What SHOULD go into the decision (m)
Find a Conversation
What SHOULD go into the decision (m)
| Tue, 01-01-2008 - 6:33pm |
OK, I don't think anyone really denies that it is ultimately every mom's decision.
| Tue, 01-01-2008 - 6:33pm |
OK, I don't think anyone really denies that it is ultimately every mom's decision.
Pages
<<>>
Think about it this way. If you send your child outside to play in the snow without a coat, are they more or less likely to get sick? What does the coat have to do with it? Coats don't shield against viruses... but they do keep the body from losing too much heat and having to over-extend itself trying to keep warm AND fight off any illnesses that might attack it. Kids with coats still get sick, but the child without a coat is much more likely to because he is at a disadvantage.
Breastfeeding is just the body's normal defense system. Without it, a child's body has to work harder to protect itself and is going to be overwhelmed by viruses, infections, etc. more often because of this fact.
Formula doesn't CAUSE illness any more than going out without a coat does, but it does contribute to making a child more susceptible to them.
And FTR, my daughter was breastfed and got chronic ear infections for her first year, too. She had very small ear canals that did not drain properly. Breastfeeding could not make her ear canals bigger, but it DID give her a normal level of health to be able to fight the infections off. If she had been given formula, she still would have had small ear canals and infections, but she would have had a harder time fighting them off due to the lack of the normal immune-support breastmilk gives. (studies show that non-BF'ed kids not only get ear infections 3 times more often, but they last an average of 2-3 days longer than normal)
Sort of like a child who already has the sniffles going out to play without a coat vs. the same child with a coat. The coat doesn't make the sniffles go away, but going without one can definitely make them worse.
Stephanie
mom to six sensational kids!
>>If you send your child outside to play in the snow without a coat, are they more or less likely to get sick? What does the coat have to do with it? Coats don't shield against viruses... but they do keep the body from losing too much heat and having to over-extend itself trying to keep warm AND fight off any illnesses that might attack it. Kids with coats still get sick, but the child without a coat is much more likely to because he is at a disadvantage. <<
This is one of the best analogies I've heard, maybe even better than the exercise analogy. Kids who are formula fed are like kids without jacket, less likely to fight off whatever comes their way. And the coat/jacket parallels the gut lining which is also a protective coat. I'm liking it.
Yeah but when you look at a study that has taken thousands of children who were FFEd and compared them to thousands of BFed counterparts, that makes those who were genetically pre-disposed cancel out to a certain extent. You can never compare *two* kids (one BFed and one FFed) b/c yes, one could be genetically pre-disposed to something. But when you take thousands, and you see a *definite* trend, it is despite the fact that some in each group will be genetically predisposed.
Powered by CGISpy.com
And you know what...the whole otitis media (ear infections) thing is one thing that they *do* understand the higher levels in FFed infants pretty well (at least compared, let's say, to higher levels of leukaemia or something else).
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if milk is getting into the eustacean tubes, it is *better* if that milk has antibacterial properties to it. BM does...Formula does NOT. So if you take 2 identical twins with the exact same pre-disposition to ear troubles and give one BM in a bottle and one formula in a bottle fed in exactly the same position, it stands to reason that if they both get milk in their ears, the BM will do LESS DAMAGE since it does have anti-microbal properties.
Powered by CGISpy.com
I'm going to be a party pooper and say I don't really subscribe to this idea. Yes, being outside for *long periods of time*, particularily in a person who is used to being bundled up, if they are suddenly coat-less might have some impact on their ability to fight off germs. But I actually believe that the more you force yourself to withstand the chill a little bit, the healthier you are. I spent an entire winter in -40 temperatures running back and forth between a school and greenhouse in little more than a sweatshirt. Sometimes I had to wait outside 5 min. before the teacher came to open the greenhouse. And THEN, it was stifling hot in the greenhouse...sauna-like. Talk about temperature extremes! Anecdotal, I realize, but I was never healthier than that winter. The next year, I was indoors all winter, bundled up...and I wasn't even working! I did go out sometimes, say to the mall (probably where I caught the bugs I did catch) but mostly I was at my house. Never sicker. I had laryngitis, bronchitis, *2* gastro bugs...
Again, I know it's totally anecdotal but I honestly don't subscribe to the coatless=less defense towards bug theory, personally. ;-)
Powered by CGISpy.com
<<>>
LOL I have to say, my kids usually go out less well bundled up than their peers, but I also keep my house cooler than average, too. I agree that over-protection is not much better than extreme exposure, but playing in the snow without a coat on is not particularly smart, either. We aren't talking about MORE than normal protection... long underwear, sweater, snowsuit, scarf, hat, etc.... just a normal coat. Formula is less than normal protection... more like going out in a t-shirt and jeans and no coat in the winter. My son does this all the time, and he rarely gets sick... but then many formula fed children are like that, too, and rarely get sick. It's got more to do with genetics than protective layers. :-)
Lots of kids play outside without coats and don't get sick, but if a child is already susceptible to getting sick, then going without a coat is not the best idea. It certainly isn't going to improve a child's health if they are already sick. My 3rd son had breathing problems at birth and is more susceptible to chest colds than the others. It would be unwise to send him out without at least a jacket. Unfortunately, they don't come labeled at birth to know which ones you should dress warmly and which you can let run naked. LOL
>>Besides ignorant militant pro-BFers, who considers FFing a "poor" diet? In comparison to BM, formula is a poorer choice, but not a poor diet at all! You can quote all the studies you want, but where exactly are all the kids who are FFd and b/c of this, are malnourished , under-fed, and overall unhealthy? I don't see any, nor do I see any studies that have shown this to be true.<<
Here is a photo of one of those malnourished, under-fed, and overall unhealthy children. CAUTION: This is the photo of the Pakistani twins and it is not for the faint of heart.
http://heartlandoflove.org.uk/heartland_080.htm
I’m sure there are those who will dismiss the photo on the developing nation rationale. But what about the 720 US babies who die each year, what about the ones who end out with Type 1 diabetes or leukemia? What about the ones who are so ill they require hospitalization?
The AAP has looked into the differences between breast and formula fed infants and has found the results “compelling”. IMO, that is a strong word. It isn’t too much of a stretch to say that since formula is compellingly lesser than breastfeeding, it is “poor”. That’s a far cry from ignorant or militant.
IMO, formula isn’t bad (formula marketing strategies are evil), but it isn’t good either. Infant formula is the only recommended substitute for breastfeeding and in some cases it is literally a life saver.
There is at least some evidence to support the cold/wet susceptibility to colds.
>>Can getting cold or wet gives a child a cold? No
Only a virus can cause a cold. Extreme cold or considerable time in wet clothing can lower a
child's resistance to viruses in the air around them making them more susceptible to the cold.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:xQq-UGE5IiEJ:www.continuingeducation.com/pharmtech/Pediatric_Cold_and_Flu/pediatriccoldflu.pdf+cdc+%22cold+virus%22+%22cold+temperature%22+susceptible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
<<
I bet your anecdotal evidence shows that fresh air is more important than temperature!
<>
It would be foolish...if that's what the studies state. However, that's NOT what they're saying. BF or FF, some kids will get ear infections. But by and large, the FF kids will get *more* ear infections than their BF peers. Anecdotally, you, I, and everyone we know knows a kid who was breastfed and had to get ear tubes inserted. But what does that prove? No one is saying that BF prevents ear infections.
What the studies DO say is that if you take a large group of kids and divide them in two, the breastfed kids will have less EI overall. So, the question is, what is the reason for this discrepency? Were the FF kids exposed to more second hand smoke than the BF kids? Pretty unlikely when you're looking at a large pool. Were the FF kids more likely to get water in their ears at bath time? Again, pretty unlikely. There's nothing inherent in formula feeding that exposes a child to second hand smoke or more water in the ears during bathtime. So what *is* the common denominator? Formula!
While it's true that some FF kids will be exposed to second hand smoke and get their ears wet, there's nothing that's preventing those exact same things to happen to BF kids, yet they still come out with less ear infections. I find it foolish to think these "unknowns" account for the discrepencies when the real cause (ie, feeding choice) is quite clear and has been demonstrated in multiple studies which have stood up to scrutiny.
<>
BINGO!
Pages