Skip to comments.14% Follow Advice On Breast-Feeding
Posted on 08/05/2004 10:53:05 PM PDT by neverdem
Fourteen percent of American mothers exclusively breast-feed their babies for the recommended minimum of six months, according to government data released yesterday.
New state-by-state statistics show that Oregon has the highest rate of mothers meeting the minimum standard, but even there just 25 percent are able to give their babies breast milk and nothing else for six months, the report shows.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization and most other experts recommend that mothers give their babies breast milk only -- no formula, juice or solid food -- until they are 6 months old.
Studies have shown that when babies are exclusively breast-fed for the first six months of life they grow better without getting too fat, are less likely to develop infections and may keep those benefits through childhood.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What? No pictures?
Yeah, but boiling the nipples is a real drag...
I breast fed both my boys. The oldest was a big baby and I made the addition of ceral and such at 2.5 months with the approval of his doctor. He was breast fed until 10 months. The youngest got nothing but breast milk until 6 months at which time adult table food was added. He refused to eat baby food. I continued to breast feed him until about 1.5 years. Both boys are healthy and rarely sick. When they do get sick it is minor. I was lucky in that I didn't work at the time. It was very difficult financially. I think work is the main reason many women do not breast feed.
There is a HUGE stigma placed on breastfeeding in public spaces. A good question is where to breast feed outside of the home? Many changes in pediatrics since the '70's for sure. We need to support mothers who take the best choice for their babies! My wife breastfed our son for a year and he's QUITE healthy! (10lbs, 3oz - 3/15/03)
As a side note: The magazine Working Mother is a joke, more like CEO Woman With No Time For Being A Mom. Also, my wife just finished the book The Nanny Diaries, and it is sad to see inside track on how the rich "outsource" mothering.
And the reason for this is. . . ?
And the reason for this is. . . ?
My wife was unable to produce adequately to feed our twins. Since they were hospitalized for 12 weeks due to prematurity, we thought the decreased production may have been due to being forced to use a breastpump. We thought that if the boys were able to suckle directly, it might improve. Unfortunately, our next child proved this not to be the case. Even with the singleton, she was unable to produce a significant amount beyond the first week or so, once his demands started to increase.
You're telling me that you wouldn't entrust the lives of your children to the care of a flaky, potentially homicidal, British au pair?
Thanks for your thorough answer to my question.
It's friday and you said breast.
Gad! Doesn't that hurt?
But who are Stephen J. Fry and Leila supporting?(!)
Yes, but are the effects achieved because these mothers are willing to care just a little bit more and would be attentive in other areas of the child's life as they grow up, or are the results achieved because mother's milk is more healthy OR because of.....
But as soon as I get finished whipping Kirk's hinney,
I'm taking Fry to the woodshed...
all future scientists are voting for W. One, he is the best choice and two, we already know he won!
"Leela really kicked your ass, didn't she, Captain?"
"Shut up, you little Russian troll!"
Jonas Salk's head:
I agree. Though, it's kind of difficult to invent new vaccines when you're only a head. I may be a genius, but come on. INVENT ME A FRIGGIN' TORSO ALREADY!
My mom was unable. Sometimes it's not about making a choice but rather a physical inability to produce milk.
Breast milk production is a result of the action of certain hormones within the body, particularly prolactin. If the mother's hormone levels are not sufficient to milk production, then she will not be able to breast feed. It is possible for a woman to be unable to breast feed, regardless of her intention.
Thank you both for your responses. I am now much better informed. From what I have seen, breast-fed children are generally very healthy.
What studies? Has anyone ever seen those studies? I haven't and I've looked for them.
What organization out there is paying the cost of a legitimate, scientific study that monitors the health of breast-fed and non-breast-fed children throughout childhood? Think about it. That would be a very large and difficult undertaking. Do you know anyone who has every participated in such a study? I thought not.
I have a friend who is a pediatrician and who works in research at a large university. She is an advocate of breast feeding and is always referring to the "studies". I asked her one day to show me the studies. She sent me some referrences to governmental studies that she claimed supported the claims of the breast feeding advocates. But upon close examination, those studies did nothing of the kind.
I'm not saying that breast feeding is not worthwhile. My wife just finished breast feeding our youngest daughter at age 3-1/2. However, I do think that breast feeding's benefits are way over-hyped. Our 3-1/2 year old had her share of the common childhood illnesses. Breast feeding didn't seem to provide her with the supposed benefits.
Mother's who don't breast feed shouldn't be made to feel that they've let their children down. I think the evidence is clearly out on that.
With our first, the doc said 4 months, we made it three until breast milk just wasn't cutting it. My wife was making enough, but a bellyful of milk just didn't hold her over for very long.
For the second, the doc said 6 months and we said yeah, whatever doc. She was eating table food by six months, having little use for baby food.
Every one is different and it is best to give them what works, not what some committee of academics pulls out of their posteriors.
I understand your point and think that may play a roll but the studies that have come out on breast milk show that it contains more of the essential proteins and immune protections than can be achieved artificially. This said I would not think badly of any woman who chose another route, it's just better to breast feed if you are able.
And when the gov't enforces what the academics pull, what then???
This is true although I breast fed in public and never received any of the dirty looks or comments etc that you hear about. But then I was discreet. Most of the time it was at a booth in the local eatery. Feed the baby and he was quiet through our meal.
| About Entrez
Help | FAQ
Single Citation Matcher
Batch Citation Matcher
I couldn't have said it any better.
In the long run, "If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!"
I breastfed each of mine for 2 years, one has increased blood pressure and they both show signs of glucose intolerance that's the early sign of diabetes.
: Lancet. 2001 Feb 10;357(9254):413-9. Related Articles, Links
Lancet. 2001 Feb 10;357(9254):406-7.
Lancet. 2001 Jun 9;357(9271):1880-1.
Lancet. 2001 Jun 9;357(9271):1880; author reply 1881.
Lancet. 2001 Jun 9;357(9271):1881.
Early nutrition in preterm infants and later blood pressure: two cohorts after randomised trials.
Singhal A, Cole TJ, Lucas A.
Medical Research Council Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, London, UK. email@example.com
BACKGROUND: Despite data relating body size in early life to later cardiovascular outcomes, the hypothesis that nutrition affects such outcomes has not been established. Breastfeeding has been associated with lower blood pressure in later life, but previous studies have not controlled for possible confounding factors by using a randomised design with prospective follow-up. We undertook such a study to test the hypothesis that early diet programmes blood pressure in later life in children randomly assigned different diets at birth. METHODS: Blood pressure was measured at age 13-16 years in 216 (23%) of a cohort of 926 children who were born prematurely and had participated at birth in two parallel randomised trials in five neonatal units in the UK. Dietary interventions were: donated banked breastmilk versus preterm formula and standard term formula versus preterm formula. FINDINGS: Children followed up at age 13-16 years were similar to those not followed up in terms of social class and anthropometry at birth. Mean arterial blood pressure at age 13-16 years was lower in the 66 children assigned banked breastmilk (alone or in addition to mother's milk) than in the 64 assigned preterm formula (mean 81.9 [SD 7.8] vs 86.1 [6.5] mm Hg; 95% CI for difference -6.6 to -1.6; p=0.001). In non-randomised analyses, the proportion of enteral intake as human milk in the neonatal period was inversely related to later mean arterial pressure (beta=-0.3 mm Hg per 10% increase [95% CI -0.5 to -0.1]; p=0.006). No differences were found in the term formula (n=44) versus preterm formula (n=42) comparison. INTERPRETATION: Breastmilk consumption was associated with lower later blood pressure in children born prematurely. Our data provide experimental evidence of programming of a cardiovascular risk factor by early diet and further support the long-term beneficial effects of breastmilk.
Randomized Controlled Trial
Take a look at my last post
Given true randomness, size of sample, and strength of effect, then that should indicate that breast-feeding is beneficial.
I breastfed my oldest for roughly 6 months, not exclusively. He had lots of trouble with allergies, sensitivity, ear infections, etc. Because of the allergies, in particular, I chose to breastfeed my second child exclusively for 6 months (allergies are very common in both my husband's and my family ).
My second child is now 6, and is just now showing signs of spring allergies. He had his first ear infection at 2, and that was the first sick visit of his life.
I don't KNOW that breastfeeding had anything to do with it. I would recommend it for people with strong history of allergy. It certainly won't hurt, and it might help.