Recent Articles about Breastfeeding

Found via Ingenta.

Smith M.M.; Durkin M.; Hinton V.J.; Bellinger D.; Kuhn L.
"Influence of Breastfeeding on Cognitive Outcomes at Age 6*8 Years: Follow-up
of Very Low Birth Weight Infants" American Journal of Epidemiology, 01
December 2003, vol. 158, no. 11, pp. 1075-1082(8)

The relation between breastfeeding and childhood cognitive development was
examined in 1991*1993 among 439 school-age children weighing 1,500 g when
born in the United States between 1991 and 1993. Measures of cognitive
function included overall intellectual function, verbal ability,
visual-spatial and visual-motor skill, and memory. Higher test scores for each
domain of cognitive function except memory were observed among children who
were breastfed directly. After covariate adjustment for home environment,
maternal verbal ability, a composite measure of parental education and
occupation, and length of hospitalization, the authors found that breastfed
children evidenced an advantage only for measures specific to visual-motor
integration (5.1 intelligence quotient (IQ) points, 95% confidence interval:
1.0, 9.2). Differences in test scores between breastfed children and those who
did not receive any breast milk feedings were 3.6 IQ points (95% confidence
interval: *0.3, 7.5) for overall intellectual functioning and 2.3 IQ points
(95% confidence interval: *3.0, 7.6) for verbal ability. Indicators of social
advantage confound the association between breastfeeding and cognitive
function, but careful measurement can reduce residual confounding and may
clarify causal relations.




MacDonald A. "Is breast best? Is early solid feeding harmful?" Journal of The
Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 1 September 2003, vol. 123, no. 3,
pp. 169-174(6)

The health benefits of breastfeeding for babies and mothers have long been
recognised and it is now globally recommended that it be continued exclusively
for six months. Although there are few controlled trials to support this
recommendation, the most important advantage is less morbidity from
gastrointestinal infection in developing countries. There is also evidence
that respiratory tract infections and atopic dermatitis is reduced, and the
maternal risk of breast cancer decreases, particularly with a longer duration
of breastfeeding and a high parity. There is little to suggest that exclusive
breastfeeding for six months adversely affects infant growth, nutritional
status or infant feeding skills, but more studies are needed. Equally, there
is no evidence that introduction of solids from 17 weeks is harmful in
developed countries. However, in the UK breastfeeding prevalence is low and
solids are introduced early for the majority of infants and much can be done
to positively encourage and support all mothers to continue breastfeeding for
a longer period.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc

Equally, there is no evidence that introduction of solids from 17 weeks
is harmful in developed countries.

That surprises me - I thought there was evidence that this caused more
allergies and gastro-related problems. Is this just anecdotal?

ROSIE

"Chookie" wrote in message
...
Found via Ingenta.

*snip*
MacDonald A. "Is breast best? Is early solid feeding harmful?" Journal of
The
Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 1 September 2003, vol. 123,
no. 3,
pp. 169-174(6)

The health benefits of breastfeeding for babies and mothers have long been
recognised and it is now globally recommended that it be continued
exclusively
for six months. Although there are few controlled trials to support this
recommendation, the most important advantage is less morbidity from
gastrointestinal infection in developing countries. There is also evidence
that respiratory tract infections and atopic dermatitis is reduced, and
the
maternal risk of breast cancer decreases, particularly with a longer
duration
of breastfeeding and a high parity. There is little to suggest that
exclusive
breastfeeding for six months adversely affects infant growth, nutritional
status or infant feeding skills, but more studies are needed. Equally,
there
is no evidence that introduction of solids from 17 weeks is harmful in
developed countries. However, in the UK breastfeeding prevalence is low
and
solids are introduced early for the majority of infants and much can be
done
to positively encourage and support all mothers to continue breastfeeding
for
a longer period.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

In article , "Rosie" wrote:

Equally, there is no evidence that introduction of solids from 17 weeks
is harmful in developed countries.

That surprises me - I thought there was evidence that this caused more
allergies and gastro-related problems. Is this just anecdotal?

Good question; I have no idea!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc

That surprises me - I thought there was evidence that this caused more
allergies and gastro-related problems. Is this just anecdotal?


I think it's a mixture of anecdotal evidence and extrapolation. The thing is,
until quite recently, most babies were started on solid well before 4 months,
so the vast majority of studies that look at look at the risks of early solids
(most of which DO find harm from them) compare solids earlier than 4 months
with solids after 4 months. I don't think I've seen many studies looking at
actual harm from solids between 4-6 months vs. later than 6 months.


The deal with solids between 4-6 months (and the AAP recommondation supports
this) isn't so much that giving solids between 4-6 months is likely to be
harmful (at least in babies who aren't at high risk for allergy), but just that
is isn't necssary or beneficial. Since most babies get all the nutrition they
need from breastmilk or formula for at least the first 6 months, and many
babies aren't interested in solids or able to handle them much before 6 months,
there is just no real reason to offer them. (And they are trying to discourage
the competitive thing-- the idea that the baby who is eating lots of solids of
4 months [or 3 months, or 6 weeks....] must be somehow more advanced than the
baby who is still on breastmilk until 6 months. Of course, we are now seeing
the reverse form of that competition -- the idea that babies who are happy on
bm alone,and aren't interested in solids until 7 or 8 or 10 months must be
somehow 'better' than the babies who happily take cereal at 4 months.... And
so it goes.


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)