General Discussion

pnwmom

(110,261 posts)

26. So? Why didn't they study the health of babies and toddlers who were being breastfed

Reply to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 06:24 PM

Feb 2014

instead of older children who were no longer benefiting from the mother's antibodies?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: Breast Feeding No Better Than Bottle Feeding For Kids� Health [View all] The Straight Story Feb 2014 OP

Brace yourselves Recursion Feb 2014 #1

That was my first thought! get the red out Feb 2014 #10

I wonder if the study was funded by a company that produces baby formula. bulloney Feb 2014 #2

Science with an agenda jollyreaper2112 Feb 2014 #9

Moms Rule WovenGems Feb 2014 #19

Key sentence regarding the study here: PotatoChip Feb 2014 #3

Actually - the immunological benefits is one the study still acknowledges Ms. Toad Feb 2014 #6

Well that's just it. PotatoChip Feb 2014 #12

The immunological benefits go away pretty quickly. jeff47 Feb 2014 #29

Jeff47? Google is your friend. You've got to stop vanlassie Mar 2014 #85

Are you now going to claim antibodies are enzymes too? (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #87

No. vanlassie Mar 2014 #88

I'd be curious to know about REAL long term outcomes Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #42

It's clear. Bottle feeding pumps more money postulater Feb 2014 #4

Nailed it. Ilsa Feb 2014 #7

Yeah, because... pipi_k Feb 2014 #18

Sometimes it is. postulater Feb 2014 #20

I don't think this is one of them. HappyMe Feb 2014 #21

Of course it is up to the mother. postulater Feb 2014 #23

And they get to decide under the heavy influence Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #43

Yes, and also the HappyMe Mar 2014 #44

I wish we could have traded. Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #49

I don't know the effects of anesthesia HappyMe Mar 2014 #52

It was a spinal. Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #56

I had the full knocked out cold anesthesia. HappyMe Mar 2014 #57

lmao! nt ecstatic Mar 2014 #60

Do you support businesses bombarding them with false info? joeglow3 Mar 2014 #47

Bombarding? HappyMe Mar 2014 #48

My wife has 15 years experience and sees it a lot joeglow3 Mar 2014 #50

I can only speak for my ob/gyn and myself. HappyMe Mar 2014 #53

What I Get Out of This Is Dirty Socialist Feb 2014 #5

Exactly: paid leave & free breast pump & supplies. CottonBear Feb 2014 #14

Just feed them. My Good Babushka Feb 2014 #8

It was only within families that the benefits of breast feeding were less observable. morningfog Feb 2014 #11

Basically, it's telling mothers to relax because the kids will be all right mainer Feb 2014 #13

I agree. HappyMe Feb 2014 #17

But it doesn't address the health of babies from 0 - 4, which mothers presumably pnwmom Feb 2014 #27

The Study is here but it is pay to view (I think it is $39). I am interested but not $39 interested. stevenleser Feb 2014 #15

Several who have read the study are saying vanlassie Feb 2014 #16

Yep, when I hadn't heard of the journal I looked at it more closely. moriah Mar 2014 #64

This is a response to the study by someone well qualified to respond. vanlassie Mar 2014 #67

Bottle feeding Aerows Feb 2014 #22

Yeah, but you'll never see a bottle of formula on the cover of Sports Illustrated. aikoaiko Feb 2014 #24

Real irony: years ago, there was a boycott of Nestles for handing out free samples hedgehog Feb 2014 #25

How many "poor" women in this country have the novelty to even spend more than glowing Feb 2014 #28

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of young mothers in some places who hedgehog Mar 2014 #36

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #40

yeah. laundry_queen Mar 2014 #61

I work with people from Canada, Brazil, England, South Korea and Switzerland. hedgehog Mar 2014 #63

'more modern, scientific' of course you don't mean that our science DebJ Mar 2014 #45

Yes - "more scientific" was used as a sales point throughout the hedgehog Mar 2014 #62

So? Why didn't they study the health of babies and toddlers who were being breastfed pnwmom Feb 2014 #26

Because they were studying long-term effects. jeff47 Feb 2014 #30

That's not true. Older babies still benefit from antibodies, just not to the same extent pnwmom Feb 2014 #31

That doesn't come from antibodies. jeff47 Feb 2014 #33

Yes, it does. The breastmilk continues to contain antibodies, although, yes, it is less dense pnwmom Feb 2014 #34

That's why I said after about 3 months jeff47 Mar 2014 #37

Link please? I've searched for anything backing up your theory, and haven't found it. pnwmom Mar 2014 #39

Lysozyme isn't an antibody. jeff47 Mar 2014 #69

Babies are still "infants" when they're 4, 5, and 6 months old. Even older. pnwmom Mar 2014 #72

The official label stops at 3 months. jeff47 Mar 2014 #74

Let's suppose you're right. The infant/baby is still protected by factors in the mother's milk pnwmom Mar 2014 #78

No, the OP study isn't talking about that either. jeff47 Mar 2014 #80

They only measured some long-term benefits. And they stopped at age 14. pnwmom Mar 2014 #82

The idea was to look for things that are frequent secondary effects jeff47 Mar 2014 #83

My sister was the biggest talker in the family, and still is. pnwmom Mar 2014 #84

Jeff37. What evidence do you have for your beliefs about the human immune system? vanlassie Mar 2014 #65

Every single book and pamphlet doctors have been handing me jeff47 Mar 2014 #68

Surely you must have a link then. n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #70

Because you think I scan and upload them? (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #71

Because I think you can google as well as anyone else, and cut and paste a link. pnwmom Mar 2014 #73

You mean like this link, showing lysozyme isn't an antibody? jeff47 Mar 2014 #75

But some enzymes are antibodies. pnwmom Mar 2014 #76

Nope. jeff47 Mar 2014 #77

I did not say that all antibodies did that. Logically, there is a key difference pnwmom Mar 2014 #79

If you say antibodies are enzymes, then you are saying that. jeff47 Mar 2014 #81

They also didn't define the duration, or look at the morningfog Feb 2014 #32

I think either are fine. And Mothers should feel no guilt Autumn Feb 2014 #35

The last paragraph in the article says it all. LiberalAndProud Mar 2014 #38

We have had one of each hack89 Mar 2014 #41

Did the article discuss the psychological impact of breast-feeding? DebJ Mar 2014 #46

I agree, no better, no worse for average mother and child�Mom's who want and can't/don't prob feel Tikki Mar 2014 #51

I would imagine that if the mom is feeling pressured, HappyMe Mar 2014 #54

My poor daughter in law tried and tried to breastfeed mainer Mar 2014 #58

Jaundice in breastfed babies, if it raises above normal limits, (because bilirubin has what is now vanlassie Mar 2014 #66

Did they account for whether or not the breastfeeding was done at Olive Garden? Silent3 Mar 2014 #55

Disagree. ananda Mar 2014 #59

as a Michigan fan I find this Ohio State produced study flawed nt alp227 Mar 2014 #86