You keep asking why...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-13-2008
You keep asking why...
1104
Tue, 12-16-2008 - 2:48pm

wedding websites

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 6:18pm

>>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.<<

I can agree with that.

>>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.<<

I disagree. I think the current research is conclusive enough to show that BF matters - a lot.

As far as the "factors", I don't think it matters. Hypothetically, if they conclude that it is the Po210 in cigarettes that causes lung cancer, there are still other serious problems linked to smoking. Smoking introduces risk. Not breastfeeding introduces risk.

According to this article, prematurity is a factor in 90% of NEC cases. Of premature babies only 1% of BF babies and 7% of FF babies, will develop NEC.

10% of babies with NEC are not premature. And some BF babies will get NEC. But, formula (LOBF) is solidly linked with NEC just as prematurity is.

>>Over 90 percent of necrotizing enterocolitis cases affect premature infants, generally within 10 days of birth. Incidence approaches 12 percent of all premature infants weighing less than 3 1/2 pounds at birth. According to a published report, the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in low-birthweight infants that were exclusively breastfed was 1 percent, compared with 7 percent for formula-fed infants. In 1997, 291,000 low-birthweight infants were born in the United States. Using this figure, we applied the two incidence rates for necrotizing enterocolitis to calculate the number of cases at the current breastfeeding prevalence rate at hospital discharge of 64 percent and at the U.S. Surgeon General's recommendation of 75 percent.<<

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3765/is_2_24/ai_80517262/pg_3




Edited 12/23/2008 6:21 pm ET by nisupulla
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 6:31pm

I think the magnatude of the correlation matters. Highly correlated is different than there is a small correlation that could be attributed to other favors as well.

Some IQ studies show no statistically significant difference between bf'd and ff'd it depends on which study you look at and whether they controlled for maternal education and maternal intelligence. Some do show a difference. There's no consensus as far as I can tell

Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 6:36pm
Bf'd babies are slightly less at risk. Very slightly.
Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-14-2000
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 7:59pm

<>


LOL!

 

redsoxlogo1.gif


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 8:23pm

>>>>I disagree. I think the current research is conclusive enough to show that BF matters - a lot.<<<<

I agree with your statement here. My statement was speculating on what future research might hold - we can't conclude what that might tell us.

As for the article you cited - it looks like the source for the NEC information is the same one gespenst posted. The Lucas study had different results than some other studies, and when combined with other studies plus 4 randomized controlled trials the results were as I posted earlier, a 5% difference in absolute risk for the exclusively ff'd group bf'd group.

Then the article you cited takes that and extrapolates it to all low birth weight infants - how is low birth weight defined? They used a 64% breastfeeding rate based on bf'ing rates at hospital discharge - I'm not sure how accurate that is, is 64% for full term infants at hospital discharge? What about 3 lbs preemies that might have been in the hospital for months at the time of discharge? The analysis at the bottom of page 4 coming up with the cost savings looks really over simplified.

Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 8:47pm

"But we can't say the research will be pro bf'ing or anti-ff'ing,"

Sure we can. Study after study after study shows that whole food is better for the human body than processed food.

That the human body functions better when fed whole foods and worse when fed processed foods.

Breast milk is whole food, formula is processed food.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 9:00pm
Let me restate because I don't think I'm being understood - I don't believe future research will show formula can be the same as bf'ing, I agree that formula is man-made, processed, and will never catch up completely to bmilk. But where the research is not overwhelming or is contradictory, where other factors may be contributing to some of the increased risks, we might have better information in the future about what is formula (substance), what is bottles (process), what is some other factor that we didn't previously realize was impacting the results (genetic/environmental). Those future results might show the risk of using formula even higher than we know believe it the risks be, or those future results might the risks are lower than we now believe them to be. We can't know. Does that make sense?
Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 10:33pm

>>I think the magnitude of the correlation matters. Highly correlated is different than there is a small correlation that could be attributed to other favors as well.<<

I tried to use the term "magnitude" to differentiate how well correlated something is vs how much change the correlation predicts. If we start saying the "magnitude of the correlation", I just go back to the confusion about whether you are asking about the magnitude of the effect or the consistency of the predictability (correlation).

>>Some IQ studies show no statistically significant difference between bf'd and ff'd it depends on which study you look at and whether they controlled for...<<

Yes, of course.

>>maternal education and maternal intelligence.<<

Well, not just these two, there are a whole lot of important factors to consider.

>>There's no consensus as far as I can tell<<

I disagree. I think differences in IQ show up consistently.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 10:35pm
Ah, but "slight" is a subjective term. I think the research shows that on every level from health, to environment, to economics, breastfeeding makes a noteworthy impact.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2008
Tue, 12-23-2008 - 10:41pm

>>>>Well, in some women, or at some level of exposure, we don't know that drinking *causes* problems, we know it puts babies at higher risk. So if the woman *doesn't* drink enough that her baby has FAS or the other known syndromes, but her baby *does* have some issues, we can only *surmise* that the issues are related to the alcohol. <<<<

Just a question regarding cause and effect. Isn't there a point where the research is so overwhelming that we can say some effects *are* caused by alcohol? Like we could say that for a child who has an allergy to cows milk, that exposure to formula caused the allergic reaction? Where we couldn't say for many of the risks associated with formula that there is a direct cause-effect relationship because the evidence is not overwhelming?

Here is some resources I found that does say alcohol *causes* defects:

"Prenatal exposure to alcohol can cause a range of disorders, known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs)." and "It also says "All FASDs are 100% preventable—if a woman does not drink alcohol while she is pregnant."
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fas/fasask.htm

"Alcohol abuse during pregnancy is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation in offspring in the United States. The most severe consequences of maternal alcohol abuse are fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder (ARND) (see Stratton et al. 1996) both of which are associated with substantial cognitive and behavioral deficits." The article does go on to say not everyone mom who drinks will have a child with an alcohol related disorder, it also goes through a lot of research on animals and humans, and binge drinking vs. consistent consumption, and does claim these negative results are the cause of alcohol exposure.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-3/168-174.htm

"Phase I – Discovery of FAS (1973-1977)
That alcohol adversely affects developing fetuses is now generally accepted as a foregone conclusion, but Golden explained that FAS was not officially identified as a medical syndrome until 1973. That year, David Smith, professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and his research fellow, Kenneth Lyons Jones, were asked to examine eight children at a medical center in Seattle, all of whom had been born to chronically alcoholic women. Like Melissa, the children were small in size, had flat faces with small eye slits, and were developmentally delayed. Upon further research, Smith and Lyons – who specialized in ‘dysmorphology,’ or patterns of structural defect – found two more children with similar abnormalities whose mothers were alcoholics. Their finding that alcohol was a teratogen was published in the British journal Lancet on June 9, 1973, followed by a second article five months later on three additional children born to alcoholic women who exhibited the same defects." http://www.nyam.org/news/2654.html

Meez 3D avatar avatars games PhotobucketPhotobucket


Photobucket

"The key to good decision making is not knowledge. It is understanding."
Malcolm Gladwell Blink

Pages