Hey Blu -- bottle ???'s

DoctorWorm222 · March 2013

You mentioned that you didn't like what you learned when you researched extended bottle use. Could you share what you learned?

I thought it was only an issue for the teeth if you let the LO fall asleep with the bottle in his/her mouth.

CMonkey515 · March 2013

DoctorWorm222:
You mentioned that you didn't like what you learned when you researched extended bottle use. Could you share what you learned?
I thought it was only an issue for the teeth if you let the LO fall asleep with the bottle in his/her mouth.

That's what I've always read too. Or if you let them walk around all day drinking out of a bottle, or use it fr comfort like a pacifier. Especially if you have something other than water in it. I'd be interested to hear the research too.

stace13 · March 2013

I don't know if this is what she is referring to, but there was a study published in 2011 linking prolonged bottle use and obesity. However, this study used 24 months as the cutoff for what it considered prolonged, not 12 months.

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(11)00242-3/abstract

ETA: I never learned how to make things clicky in my my years as a lurker...sorry!

blu-eyedwife · March 2013

Here's a good start - it's one of the studies connecting obesity with bottle feeding past the age of one. It's been a while since I looked at it, so I can get back to you later on some of the others - I'd have to go digging through the med journals.

I think it's only part of the equation. I have a theory I'd love to research more that involves bottle feeding of any kind (breastmilk/formula/milk) and the increase in childhood obesity because kids drink so much more from bottles than they do from the breast. There was a study published last year that touched on this and found that children who were exclusively bottlefed (whether that be formula or breastmilk) during the first year of life were significantly heavier than those that were breastfed or a combination of breast and bottle (formula or breastmilk). But DH and I have decided that I have to wait to pursue my research on infant nutrition until my law school student loans are paid off Wink

blu-eyedwife · March 2013

stace13:
I don't know if this is what she is referring to, but there was a study published in 2011 linking prolonged bottle use and obesity. However, this study used 24 months as the cutoff for what it considered prolonged, not 12 months.

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(11)00242-3/abstract
ETA: I never learned how to make things clicky in my my years as a lurker...sorry!

I think you might have misread. This is a direct quote from the study:

"Prolonged bottle use is defined as using a bottle later than 12 to 14 months of age⁵" (And it cites to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in case the footnote isn't clicky)

stace13 · March 2013

blu-eyedwife:
Here's a good start - it's one of the studies connecting obesity with bottle feeding past the age of one. It's been a while since I looked at it, so I can get back to you later on some of the others - I'd have to go digging through the med journals.

Yeah that is the same study. They used 24 months to define "prolonged" not 12 months.

stace13 · March 2013

blu-eyedwife:
stace13:
I don't know if this is what she is referring to, but there was a study published in 2011 linking prolonged bottle use and obesity. However, this study used 24 months as the cutoff for what it considered prolonged, not 12 months.

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(11)00242-3/abstract
ETA: I never learned how to make things clicky in my my years as a lurker...sorry!
I think you might have misread. This is a direct quote from the study:
"Prolonged bottle use is defined as using a bottle later than 12 to 14 months of age⁵" (And it cites to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in case the footnote isn't clicky)

Partially correct. That is how they defined it in the text which is great because that is the popular and I would agree "correct" definition. However, when they present the results in the result section they use 24 months as the cut off. I wonder if they were unable to achieve statistical significance with their data using a lower cut off? But that is just a guess.

cantalopes24 · March 2013

I think other factors play into that because you also have to take into consideration that lower SES population is likely to FF and obviously use a bottle and have poor nutrition habits in general. Obviously there are obese rich people and healthy poor people but coincidence isn't always correlation.

stace13 · March 2013

cantalopes24:
I think other factors play into that because you also have to take into consideration that lower SES population is likely to FF and obviously use a bottle and have poor nutrition habits in general. Obviously there are obese rich people and healthy poor people but coincidence isn't always correlation.

I agree with Woodsie that there are things that they could not possibly have controlled for in this study. However, they did control for some indicators of SES (maternal education, income to poverty ratio, single parenting, maternal health factors) and were able to still achieve statistical significance.

Not a great study, but decent.

cantalopes24 · March 2013

stace13:
cantalopes24:
I think other factors play into that because you also have to take into consideration that lower SES population is likely to FF and obviously use a bottle and have poor nutrition habits in general. Obviously there are obese rich people and healthy poor people but coincidence isn't always correlation.

I agree with Woodsie that there are things that they could not possibly have controlled for in this study.  However, they did control for some indicators of SES (maternal education, income to poverty ratio, single parenting, maternal health factors) and were able to still achieve statistical significance.
Not a great study, but decent.

Gotcha. I didn't read the study because I'm on my phone and I haven't had problems with my kids switching from bottles. I also didn't see Woodsies post before I posted but she made some great points. Kind of what I was thinking but worded much better.

blu-eyedwife · March 2013

stace13:

Partially correct. That is how they defined it in the text which is great because that is the popular and I would agree "correct" definition. However, when they present the results in the result section they use 24 months as the cut off. I wonder if they were unable to achieve statistical significance with their data using a lower cut off? But that is just a guess.

I promise I'm not trying to start a fight here - I know tone is hard online, but I feel like we're reading the same thing in a different way. I know the study looks at infants who are still on the bottle at 24 months - but isn't that saying that use at 24 months is prolonged? Not that use past 24 months is prolonged. They're saying that infants that have prolonged use, over 12-14 months (ie 24 months), show the increased propensity. I don't see anywhere in the study about use past 24 months.

My guess as to why they use the 24 month is because that seems to be a "constant" in terms of well-child visits. From this board, the visits between 12 and 24 months don't seem to be consistent and I would imagine that must be the case in a larger sample size. For instance, my pediatrician doesn't regularly do 18 month visits, depending on how the 15 month visit goes. Others here have posted about how they don't have a 15 month visit.

And Woodsie - I agree with you that this isn't the definitive factor. As I said, I do think other things come in to play. And it's definitely not an "if/then" guarantee. Every parent needs to make the choice about where they want to focus their efforts. For me, I'm in the "every little bit" counts department when it comes to health and nutrition. As I said, cardiac disease runs in my family. My grandfather died of a heart attack at 43 and my father at 54. So anything I can do, I'm going to.

DoctorWorm222 · March 2013

I'm at work, so I don't have time to read the article right now, but I gather from the comments that one of the issues could be using the bottle for comfort. Could that lead to a long term association between eating and comfort?

stace13 · March 2013

Blu

I think we are close to being on the same page but are not quite there. I agree that they are in no way saying it is okay to bottle feed up until 24 months. However, what they studied was bottle feeding at 24 months. Therefore, they cannot make assumptions about any age before that. You can only make conclusions about the population you study, everything else is just speculation.

Concerning why they chose 24 months I'm not sure it actually said. However, if you look at the methods they did not draw their data from medical records or anything like that. They actually went out and interviewed moms in their homes.

blu-eyedwife · March 2013

DoctorWorm222:
I'm at work, so I don't have time to read the article right now, but I gather from the comments that one of the issues could be using the bottle for comfort. Could that lead to a long term association between eating and comfort?

That's not what the study deals with, but it's an interesting thought. I'm tempted to say that there isn't a correlation, because a lot of nursing is "for comfort" and I don't tend to think that breastfed or bottlefed babies are more likely to eat for comfort. Without any research, my gut thinks it would have a high environmental component - like how the family treats/presents food. And of course, there's the chemical reaction with certain foods (like chocolate and serotonin) which actually do make you feel better when you eat them.

CMonkey515 · March 2013

Woodsie:
Okay, I'm no scientist, but at first glance I have a few problems/questions with this study. One thing that jumped out was:

"Prolonged bottle use may lead to the child consuming excess calories, particularly when parents are using the bottle to comfort the child rather than to address the child?s hunger or nutritional needs."

I have a problem with the fact that the study doesn't seem to look at what FOOD the children are eating too. Common sense tells me that a child is more likely to be obese at 5.5 if they are eating too much. Drinking from a bottle doesn't necessarily mean they are consuming too many calories. It depends on how much milk they are drinking, and what other food they are eating, right?

I have a hard time believing that my child has a higher likelihood of obesity just because of the container he is consuming his milk from. He doesn't drink more milk than the recommended amount, only has bottles at certain times of the day (when he's hungry for milk) and it's not used for comfort. He eats a balanced, healthy diet, and we don't do mindless snacking. Again, common sense tells me that obesity has more to do with what and how much food a child is consuming and how much physical activity they are getting. So they can drink faster from a bottle, so what? They still only get as much milk as you give them, and they learn healthy eating and exercise habits from their parents.

FWIW, he doesn't bring a bottle into bed and his teeth are brushed after his evening and morning bottles. Tooth decay would have more to do with oral hygiene and letting any liquid other than water pool in the mouth during sleep, right?

I'm with you on this one, Woodsie. DS gets 6 oz of milk in a sippy when he wakes up and it takes him 5-10 minutes to drink it. He gets two bottles a day of milk per day. They are 6 oz and it takes him 5-10 minutes to drink it. Sometimes he gets milk in a straw cup too. Same amount of ounces, same amt of time to drink it. I don't really see how one is different from the other.

His teeth are cleaned after, and both bottle and sippy are taken away as soon as he's done with them. He eats a well balanced diet, and is very active. I'm honestly not worried that he will be obese because two of his drinks per day are in a different shaped container. It just doesn't add up to me.

karinothing · March 2013

lisajay09:
I don't see giving my child a drink if milk in a bottle and different from giving it to her in a sippy, straw cup, regular cup...it's a drink. It's not "bottle feeding", IMO. She eats food with a fork, drinks from all different types of cups but likes milk in a bottle. I'm struggling to see the difference.

I think it has to do with self regulation and perhaps children tend to self regulate more with a cup than they do with a bottle, but I am not sure. I know that is the argument for the difference between obesity rates in BF and bottle fed infants. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/6/e1386.full

Want a personalized experience?

Hey Blu -- bottle ???'s

Re: Hey Blu -- bottle ???'s

Choose Another Board

Search Boards