The Imperfect Community

[Jessica]

Just ran across this and thought it was interesting. Apparently there were no markable differences between bf or ff kids at age 5 in regards to weight.

How many bfing zealots are trying to squash this study as we speak? They must be reeling!

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=11557245&src=rss/healthNews

[Scout]

I'm not sure how well a study of 300 kids stands up to all the research and experience that goes into an AAP statement, really. I have a harder time with the findings on introducing and feeding solids than the bf/ff ones. It seems like some studies suggest that the way bottle feeding is done is probably significant. I've seen Moms push that extra ounce, KWIM? that can be true with either bm or formula.

[Petulant Pixie]

Personally, I think we'll be finding a lot of narrowing or closing of gaps in the bf/ff differences as more people breastfeed.

I know back when Alex was born, it really was only the educated upper middle class whites who breastfed, and I think that even among them it was a more "granola" type that was more prevalent, and of course, those types of people are more likely to eat healthier and encourage their kids to eat healthier anyway. They're also more likely to exercise, and just have healthier habits all around. I know that in the studies they say they take all that into account, but just 11 years ago, there were a LOT fewer women breastfeeding. 20 years ago there were even fewer, so I think that the population of breastfeeding women they had to choose from was in itself skewed, KWIM?

Now, there is an enormous initiation rate, and the dumb and unhealthy are doing it, too. I can't tell you how many idiots were on Liz's birthboard, and really just me and one other started out formula feeding, and by 3 months I think we had gained just one more. The rest of them kept breastfeeding, yet fed their kids french fries and ice cream when they were 6 months old, and did just so many other stupid things to even count. So, my prediction is, as we are able to study the two groups with fewer variables, since the bfeeding pool is wider now, there will be fewer differences in the outcomes of the two feeding methods. Just my opinion!

[Scout]

Yep PP, ITA.

[Petulant Pixie]

[Scout]

No, it makes a lot of sense. The only people who used to bf were people who were outside the mainstream and usually very crunchy granola, made their own yogurt, likely to be vegetarians, etc. As bf rates increase, you start to catch people with more mainstream eating habits, which in this country is often bad eating habits. And you also see more people who ff and also are concerned with nutrition and good habits as their kids get older. It seems natural that it will start to even out a bit, at least in terms of weight.

[Petulant Pixie]

[Scout]

Yeah, the main thing that I suspect will remain significant is immunity and things like ear infections and stomach viruses.

[MainstreamMom]

Well duh?!??! Of course formula doesn't cause obesity. The notion that FF in any way contributes to obesity (IMHO) is absurd!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that in the 50s, 60s, 70s, virtually all children were FF and childhood obesity was a non issue. Type II diabetes was extremely rare and it was the rare exception to have obese children.

Clearly, other factors, besides infant feeding are to blame for the childhood and adult obesity epidemic in our country.

I think it's the generation after mine (I'm a genxer) so maybe the Gen Yers and the Gen Nowers that are the biggest fatties. Interestingly enough, many, many more of them were BFed (at least initially) with a rough estimate at approximately 30% continuing to six months or longer.

[prescott]

[Scout]

Whatever else they can put in formula, they can't put in a million white blood cells per drop. Breastmilk is full of antibodies and things. And bf'd babies are specifically protected against any illness their mother has just been exposed to, like the flu, because her body will pass specific antibodies for that illness. As far as stomach bugs and vuruses, the gut of a formula fed infant has an average of 10X the amount of e.coli as that of an exclusively bf'd infant. I'm not saying ff babies are going to be sick all the time or anything, but my experience has pretty much borne out what studies have shown--that stomach viruses affect ff'd babies more severely, they tend to get more ear infections, etc. That seems less related to factors like diet and exercise than issues like obesity.

[DietCokeHead]

WTF? My baby's gut has e-coli in it???

[Scout]

Well, everyone has e.coli in their gut. In the right quantities, it's a beneficial bacteria. When you take antibioitics, they all get killed off and that's why people get the runs when they take certain antibiotics. One of the differences in FF vs. bf babies that I have actually seen detailed studies on is the differences in the flora found in the gut of bf babies vs. ff babies. I used to have all the links back in the BC debate board days, lol. But I guess the idea is that since bf'd babies are exposed to small amounts of various bacteria at the breast (can't boil those nipples and other things that are found in the milk, their systems are colonized by more beneficial bacteria and less e.coli. So if they get a stomach virus or whatever, the balance in there is not as easily thrown off.

[Anthromomma]

A couple of things:

1) I thought that most of the obesity correlation had to do with improper bottlefeeding techniques, not the formula itself.

2) Are there really obese five year olds in any large proportion anywhere? I thought overweight tended to happen a little later than that.

3) I'm pretty sure that formula is the least of our worries in this country with regards to the obesity problem. Junk food marketed directly to kids, no concept of appropriate portion size, 24 hour cartoons and limited access to physical activity might be slightly higher on that scale for me.

[Sewingsiren]