- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Parenting
Nora Judith 7/2/06 Miles Chauncey 4/20/09 born with Trisomy 21 - Down syndrome
This is sure to cause some debate...
Study: Nearly 900 babies could be saved each year if 90% of U.S. women breast-fed
Nora Judith 7/2/06 Miles Chauncey 4/20/09 born with Trisomy 21 - Down syndrome
This discussion has been closed.
Re: This is sure to cause some debate...
Without having read the article, my initial thought is that could only be true if the person doing that study knew the exact genetic make up of each of those children.
Now off to read the article....
900? That's it?
How many women are formula feeding every year in the US? A lot. And only 900 babies would be saved...that's too small of a number for me to believe it. What did they study, anyway? I don't believe most of the research on breastfeeding. The only logical way to prove breastfeeding is better is to formula feed a baby for 12 months. Then go back in time and breastfeed the same infant under the same circumstances and note any differences. Until someone comes up with a time machine, I'm going to stick with Enfamil.
J2 11.17.08
Did the study control for income? Access to healthcare? IMO BFing is not the cause of many of the health advantages; it is a proxy for other conditions that lead to good health, like relatively high incomes, access to healthcare. A lot of women don't BF because they have to go back to work in 6 weeks - the kinds of jobs where you can't pump. And those same women don't have access to good healthcare.
Imagine how many babies would be saved if there was strict enforcement of traffic laws. IF there were real consequences for reckless driving that would save a lot more lives than increased BFing rates.
This has pretty much been our experience, too. DD#1 was FF and DD#2 received BM for the forst 5 months and is now FF. In fact, I dare say that DD#2 is doing better on formula (gaining weight better, catching up/meeting milestones that she missed/was behind on, etc). And, neither one of them has been sick this fall/winter.
900? That's it?
How many women are formula feeding every year in the US? A lot. And only 900 babies would be saved...that's too small of a number for me to believe it. What did they study, anyway? I don't believe most of the research on breastfeeding. The only logical way to prove breastfeeding is better is to formula feed a baby for 12 months. Then go back in time and breastfeed the same infant under the same circumstances and note any differences. Until someone comes up with a time machine, I'm going to stick with Enfamil.
Um, Ali - that is like saying you don't believe smoking can cause lung cancer b/c there is no way to take a cancer patient who smoked 2 packs a day for 20 years, reverse time and see if they still develop cancer.
That is why studies(any medical study) are done on hundreds and thousands of people of people. A large sample size helps flush out the "outliers"
I am never ceased to be be amazed at the number of Nesties that lack basic undedrstanding of statistics....
totally my experience with DD. DS is BF for now, but I have zero issue going to FF w/ hum
Christmas 2011
Basic understanding of statistics shows that the data can be skewed to prove nearly anything.
Sorry, usually just lurk. You can study the effects of tar and nicotine through in-vivo and invitro studies. Numerous mouse and monkey models look at the effect of smoking on lungs. Molecular models study protein cascades leading to cancer. I am never ceased to be be amazed at the number of Nesties that lack basic undedrstanding of oncology research. Yes you can study the effects of BFing through anecdotal research, but can you really prove that the baby who died of RSV would not have contacted it if they were breastfed?
Interesting, I guess. I just don't really see how it proves much at all and 900 seems low considering the number of babies that are FF.
Jackson was FF - and he's been sick once, exactly. In 3.5 years. I realize that anecdotal, but I just have to wonder how they control for the other factors at play - genetics, etc.
I'm considering attempting BFing w/ this baby. And it will be for exactly one reason - because it's free, and I rather like the idea of either having extra money to spend on myself for doing that or putting that money in savings. But I can say right now - I won't be doing it because I think it is better for my baby in any way. Because I don't. I think all other factors at play, BFing = FFing. How's that for debate?
Throw studies at me and I really don't care; I doubt I'll ever see one that proves anything to me because I really don't see how you can control for genetics, specifically.
You should post more often
Was there a class in high school that I was supposed to take? What did I miss? Should this have been an elective in college while getting my business admn degree that I failed to take?
Exactly. And studies like this really just add more pressure and guilt to women to be perfect mothers.
yes. I'm SURE my kids didn't die because I nursed them. That is the ONLY reason. lolololol.
Who knows.....I may make a study and see if I can get some funding that says "thousands of children's lives will be saved if they never ride in a car" .
and i could be your counter study to show how many accidents occur in the home thus increasing their risk of death by never leaving the house.
you know, all 3 broken bones DID happen at home, so you are right. Driving is FAR safer for my kids than playing at home!!!! What was I thinking, kitty?
and i am sure there are studies using animals (vs. human babies) done on breastmilk.....
and there would still be those who say molecular/primate/rodent studies are inconclusive because they were not conducted on people.
I dont care if you breastfeed or not, my issue is with people dismissing research b/c they feel like all of the factors are not controlled for. Do they not realize the scientists conducting such research factor that in and control for outside factors as best as they can. Also - the higher the sample size, the less of an issue the other factors become.....
what always makes me laugh the most is people who use a sample size of ONE to decide that a resaerch study based on millions is invalid. i.e "My child wasn't breastfed, and she is rarely sick, so I discount the study" Um, like I said, I dont care if you nurse or not, but please don't make conclusions based on ONE (or even only one hundred) examples.
I realize a study done by a group with an agenda such as La Leche League or the Tobacco Association will likely have a bias built in....but please don't discount all research entirely. I see this on here all the time and it makes me crazy.