>>It seems to me the correlation between alcohol and physical or developmental problems is much higher than with formula and diseases or illness.
Agree/disagree?<<
I disagree. While it's technically the "lack of breastfeeding" rather than the formula itself that's problematic, it's still directly correlated to disease.
<<< And *he* would know...how? that pushing hurts big time? That's like..."does squeezing your balls hurt?". And me saying "oh yeah, big time". *eyeroll*.
Heresay.
That's all it is for him. And FWIW yes there *are* women who feel no pain, and some who feel pleasure while giving birth. Maybe not many, but some. Who was he to assume you wouldn't be one of those? ;-)>>>
One of the OB's in my doctor's practice (and the guy who ultimately ended up being there for my labor) told me that if HE were a woman, he would opt for spinal narcotics to deal with the pain.
I don't know about IQ points and cocaine use, but some studies have shown no difference in IQ and some have shown as low as 1.6 difference in IQ points for non-bf'd vs. bf'd. So I would not think they are similar. How many IQ points are lost from cocaine use? And how does that compare to the direct risk of alcohol leading to alcohol related birth defects?
There is not the same direct link with formula. There might be when you think of an allergy to formula, but with most (all?) other risks the affects are indirect and could be influenced by other factors (bottles vs. breast, pressure on the inner ear from bottles, closely monitoring how much is offered or eaten, physical closeness that comes with nursing).
So, there could be no other factors in regards to the alcohol studies? Interesting. I doubt that, but ok. Even my doctor sends a flyer home to us during pregnancy saying that a beer or two a week or a glass of wine during pregnancy is *probably ok.* But there is no good study on how much ISN'T ok, so they don't recommend drinking during pregnancy.
My point of introducing this analogy in the first place wasn't to say FF use was equal to alcohol use. It was in response to you not caring that you couldn't know the *what-if baby.* You said you would never KNOW for certain that a BF baby would turn out better than the same child if he was FF (if you had a magic time machine, I say the same kid would be better of BF than FF). You said there was no point thinking about that since you could never know for sure. So, I came up with the alcohol analogy. There is no way of knowing that my friend would've been better off had her mom NOT drank throughout her pregnancy, so does that make it ok? It is the same thing you are saying but in regards to alcohol instead of ff. You say there isn't any good study on formula, but I want to know what is done differently in the alcohol studies that make you believe them over the formula ones?
>>>My point of introducing this analogy in the first place wasn't to say FF use was equal to alcohol use. It was in response to you not caring that you couldn't know the *what-if baby.* You said you would never KNOW for certain that a BF baby would turn out better than the same child if he was FF (if you had a magic time machine, I say the same kid would be better of BF than FF). You said there was no point thinking about that since you could never know for sure. So, I came up with the alcohol analogy. There is no way of knowing that my friend would've been better off had her mom NOT drank throughout her pregnancy, so does that make it ok? It is the same thing you are saying but in regards to alcohol instead of ff.<<<<
I did say "But you can never know the answer to 'what if' for that baby" and I think that is because there are so many variables at play. I can't say conclusively, but are there any diseases that occur in ff'd babies that do NOT occur in bf'd babies? Are there several large, well controlled studies that show the differences in gut flora and can clearly link it to a specific disease?
Likewise, is there any instance of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), alcohol related neurodeveopment disorder (ARND) or alcohol related birth defects (ARBD) found in children who's mothers did not drink during pg? You could have a baby that you can't prove for sure that particular mom consumed alcohol, but I believe there is a lot of research where they know mom consumed alcohol and they see and can measure the effects, which are significant and highly correlated to alcohol consumption (IMHO - I'm not an expert on FAS).
>>>>>You say there isn't any good study on formula, but I want to know what is done differently in the alcohol studies that make you believe them over the formula ones?<<<<
I never said there isn't any good study on formula. Where do you think I said that? I absolutely think there are good studies out there on formula vs. bf'ing.
It's similar to the smoking/cancer analogy someone else brought up somewhere on this board - there is enough evidence that it would be very hard to dispute smoking causes cancer, it would be very hard to dispute that drinking several drinks a day during pg can cause physical, cognitive and developmental problems in babies. Maybe moderate drinking would not lead to FAS but we know the correlation is there for alcohol in pg and alcohol related problems in infants. With formula it's much less direct, the evidence is there but less of it, for some risks there are conflicting findings, for some risks there could be other factors influencing the outcomes, for some risks the findings are small or the findings are significant but your risk is high even if you bf'd (like with ear infections where 1/2 of bf'd babies can have them too).
If you take it as a whole and say is bf'ing better than formula and does formula carry risk, absolutely I agree. But if you are talking a specific risk or illness, unless it's something like an allergic reaction that is clearly due to the formula, the what-if game is very different than what if I didn't drink every day all through pg or what if I never smoked daily.
Not to keep venting about the baby shows (I can't help it, pull me away!!!), but there is one anaesthesiologist who has been on a few times, I think he's at Sinai in NY and they do Baby Story a lot there, and he says something like, "Well, if I had the option of doing something with severe pain, or doing it perfectly safely without pain, I'd choose pain-free every time."
>>>>You know, while I do agree with you on some level, I wonder if it's all a what-if game? Here's my thinking. In the 70s when my mother was pg, they told her one beer or wine a week or even a little more was just fine. Now that we know more, we are told not to do it at all. I guess I'm wondering if you may accept that there are things we don't yet know about formula use (or, to be more accurate, the lack of bm), the way we didn't always know everything about alcohol use during pg, and that further detrimental effects may continue to be revealed as we study more. So risks that seem small and insignificant with the information we have now may not be so small and insignificant after all.<<<<
I accept we don't know everything. There are doctors even now that will tell you one drink a week is *just* fine and we probably could not say that doctor is wrong. We don't know what the safe level of alcohol is, it could be impacted by genetics as well. I maybe have a glass of wine once or twice a year, so it's not a big deal to me to avoid it. For someone who felt they had to have a drink, I'd hope it was only once a week and not daily. I don't know the risk but if you were drinking a few drinks a day all throughout pg, I'd imagine your baby would be at very high risk of some disease related to alcohol.
WRT to formula or not bf'ing, I am sure the research will improve with time. We know a lot more than we did when I was a baby. But we can't say the research will be pro bf'ing or anti-ff'ing, who knows - just like more research on alcohol during pg might determine a safe level of alcohol consumption. Future research might find that some of the ff risks are related to bottles, not formula or related to less skin-to-skin contact rather than actual drinking from bottles or what is in the bottles. We might find new ways to mitigate the risks of formula. We also know that nearly all risks (unless someone can think of examples other than allergy to formula) for ff'd babies are for diseases and illnesses that also occur in bf'd babies (sometimes in great number). So will there be new studies in the future that can show if you bf'd your baby won't have this or that illness? I doubt it. Whereas we do know that if you avoid alcohol you can avoid alcohol related physical, cognitive and developmental issues.
Pages
Agree/disagree?<<
I disagree. While it's technically the "lack of breastfeeding" rather than the formula itself that's problematic, it's still directly correlated to disease.
Heresay.
That's all it is for him. And FWIW yes there *are* women who feel no pain, and some who feel pleasure while giving birth. Maybe not many, but some. Who was he to assume you wouldn't be one of those? ;-)>>>
One of the OB's in my doctor's practice (and the guy who ultimately ended up being there for my labor) told me that if HE were a woman, he would opt for spinal narcotics to deal with the pain.
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
There is not the same direct link with formula. There might be when you think of an allergy to formula, but with most (all?) other risks the affects are indirect and could be influenced by other factors (bottles vs. breast, pressure on the inner ear from bottles, closely monitoring how much is offered or eaten, physical closeness that comes with nursing).
So, there could be no other factors in regards to the alcohol studies? Interesting. I doubt that, but ok. Even my doctor sends a flyer home to us during pregnancy saying that a beer or two a week or a glass of wine during pregnancy is *probably ok.* But there is no good study on how much ISN'T ok, so they don't recommend drinking during pregnancy.
My point of introducing this analogy in the first place wasn't to say FF use was equal to alcohol use. It was in response to you not caring that you couldn't know the *what-if baby.* You said you would never KNOW for certain that a BF baby would turn out better than the same child if he was FF (if you had a magic time machine, I say the same kid would be better of BF than FF). You said there was no point thinking about that since you could never know for sure. So, I came up with the alcohol analogy. There is no way of knowing that my friend would've been better off had her mom NOT drank throughout her pregnancy, so does that make it ok? It is the same thing you are saying but in regards to alcohol instead of ff. You say there isn't any good study on formula, but I want to know what is done differently in the alcohol studies that make you believe them over the formula ones?
~*bEcQUi*~
2 KiDs, a HuBbY, & a NeUroTiC doG
www.apileofe
>>>My point of introducing this analogy in the first place wasn't to say FF use was equal to alcohol use. It was in response to you not caring that you couldn't know the *what-if baby.* You said you would never KNOW for certain that a BF baby would turn out better than the same child if he was FF (if you had a magic time machine, I say the same kid would be better of BF than FF). You said there was no point thinking about that since you could never know for sure. So, I came up with the alcohol analogy. There is no way of knowing that my friend would've been better off had her mom NOT drank throughout her pregnancy, so does that make it ok? It is the same thing you are saying but in regards to alcohol instead of ff.<<<<
I did say "But you can never know the answer to 'what if' for that baby" and I think that is because there are so many variables at play. I can't say conclusively, but are there any diseases that occur in ff'd babies that do NOT occur in bf'd babies? Are there several large, well controlled studies that show the differences in gut flora and can clearly link it to a specific disease?
Likewise, is there any instance of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), alcohol related neurodeveopment disorder (ARND) or alcohol related birth defects (ARBD) found in children who's mothers did not drink during pg? You could have a baby that you can't prove for sure that particular mom consumed alcohol, but I believe there is a lot of research where they know mom consumed alcohol and they see and can measure the effects, which are significant and highly correlated to alcohol consumption (IMHO - I'm not an expert on FAS).
>>>>>You say there isn't any good study on formula, but I want to know what is done differently in the alcohol studies that make you believe them over the formula ones?<<<<
I never said there isn't any good study on formula. Where do you think I said that? I absolutely think there are good studies out there on formula vs. bf'ing.
It's similar to the smoking/cancer analogy someone else brought up somewhere on this board - there is enough evidence that it would be very hard to dispute smoking causes cancer, it would be very hard to dispute that drinking several drinks a day during pg can cause physical, cognitive and developmental problems in babies. Maybe moderate drinking would not lead to FAS but we know the correlation is there for alcohol in pg and alcohol related problems in infants. With formula it's much less direct, the evidence is there but less of it, for some risks there are conflicting findings, for some risks there could be other factors influencing the outcomes, for some risks the findings are small or the findings are significant but your risk is high even if you bf'd (like with ear infections where 1/2 of bf'd babies can have them too).
If you take it as a whole and say is bf'ing better than formula and does formula carry risk, absolutely I agree. But if you are talking a specific risk or illness, unless it's something like an allergic reaction that is clearly due to the formula, the what-if game is very different than what if I didn't drink every day all through pg or what if I never smoked daily.
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
Not to keep venting about the baby shows (I can't help it, pull me away!!!), but there is one anaesthesiologist who has been on a few times, I think he's at Sinai in NY and they do Baby Story a lot there, and he says something like, "Well, if I had the option of doing something with severe pain, or doing it perfectly safely without pain, I'd choose pain-free every time."
You know, while I do agree with you on some level, I wonder if it's all a what-if game?
>>>>You know, while I do agree with you on some level, I wonder if it's all a what-if game? Here's my thinking. In the 70s when my mother was pg, they told her one beer or wine a week or even a little more was just fine. Now that we know more, we are told not to do it at all. I guess I'm wondering if you may accept that there are things we don't yet know about formula use (or, to be more accurate, the lack of bm), the way we didn't always know everything about alcohol use during pg, and that further detrimental effects may continue to be revealed as we study more. So risks that seem small and insignificant with the information we have now may not be so small and insignificant after all.<<<<
I accept we don't know everything. There are doctors even now that will tell you one drink a week is *just* fine and we probably could not say that doctor is wrong. We don't know what the safe level of alcohol is, it could be impacted by genetics as well. I maybe have a glass of wine once or twice a year, so it's not a big deal to me to avoid it. For someone who felt they had to have a drink, I'd hope it was only once a week and not daily. I don't know the risk but if you were drinking a few drinks a day all throughout pg, I'd imagine your baby would be at very high risk of some disease related to alcohol.
WRT to formula or not bf'ing, I am sure the research will improve with time. We know a lot more than we did when I was a baby. But we can't say the research will be pro bf'ing or anti-ff'ing, who knows - just like more research on alcohol during pg might determine a safe level of alcohol consumption. Future research might find that some of the ff risks are related to bottles, not formula or related to less skin-to-skin contact rather than actual drinking from bottles or what is in the bottles. We might find new ways to mitigate the risks of formula. We also know that nearly all risks (unless someone can think of examples other than allergy to formula) for ff'd babies are for diseases and illnesses that also occur in bf'd babies (sometimes in great number). So will there be new studies in the future that can show if you bf'd your baby won't have this or that illness? I doubt it. Whereas we do know that if you avoid alcohol you can avoid alcohol related physical, cognitive and developmental issues.
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
<<<"Well, if I had the option of doing something with severe pain, or doing it perfectly safely without pain, I'd choose pain-free every time."
Necrotizing enterocolitis is almost exclusively found in FF babies.
Powered by
Pages