Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Advice for Moms Advice for Moms

If you choose not to BF, and your child gets a disease that could have been prevented ...

Posted by   + Show Post

I'm not bashing anyone, or trying to cause fights, so lets respect each other's answers... I would just like a conversation started  where people share their thoughts and opinions on this topic...

I'll start out by saying this: My father was bottle fed after he got really ill, almost died, and the shock to my grandmother's system made her dry up. I was bottle fed too and so was my sibling. However I choose to BF my LO because I feel that I can protect her against diseases like diabetes, acute appendicitis, rheumatoid arthritis, inguinal hernia and ploric stenosis, to name a few.

So my question is this: If you choose not to BF and in 10, 20, 30, 40 years your DD or DS got diagnosed with an illness that is life changing, would you like to turn back the years and BF as it would reduce your child's risk to this disease or do you think your child won't get it, or do you think your child will get it no matter what you do today?


Edit:

Firstly I would like to thank everyone that shared their stories. I'm sorry to hear about so many children that is affected by diabetes. I chose diabetes as an example because I was diagnosed with GD that didn't go away and stayed after my daughter was born. There is no family history of diabetes, across family where my grandfather was one of 18 children and my other grandfather one of 11, so I have a huge family. I'm not overweight. I've always eaten healthy food, loved salad and vegetables  etc and yet, now I'm diabetic. 

So my reason for asking was not to make people feel like their parenting choices were bad or that breastfeeding is better or to make moms feel like failures or that they should blame themselves. I'm trying to figure out WHAT on earth LED to MY illness. As a mom I would most definitely go back and redo something I did wrong if I had the means to do so. We all do our best, but we all want a do over.

The illnesses that I quoted in my original question was what I researched on the web. Not something I sucked out of my thumb. And just to clarify AGAIN, I'm not accusing anybody. I was ff. I read a lot of interesting answers that made me think. I need people to challenge my thoughts so that I can push myself further into trying to understand this condition. BECAUSE I AM DIABETIC, my child has a risk of being diabetic. I'm allowed to ask questions without having to be insulted. Trust me if I wanted to insult mothers, you would know about it.

I do believe that breastfeeding reduces your child's risk to these diseases and others thats not mentioned. I don't however said that it would PREVENT them from getting it. So please don't misquote me.


by on Feb. 18, 2013 at 4:18 AM
Replies (171-180):
achorney
by Member on Feb. 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM


Two.
 

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


type 1 or 2?

Quoting achorney:

For the record, I was a breasted baby and I do have diabetes. And I am getting my undergrad in biochemistry. I am not just some troll.





soontobemomof2k
by on Feb. 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM


I dont need to read it, anyone can get anything published nowadays. Like i said, ask an endocrinologist you can actually talk to face to face, not something you read online. I already know the truth and I dont need to continue to argue my point since I know whats right so I am done with this post. 

Quoting Randi02:

Did you bother reading the 'article'? It's not just a random article off of the internet lol, it's published in a medical journal and made up of several studies etc. that are cited. It's very credible - and I think you would be hard pressed to find anything with such credible sources saying otherwise.

I never said you were ignorant for not breastfeeding, I said that it is ignorant to believe that it has no impact on health outcomes. Formula is better than starvation, but it comes with health risks.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


Maybe type 2 but defiintely not type 1. They are born with the gene and predisposition in them. Nothing me or my daughter could have done would have prevented it coming out, maybe delay it but not prevent it. I dont care what kind of "facts" you think you may have. I have spoken to actual drs face to face about type 1, not just gotten info off the internet. Why dont you go to a pediatric endocrinologist and ask them since they deal with it daily?

I am not ignorant for not breastfeeding, you are ignorant to think that formula is not healthy for children. Obviously you, and the people who write these articles are pretty stupid for not understanding how type 1 works. I know how it works, I deal with it daily. 

According to this article, not breastfeeding makes people fat!?! lmao. My daughters perfectly fine so thank you for your ridiculous "research" but I know the truth =)

Quoting Randi02:

LOL, no. It's not.

I'm sorry this is such a sensitive subject for you, but NOT breastfeeding increases the risk of diabetes.

It makes sense, too. Breastfeeding is the biological norm, it's the natural continuation of pregnancy. It's ignorant to think that withholding it will have no impact.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


Thats a bunch of bull, sorry

Quoting Randi02:


Logo of revobgynLink to Publisher's site
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Fall; 2(4): 222–231.
PMCID: PMC2812877

The Risks of Not Breastfeeding for Mothers and Infants

Health outcomes in developed countries differ substantially for mothers and infants who formula feed compared with those who breastfeed. For infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence of infectious morbidity, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome. For mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, and the metabolic syndrome. Obstetricians are uniquely positioned to counsel mothers about the health impact of breastfeeding and to ensure that mothers and infants receive appropriate, evidence-based care, starting at birth.

Health outcomes differ substantially for mothers and infants who formula feed compared with those who breastfeed, even in developed countries such as the United States. A recent meta-analysis by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reviewed this evidence in detail1:

  • For infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence of infectious morbidity, including otitis media, gastroenteritis, and pneumonia, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
  • Among premature infants, not receiving breast milk is associated with an increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
  • For mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome.

These findings suggest that infant feeding is an important modifiable risk factor for disease for both mothers and infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) therefore recommends 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding for all infants.2 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)3 and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)4 similarly recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, continuing at least through the infant’s first birthday, and as long thereafter as is mutually desired. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least 2 years of breastfeeding for all infants.

In the United States, breastfeeding durations fall far short of these guidelines.5 In 2005, 74.2% of US infants were breastfed at least once after delivery, but only 31.5% were exclusively breastfed at age 3 months, and just 11.9% were exclusively breastfed at age 6 months. These rates show considerable regional variation, with the highest rates in the Pacific Northwest and the lowest rates in the Southeast. Although some of this variation reflects cultural differences, recent data suggest that variations in hospital practices account for a considerable proportion of disparities in breastfeeding duration.6 This suggests that improvements in the quality of antenatal and perinatal support for breastfeeding could have a substantial impact on the health of mothers and infants.

This article reviews the health risks of not breastfeeding, for infants and for mothers, as well as the obstetrician’s role in counseling women regarding infant feeding and ensuring an optimal start for breastfeeding at birth.


The Risks of Formula Feeding Versus the Benefits of Breastfeeding

Public health campaigns and medical literature have traditionally described the “benefits of breastfeeding,” comparing health outcomes among breastfed infants against a reference group of formula-fed infants. Although mathematically synonymous with reporting the “risk of not breastfeeding,” this approach implicitly defines formula feeding as the norm. As several authors have noted,79 this subtle distinction impacts public perceptions of infant feeding. If “breast is best,” then formula is implicitly “good” or “normal.” This distinction was underscored by national survey data showing that, in 2003, whereas 74.3% of US residents disagreed with the statement: “Infant formula is as good as breast milk,” just 24.4% agreed with the statement: “Feeding a baby formula instead of breast milk increases the chance the baby will get sick.”10

These distinctions appear to influence parents’ feeding decisions. In 2002, the Ad Council conducted focus groups to develop the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign, targeted at reproductive-aged women who would not normally breastfeed. They found that women who were advised about the “benefits of breastfeeding” viewed lactation as a “bonus,” like a multivitamin, that was helpful but not essential for infant health. Women responded differently when the same data were presented as the “risk of not breastfeeding,” and they were far more likely to say that they would breastfeed their infants. Given these findings, this review will present differences in health outcomes as risks of formula feeding, using breastfeeding mother-infant dyads as the referent group.










stepconfused182
by Kelley on Feb. 21, 2013 at 6:56 PM
Did you know that they have recently discovered that Alzheimers disease is a type of insulin resistance in the brain, making it a type of diabetes. These are the type of discoveries made with clinical trials which is what these type of journal articles are citing. My point is, this is not "ridiculous research". It is not "bs" and not believing it or choosing to remain uneducated and cynical is not going to make it untrue. It is derived from studies and the data is scientific. It is perfectly fine for you to have an opinion and believe what you want to believe but that does not make the truth non existent. It is a fact that studies are finding that formula feeding DOES increase the risk of Type 1 diabetes. I am sorry your daughter has DM and I am sure you manage it very well and have a lot of knowledge regarding that topic. But it still remains fact that when compared with breastfed babies, formula fed babies have a higher risk of this. No one is judging the reason for your choice to ff nor are they saying you did anything wrong or are at fault. It is just a stated fact.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


Maybe type 2 but defiintely not type 1. They are born with the gene and predisposition in them. Nothing me or my daughter could have done would have prevented it coming out, maybe delay it but not prevent it. I dont care what kind of "facts" you think you may have. I have spoken to actual drs face to face about type 1, not just gotten info off the internet. Why dont you go to a pediatric endocrinologist and ask them since they deal with it daily?

I am not ignorant for not breastfeeding, you are ignorant to think that formula is not healthy for children. Obviously you, and the people who write these articles are pretty stupid for not understanding how type 1 works. I know how it works, I deal with it daily. 

According to this article, not breastfeeding makes people fat!?! lmao. My daughters perfectly fine so thank you for your ridiculous "research" but I know the truth =)



Quoting Randi02:

LOL, no. It's not.

I'm sorry this is such a sensitive subject for you, but NOT breastfeeding increases the risk of diabetes.

It makes sense, too. Breastfeeding is the biological norm, it's the natural continuation of pregnancy. It's ignorant to think that withholding it will have no impact.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


Thats a bunch of bull, sorry



Quoting Randi02:


Logo of revobgynLink to Publisher's site








Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Fall; 2(4): 222–231.
PMCID: PMC2812877

The Risks of Not Breastfeeding for Mothers and Infants

Health outcomes in developed countries differ substantially for mothers

and infants who formula feed compared with those who breastfeed. For

infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence

of infectious morbidity, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity,

type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome.

For mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased

incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained

gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, and the

metabolic syndrome. Obstetricians are uniquely positioned to counsel

mothers about the health impact of breastfeeding and to ensure that

mothers and infants receive appropriate, evidence-based care, starting

at birth.

Health

outcomes differ substantially for mothers and infants who formula feed

compared with those who breastfeed, even in developed countries such as

the United States
. A recent meta-analysis by the Agency for Healthcare

Research and Quality reviewed this evidence in detail1:

  • For

    infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence

    of infectious morbidity, including otitis media, gastroenteritis, and

    pneumonia, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and

    type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
  • Among premature infants, not receiving breast milk is associated with an increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
  • For

    mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased

    incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained

    gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome.

These

findings suggest that infant feeding is an important modifiable risk

factor for disease for both mothers and infants. The American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) therefore recommends 6 months of

exclusive breastfeeding for all infants.2 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)3 and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)4

similarly recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of

life, continuing at least through the infant’s first birthday, and as

long thereafter as is mutually desired. The World Health Organization

(WHO) recommends at least 2 years of breastfeeding for all infants.

In the United States, breastfeeding durations fall far short of these guidelines.5

In 2005, 74.2% of US infants were breastfed at least once after

delivery, but only 31.5% were exclusively breastfed at age 3 months, and

just 11.9% were exclusively breastfed at age 6 months. These rates show

considerable regional variation, with the highest rates in the Pacific

Northwest and the lowest rates in the Southeast. Although some of this

variation reflects cultural differences, recent data suggest that

variations in hospital practices account for a considerable proportion

of disparities in breastfeeding duration.6

This suggests that improvements in the quality of antenatal and

perinatal support for breastfeeding could have a substantial impact on

the health of mothers and infants.

This article reviews

the health risks of not breastfeeding, for infants and for mothers, as

well as the obstetrician’s role in counseling women regarding infant

feeding and ensuring an optimal start for breastfeeding at birth.


The Risks of Formula Feeding Versus the Benefits of Breastfeeding

Public

health campaigns and medical literature have traditionally described

the “benefits of breastfeeding,” comparing health outcomes among

breastfed infants against a reference group of formula-fed infants.

Although mathematically synonymous with reporting the “risk of not

breastfeeding,” this approach implicitly defines formula feeding as the

norm. As several authors have noted,79

this subtle distinction impacts public perceptions of infant feeding.

If “breast is best,” then formula is implicitly “good” or “normal.” This

distinction was underscored by national survey data showing that, in

2003, whereas 74.3% of US residents disagreed with the statement:

“Infant formula is as good as breast milk,” just 24.4% agreed with the

statement: “Feeding a baby formula instead of breast milk increases the

chance the baby will get sick.”10

These

distinctions appear to influence parents’ feeding decisions. In 2002,

the Ad Council conducted focus groups to develop the National

Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign, targeted at reproductive-aged women

who would not normally breastfeed. They found that women who were

advised about the “benefits of breastfeeding” viewed lactation as a

“bonus,” like a multivitamin, that was helpful but not essential for

infant health. Women responded differently when the same data were

presented as the “risk of not breastfeeding,” and they were far more

likely to say that they would breastfeed their infants. Given these

findings, this review will present differences in health outcomes as

risks of formula feeding, using breastfeeding mother-infant dyads as the

referent group.











Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
stepconfused182
by Kelley on Feb. 21, 2013 at 7:01 PM
This is taken from a peer reviewed journal article. The best type of research you can possibly find. It is more accurate than anything a doctor could tell you face to face unless he was directly citing the article.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


I dont need to read it, anyone can get anything published nowadays. Like i said, ask an endocrinologist you can actually talk to face to face, not something you read online. I already know the truth and I dont need to continue to argue my point since I know whats right so I am done with this post. 


Quoting Randi02:

Did you bother reading the 'article'? It's not just a random article off of the internet lol, it's published in a medical journal and made up of several studies etc. that are cited. It's very credible - and I think you would be hard pressed to find anything with such credible sources saying otherwise.

I never said you were ignorant for not breastfeeding, I said that it is ignorant to believe that it has no impact on health outcomes. Formula is better than starvation, but it comes with health risks.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


Maybe type 2 but defiintely not type 1. They are born with the gene and predisposition in them. Nothing me or my daughter could have done would have prevented it coming out, maybe delay it but not prevent it. I dont care what kind of "facts" you think you may have. I have spoken to actual drs face to face about type 1, not just gotten info off the internet. Why dont you go to a pediatric endocrinologist and ask them since they deal with it daily?

I am not ignorant for not breastfeeding, you are ignorant to think that formula is not healthy for children. Obviously you, and the people who write these articles are pretty stupid for not understanding how type 1 works. I know how it works, I deal with it daily. 

According to this article, not breastfeeding makes people fat!?! lmao. My daughters perfectly fine so thank you for your ridiculous "research" but I know the truth =)


Quoting Randi02:

LOL, no. It's not.

I'm sorry this is such a sensitive subject for you, but NOT breastfeeding increases the risk of diabetes.

It makes sense, too. Breastfeeding is the biological norm, it's the natural continuation of pregnancy. It's ignorant to think that withholding it will have no impact.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


Thats a bunch of bull, sorry


Quoting Randi02:


Logo of revobgynLink to Publisher's site




Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Fall; 2(4): 222–231.
PMCID: PMC2812877

The Risks of Not Breastfeeding for Mothers and Infants

Health outcomes in developed countries differ substantially for mothers
and infants who formula feed compared with those who breastfeed. For
infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence
of infectious morbidity, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity,
type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome.
For mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased
incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained
gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, and the
metabolic syndrome. Obstetricians are uniquely positioned to counsel
mothers about the health impact of breastfeeding and to ensure that
mothers and infants receive appropriate, evidence-based care, starting
at birth.

Health
outcomes differ substantially for mothers and infants who formula feed
compared with those who breastfeed, even in developed countries such as
the United States
. A recent meta-analysis by the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality reviewed this evidence in detail1:

  • For
    infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence
    of infectious morbidity, including otitis media, gastroenteritis, and
    pneumonia, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and
    type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
  • Among premature infants, not receiving breast milk is associated with an increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
  • For
    mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased
    incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained
    gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome.

These
findings suggest that infant feeding is an important modifiable risk
factor for disease for both mothers and infants. The American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) therefore recommends 6 months of
exclusive breastfeeding for all infants.2 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)3 and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)4
similarly recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of
life, continuing at least through the infant’s first birthday, and as
long thereafter as is mutually desired. The World Health Organization
(WHO) recommends at least 2 years of breastfeeding for all infants.

In the United States, breastfeeding durations fall far short of these guidelines.5
In 2005, 74.2% of US infants were breastfed at least once after
delivery, but only 31.5% were exclusively breastfed at age 3 months, and
just 11.9% were exclusively breastfed at age 6 months. These rates show
considerable regional variation, with the highest rates in the Pacific
Northwest and the lowest rates in the Southeast. Although some of this
variation reflects cultural differences, recent data suggest that
variations in hospital practices account for a considerable proportion
of disparities in breastfeeding duration.6
This suggests that improvements in the quality of antenatal and
perinatal support for breastfeeding could have a substantial impact on
the health of mothers and infants.

This article reviews
the health risks of not breastfeeding, for infants and for mothers, as
well as the obstetrician’s role in counseling women regarding infant
feeding and ensuring an optimal start for breastfeeding at birth.


The Risks of Formula Feeding Versus the Benefits of Breastfeeding

Public
health campaigns and medical literature have traditionally described
the “benefits of breastfeeding,” comparing health outcomes among
breastfed infants against a reference group of formula-fed infants.
Although mathematically synonymous with reporting the “risk of not
breastfeeding,” this approach implicitly defines formula feeding as the
norm. As several authors have noted,79
this subtle distinction impacts public perceptions of infant feeding.
If “breast is best,” then formula is implicitly “good” or “normal.” This
distinction was underscored by national survey data showing that, in
2003, whereas 74.3% of US residents disagreed with the statement:
“Infant formula is as good as breast milk,” just 24.4% agreed with the
statement: “Feeding a baby formula instead of breast milk increases the
chance the baby will get sick.”10

These
distinctions appear to influence parents’ feeding decisions. In 2002,
the Ad Council conducted focus groups to develop the National
Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign, targeted at reproductive-aged women
who would not normally breastfeed. They found that women who were
advised about the “benefits of breastfeeding” viewed lactation as a
“bonus,” like a multivitamin, that was helpful but not essential for
infant health. Women responded differently when the same data were
presented as the “risk of not breastfeeding,” and they were far more
likely to say that they would breastfeed their infants. Given these
findings, this review will present differences in health outcomes as
risks of formula feeding, using breastfeeding mother-infant dyads as the
referent group.













Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
tyfry7496
by on Feb. 21, 2013 at 7:08 PM
Exactly!!!!

Quoting MrsRobinson06:

No because I believe they would have gotten the disease regardless of how they were fed at infancy. If you're meant to have a disease when you're older it will still happen.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
soontobemomof2k
by on Feb. 21, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Like I said, I know the truth. I personally dont care whats published. I know it has nothing to do with breastfeeding or formula feeding. I'm sorry you believe this article. How are these studies actually accurate? Before even feeding your child when they are born, do they go through the child's genome to see if they are genetically predispositioned to anything? No. So whoopy freakin do if more formula fed babies come out with diabetes... just means more of them were predispositioned. Most studies are coincedences


Sorry, no one will change my mind. 


Quoting stepconfused182:

Did you know that they have recently discovered that Alzheimers disease is a type of insulin resistance in the brain, making it a type of diabetes. These are the type of discoveries made with clinical trials which is what these type of journal articles are citing. My point is, this is not "ridiculous research". It is not "bs" and not believing it or choosing to remain uneducated and cynical is not going to make it untrue. It is derived from studies and the data is scientific. It is perfectly fine for you to have an opinion and believe what you want to believe but that does not make the truth non existent. It is a fact that studies are finding that formula feeding DOES increase the risk of Type 1 diabetes. I am sorry your daughter has DM and I am sure you manage it very well and have a lot of knowledge regarding that topic. But it still remains fact that when compared with breastfed babies, formula fed babies have a higher risk of this. No one is judging the reason for your choice to ff nor are they saying you did anything wrong or are at fault. It is just a stated fact.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


Maybe type 2 but defiintely not type 1. They are born with the gene and predisposition in them. Nothing me or my daughter could have done would have prevented it coming out, maybe delay it but not prevent it. I dont care what kind of "facts" you think you may have. I have spoken to actual drs face to face about type 1, not just gotten info off the internet. Why dont you go to a pediatric endocrinologist and ask them since they deal with it daily?

I am not ignorant for not breastfeeding, you are ignorant to think that formula is not healthy for children. Obviously you, and the people who write these articles are pretty stupid for not understanding how type 1 works. I know how it works, I deal with it daily. 

According to this article, not breastfeeding makes people fat!?! lmao. My daughters perfectly fine so thank you for your ridiculous "research" but I know the truth =)



Quoting Randi02:

LOL, no. It's not.

I'm sorry this is such a sensitive subject for you, but NOT breastfeeding increases the risk of diabetes.

It makes sense, too. Breastfeeding is the biological norm, it's the natural continuation of pregnancy. It's ignorant to think that withholding it will have no impact.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


Thats a bunch of bull, sorry



Quoting Randi02:


Logo of revobgynLink to Publisher's site








Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Fall; 2(4): 222–231.
PMCID: PMC2812877

The Risks of Not Breastfeeding for Mothers and Infants

Health outcomes in developed countries differ substantially for mothers

and infants who formula feed compared with those who breastfeed. For

infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence

of infectious morbidity, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity,

type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome.

For mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased

incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained

gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, and the

metabolic syndrome. Obstetricians are uniquely positioned to counsel

mothers about the health impact of breastfeeding and to ensure that

mothers and infants receive appropriate, evidence-based care, starting

at birth.

Health

outcomes differ substantially for mothers and infants who formula feed

compared with those who breastfeed, even in developed countries such as

the United States
. A recent meta-analysis by the Agency for Healthcare

Research and Quality reviewed this evidence in detail1:

  • For

    infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence

    of infectious morbidity, including otitis media, gastroenteritis, and

    pneumonia, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and

    type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
  • Among premature infants, not receiving breast milk is associated with an increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).
  • For

    mothers, failure to breastfeed is associated with an increased

    incidence of premenopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, retained

    gestational weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome.

These

findings suggest that infant feeding is an important modifiable risk

factor for disease for both mothers and infants. The American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) therefore recommends 6 months of

exclusive breastfeeding for all infants.2 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)3 and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)4

similarly recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of

life, continuing at least through the infant’s first birthday, and as

long thereafter as is mutually desired. The World Health Organization

(WHO) recommends at least 2 years of breastfeeding for all infants.

In the United States, breastfeeding durations fall far short of these guidelines.5

In 2005, 74.2% of US infants were breastfed at least once after

delivery, but only 31.5% were exclusively breastfed at age 3 months, and

just 11.9% were exclusively breastfed at age 6 months. These rates show

considerable regional variation, with the highest rates in the Pacific

Northwest and the lowest rates in the Southeast. Although some of this

variation reflects cultural differences, recent data suggest that

variations in hospital practices account for a considerable proportion

of disparities in breastfeeding duration.6

This suggests that improvements in the quality of antenatal and

perinatal support for breastfeeding could have a substantial impact on

the health of mothers and infants.

This article reviews

the health risks of not breastfeeding, for infants and for mothers, as

well as the obstetrician’s role in counseling women regarding infant

feeding and ensuring an optimal start for breastfeeding at birth.


The Risks of Formula Feeding Versus the Benefits of Breastfeeding

Public

health campaigns and medical literature have traditionally described

the “benefits of breastfeeding,” comparing health outcomes among

breastfed infants against a reference group of formula-fed infants.

Although mathematically synonymous with reporting the “risk of not

breastfeeding,” this approach implicitly defines formula feeding as the

norm. As several authors have noted,79

this subtle distinction impacts public perceptions of infant feeding.

If “breast is best,” then formula is implicitly “good” or “normal.” This

distinction was underscored by national survey data showing that, in

2003, whereas 74.3% of US residents disagreed with the statement:

“Infant formula is as good as breast milk,” just 24.4% agreed with the

statement: “Feeding a baby formula instead of breast milk increases the

chance the baby will get sick.”10

These

distinctions appear to influence parents’ feeding decisions. In 2002,

the Ad Council conducted focus groups to develop the National

Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign, targeted at reproductive-aged women

who would not normally breastfeed. They found that women who were

advised about the “benefits of breastfeeding” viewed lactation as a

“bonus,” like a multivitamin, that was helpful but not essential for

infant health. Women responded differently when the same data were

presented as the “risk of not breastfeeding,” and they were far more

likely to say that they would breastfeed their infants. Given these

findings, this review will present differences in health outcomes as

risks of formula feeding, using breastfeeding mother-infant dyads as the

referent group.













Randi02
by Platinum Member on Feb. 21, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Yes, but not in a peer reviewed medical journal lol.

Breastfeeding contains many protective properties that support proper thymus growth, and pancreatic function. Certain infections during infancy can also be a trigger - and breastfeeding promotes optimal immune function. I don't need to ask anybody anything, I understand how this works - and any credible medical source will state that not breastfeeding increases the risk for several diseases, type 1 diabetes being one of them. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:


I dont need to read it, anyone can get anything published nowadays. Like i said, ask an endocrinologist you can actually talk to face to face, not something you read online. I already know the truth and I dont need to continue to argue my point since I know whats right so I am done with this post. 

ScarletRose4488
by on Feb. 21, 2013 at 7:12 PM

I don't want to get into a debate or anything but I saw this and would like to share a few things I have found in my journey for understanding.   Diabetes and just about everything else is on the rise.  Never in history have people been so sick.  But also never in history have people been so lazy, so overweight, placed in unique positions to our generations (how many people before us would sit in a chair for 12 hours a day?).   Never in history has anyone been subjected to all of the modified food, medications, chemicals, garbage, radiation, & everything else.   As I type this a hundred possible chemicals, ect pop into my head.   So how can anyone blame a mother for FF or vaccinating or any other choice?  Even if that blamed object was removed there are countless others standing in line.  We don't know anything for certain.  Doctors make educated best guesses.  But the thing about science is it is always evolving and suddenly "fact" is disproven & replaced with new facts.  Even if you do everything perfectly by nature totally organic off the grid (sooooo not me) but even then there is so much crap in the ground, in the water system, in the air.  I once saw a (unofficial?) projection of the instance of thyroid conditions of people who lived within the general wind patterns of the New Mexico region where certain testing was performed during WW2 & on.  (Careful treading)  The wind pattern waved through the country all the way up to the new england coast.   Think about that.  It opened my mind to a whole new "Oh shit" set of concerns.  I was thinking what is on the apple I am eating.  It never occurred to me to think that big.   Then there is the question of DNA mutation.  Seriously.   There are certain medications & chemicals that are known to cause problems in the child during pre-natal development.  EVEN if the child was not conceived until years later.   Now, some of those children are already old enough that they have children of their own, or even grandchildren.  

Ok, so now I feel like I sound like a crazy con spiracy theorist.  I promise I am not.   I am curious and some of my curiosity can scare me.  And the whole point of me telling you all of this is to say that I firmly beleive that we can not blame each other into a solution.  We need to support each other regardless of disagreements over something like parenting choices.  


Quoting MoeksieNature:

I'm sorry to hear that your children got affected by diabetes. I would just like to add that I never said that bottle feeding causes diabetes, however there is an astounding rise in diabetes across the world, and I'm merely interested in seeing what other moms have to say. Thanks for sharing.

Quoting DaniandTom:

OK I have no idea where you got the idea that breastfeeding prevented diabetes! I BF my daughter for a year and at age 5 she got diabetes. Same with my second son, although he developed it at age 24. (type 1--insulin dependant diabetes NOT type 2 that is caused by lifestyle) I bottle fed my first son but he didn't develop diabetes. So...explain that! LOL 

Breast feeding is preferable IF YOU CAN AND WANT TO. However, if you choose to bottle feed or if you cannot for whatever reason BF, then your baby will be fine. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Bottle feeding causes diabetes or anything else! To suggest something like that is just silly.




Randi02
by Platinum Member on Feb. 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM

A lot of these studies involve children of diabetic mothers. They track how long they were breastfed, whether it was exclusive etc.

The studies all show that exclusive breastfeeding for 3+ months offers protection against diabetes. Exclusive formula feeding, especially with a cow's milk based formula, puts the infant at the greatest risk.

Quoting soontobemomof2k:

Like I said, I know the truth. I personally dont care whats published. I know it has nothing to do with breastfeeding or formula feeding. I'm sorry you believe this article. How are these studies actually accurate? Before even feeding your child when they are born, do they go through the child's genome to see if they are genetically predispositioned to anything? No. So whoopy freakin do if more formula fed babies come out with diabetes... just means more of them were predispositioned. Most studies are coincedences


Sorry, no one will change my mind. 


Quoting stepconfused182:

Did you know that they have recently discovered that Alzheimers disease is a type of insulin resistance in the brain, making it a type of diabetes. These are the type of discoveries made with clinical trials which is what these type of journal articles are citing. My point is, this is not "ridiculous research". It is not "bs" and not believing it or choosing to remain uneducated and cynical is not going to make it untrue. It is derived from studies and the data is scientific. It is perfectly fine for you to have an opinion and believe what you want to believe but that does not make the truth non existent. It is a fact that studies are finding that formula feeding DOES increase the risk of Type 1 diabetes. I am sorry your daughter has DM and I am sure you manage it very well and have a lot of knowledge regarding that topic. But it still remains fact that when compared with breastfed babies, formula fed babies have a higher risk of this. No one is judging the reason for your choice to ff nor are they saying you did anything wrong or are at fault. It is just a stated fact.
tyfry7496
by on Feb. 21, 2013 at 7:15 PM
Type 1 diabetes can NOT be prevented. Type 1 diabetes is the pancreas no longer producing insulin and not processing carbs correctly. I know 3 kids under 8 yrs old that have Type 1 and ALL were breasted. Their endo doc even stated that it can no be prevented.

Type 2 can be prevented.

Women who have Gestational diabetes are at a much higher risk of developing diabetes.

And NO, I wouldn't want a "do over". I can't change what God decided my child would be. I didnt bf and my son is much healthier than my friends child who was bf.


Quoting MoeksieNature:

So for argument sake lets say your child gets type 1 diabetes, would you not wonder if it is something that could have been prevented? I know there isn't a lot of evidence going around, so I'm just curious. What if in 20 years time there is hard evidence that BFing could have prevented your child from developing Type 1 diabetes? Would you like to have a do over?

Quoting MrsRobinson06:

No because I believe they would have gotten the disease regardless of how they were fed at infancy. If you're meant to have a disease when you're older it will still happen.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN