Risk: How a Baby May Save Your Joints

NY Times ^ | November 9, 2004 | ERIC NAGOURNEY

[nopardons]

It's junk science and then some.And remission of arthritic symptoms,during pregnancy,doesn't have anything at all to do with breast feeding.

Soooooooooo...is a cure for arthritis to be constantly pregnant now?

Egyptian mummies and the remains at Pompeii have been studied by forensic scholars.They've found arthritis in many remains.This doesn't jive with this article's positions.

[neverdem]

I think most of the studies about breast feeding are junk science.

Go click on the link in comment# 35. Copy and paste colostrum AND antibodies in to PubMed's browser. Breastfeeding enables infants to get maternal antibodies that helps to keep them healthy while their infant immune systems are developing.

[farmfriend]

However, if I goof and forget, feel free to add it yourself.

I am pretty absent minded my self. I did find the one I wanted by doing a search on your handle. Thanks for keeping up on the health issues. I do pass them on to interested parties.

[angelanddevil2]

But, who nurses for 13 TO 23 MONTHS?. Impossible!. I nursed my baby for 6 months and, of the moms I know in their 30's, I am the one who did it the longest. I didn't want to do it in the beginning, but hearing it was so good for the baby, I started doing it as soon as he was born. OMG!, I would have never stopped!. From the emotional point of view, it's so wonderful!. I would have done it even though the study had found it's bad for that disease.
I am reading though that is it kind of disgusting to see moms breastfeeding in public. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and it is pretty common to see it. I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as the mom is appropriately covered with a blanket. I actually did it. I would say, let's get used to it. It is natural and marvellous.

[giotto]

I think what they mean is that the first group had one-fifth LESS cancer than the non-breastfeeding group, and that those who nursed for more than two years had half as much as the non-breastfeeders.

[neverdem]

A series of hormonal changes commence from the onset of pregnancy until and after the end of breastfeeding. If you're not a physician and don't know about how pregnancy affects patients who already have RA, that's OK. Remission during pregnancy is not a cure. I was just trying to make you understand that hormones are a very important influence.

They still don't know why people get RA. One of the ways they try to study disease is with epidemiological studies where they try to understand risk factors, just like smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, age, sex and family history are risk factors for coronary artery disease. RA is just one type of arthritis. This is an epidemiological study that says among other things, women will have a lower risk of getting RA the longer that they breastfeed. It doesn't say it will prevent RA, just lower the statistical risk.

[nopardons]

I've been pregnant...have YOU?

I understand about hormones and pregnancy better than a man,even one who studies it,ever can.

Here's an anecdotal example for you. My grandmother didn't smoke,there was no family history of arthritis,and she breast fed two children,but got arthritis in her fingers ( which was a terrible blow,since she was a concert pianist)in her late 30s.

A very great deal of these breast feed your baby or.....junk science studies are junk science,with the outcome already decided upon,BEFORE the studies are even made.

[neverdem]

Do you have any training in science?

[nopardons]

Yes, college level.

[nopardons]

And graduate level as well.

[neverdem]

From the Times article:"Among the women studied, those who reported having breast-fed for 13 to 23 months were one-fifth as likely as women who had not breast-fed to develop the arthritis. Those who said they had breast-fed for at least two years reduced their risk by half."

"The wording here is not clear. Is there an increase in risk after 23 months or a further decrease?"

He needs an editor. The 13 - 23 month cohort were one-fifth less likely. The 24 or more month cohort had half the risk of those who breastfed 3 months or less. The following is from the article linked in comment# 35 in medical writing lingo.

RESULTS: Using a multivariate model that adjusted for age, body mass index, smoking, parity, and other hormonal factors, we observed a strong trend for decreasing risk of RA with increasing duration of breast-feeding (P for trend = 0.001). For women who breast-fed (compared with parous women who did not breast-feed), the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were as follows: breast-feeding for < or = 3 total months, RR 1.0 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.8-1.2); for 4-11 total months, RR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7-1.1); for 12-23 total months, RR 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.0); and for > or = 24 total months, RR 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.8).

[neverdem]

What science, and did it involve statistics?

[nopardons]

Biology,chemistry,anatomy,and more(what you want my entire CV? LOL).......but nary a class just on statistics,which can and are made to "prove" whatever one wants.That's one of the first things said in stat classes,according to many who have taken them.

[neverdem]

With medical statistical studies they want a P value less than or equal to 0.05 which translates into English as that result would happen just by chance 1 out of 20 or more times with equivalent sampling methods. When they say something is statistically significant, that's the criteria.

With this sample of over 120,000, the trend had a P = 0.001 which means it would happen 1 out of 1000 times by chance. I'm not a gambler with those odds. Good Night

[neverdem]

He needs an editor. You got it right.

[nopardons]

Phiiiiiiiiiiiiiifffffffffffffffft.

[Dick Holmes]

It would follow that women who have never breast fed, those never married, such as nuns, and those never producing a living child, would have a higher incidence of arthritis. Did anyone look at that?

This reminds me that breast cancer used to be called "Nun's Disease". More info here

What is seldom--if ever--emphasized in public discussions on preventing breast cancer is the fact that having a full-term pregnancy has been linked to a decrease in breast cancer risk--the earlier the better. A major study of 250,000 women from around the world found that those who have their first child by age 18 have only about one-third the risk of breast cancer faced by women whose first birth occurs at age 35 or later.⁽⁴⁾

Another large study published in 1989 by the Centers for Disease Control examined data from eight population-based U.S. cancer registries and found that lactation also plays a role in reducing breast cancer. The more children a woman had and the longer the duration of breast-feeding after birth, the lower her risk of developing breast cancer.⁽⁵⁾

Pregnancy and childbirth have also been linked to two other diseases that affect women: ovarian and endometrial cancer. Studies have shown that women who have never had children are twice as likely to develop ovarian cancer--which takes the lives of about 14,000 American women each year--compared to those who have given birth.⁽⁶⁾ As with breast cancer, the more full-term pregnancies a woman had, the lower her risk of ovarian cancer.⁽⁷⁾

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Childbearing is the most important known factor in preventing ovarian cancer, suggesting that hormones play a role in its development."⁽⁸⁾ Several studies have also shown that having few or no children is also a risk factor for endometrial cancer.⁸

[conservative cat]

No kidding. I have not been much into public breastfeeding because I am too shy, but I have had to resort to it from time to time (very well covered). Nursing in the bathroom is sick and dirty.

[conservative cat]

I thought responsible parents quit smoking weed when the kids came along.

LMAO. Now, that is funny!

[katdawg]

Noted for when I have kids...(Although I better quit cracking my knuckles too to avoid it!) ;)