really problem simply different then what is normal with FF'ing. For example, normal growth patterns, feeding frequency, normal milk intake amounts, and normal baby stools, when judge based on FF babies will cause concern unnecessary concerns among BF mothers over milk supply levels, breast milk quality, and such. I also think that treating FF'ing as the norm harms mothers trying to BF becuase it cause medical proffesionals and others who would otherwise support BF'ing much more fully to view as "some little extra " that ultimately is note that important if you can't do. Thus they view any real effort try abd make BF'ing work as a waste of time. If they viewed BF'ing as the norm then FF'ign would more likely be viewed as only something you pushed when exhausted every effort to make exclusively BF'ing work. Switching to formula 100% would be something you do if you can't BF even just partially or if the mother finds combo-feeding just to make to handle. While it may not seem that big of a deal to some whether BF'ing or FF'ing is viewed the norm that all other infant feeding options are viewed against, I think it matters much more then you think. I can understand why some FF'rs, especially those doing purely by choice, like having FF'ing viewed as the norm, but I think overall it hurts the 80% of moms who try BF'ing in the U.S. as whole in various ways.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008

A 2003 study published in

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Goddess: if you look at the body of recent research not just a couple of studies on Wikipedia, bf/ff does consistently show a significant impact on SIDS rates. As they have refined the studies and better controlled for confounders, the increased risk for ff'ers stands out as it's own risk factor, in addition to race and SES.
"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

Pages