Rapid, little sucks.
Printable View
Rapid, little sucks.
Little O, I believe it's a faster suck, as opposed to the normal feeding suck which is more drawn out.
We've been supplementing with bottles of either donated EBM or cows milk for about 1.5 months now. We too dip the bottle, as well as using newborn teats, and change sides. We do it skin to skin most of the time too, even if I just pull down my top a bit and have DD nuzzle my chest.
I think the impact of breastfeeding on cognitive development is multi-faceted - it includes some of the ingredients in breastmilk as well as the act of breastfeeding itself (hormonal/physical intimacy, sucking, etc). Babies who are not breastfed will miss out on some or all of these factors.
I agree. I was pondering this... I suppose you could study children based upon breastfeeding, expressed breastmilk bottle feeding and formula bottle feeding and then:
see what the outcomes are. That could be interesting.
Yeah that. And perhaps also that the mother is more likely to not be working full time if she is full time BF? That has to have an impact that is difficult to quantify.:
I just read Breastfeeding Matters - it's a good read if anyone's interested in reading more about what's in breast milk and why it's important. It's something we're still learning more about, day by day. All the amazing findings about what's in breast milk and how the different factors interact with each other, as well as the other aspects of feeding which are so integral to human development really highlight the gap between breastfeeding and artificial feeding. I hope that in time - though not too much time - it can revitilise our motivation as a society to really do our best by babies and mothers when it comes to infant nutrition.
Ultimately there are millions of variables invovled in raising human beings. We can only control some and do our best accordingly.
Sure, but maybe if we learned more about why BF is so good, we can take the elements of it that are transferrable and help ABM mothers adopt those practices too?
In 1970, around the time I was born, Australia had a breast feeding rate of less than 10 percent at six months (an all time low).
Interestingly, as breast feeding rates are now 50 per cent better at the same stage, the collective national IQ hasn't peaked and we are facing a childhood obesity crisis.
Nothing is as black and white as this study suggests.
Feed your children everyone. And stop worrying how your neighbor is feeding theirs (unless theyre not feeding them at all!)
Birth interventions are also at an all time high :(
But if we can educate and support women who want to feed we need to worry about our neighbours children.
The info we can get out the better :-)
Good point Boomba. Isn't worrying about our neighbour's children at the heart of a village. A village always has a nosy busy-body after all ;)
I'm glad I was breastfed - I need all the help I can get lol.
I wonder if any research has been done yet into generational impact of breastfeeding or lack thereof. Maybe the fact that we're getting into 3rd generation formula fed infants might have something to do with soaring childhood obesity rates.
There are no absolutes, N2L, and there are many variables. But I don't think we should discount the importance of early nutrition because of that.
THough I don't know what data you are referring to, just generally I would add - breastfeeding in studies is often not defined (one breastfeed in 24 hours or 100% breastmilk?), and there is evidence of a duration effect when it comes to breastfeeding - i.e., the longer the better (or, conversely, the shorter the worse, I suppose).
Marushka - absolutely.
I know some people read these things and interpret it as people trying to make other people do this or that. It's not about making mothers breastfeed. Hell, most mothers - the overwhelming majority even - want to breastfeed. It's about acknowledging that it's important - not just for individual mothers and babies, but for our community as a whole - and, crucially, recognising the vital role that other people play in ensuring mothers are actually able to breastfeed like they want to.
I get what the article is saying, but I still can't help but think that it will make FF mums or mums that can't BF feel bad. I know it's not trying to but it will.
I FF both my kids and the are on the high end of all their development, being IQ, growth and height and have always done things earlier than the norm, but I think that has more to do with genetics and less to do with what I fed them.
Regardless of how it might "make" FF mothers feel, studies like this are important because breast feeding does not, nor ever will have, the marketing budgets of formula companies.
I still think a 19% BF rate at 6 months (which is what it now is) is still appallingly low, seeing as its what, 3-4% of women who biologically cannot breastfeed. That means two things; either, it's a choice, or there is a lack of support and information. Either way, studies like this serve to educate those 15-16% that are not breastfeeding at 6 months, for reasons that are not physical.
It's looking like DD will stop feeding soon, despite my best efforts. I am dry bar a few drops, DD has begun to not bother. It's devastating for me. But studies like this don't make me feel bad that I'm still not giving her BM. It makes me feel more passionate and proud that I've achieved what I have so far, and motivated to encourage other people to Bf too.
I think you should read what you have said. Apart from your calculations being incorrect, it is very simplistic and patronising.:
Poor pregnant brain :):
I get what you meant and I agree.
Sometimes things only need to be simple.... And if people find that patronising then that's their issue not yours.
Breastfeeding doesn't make your baby smarter, really, but not breastfeeding may mean they fall short of their full potential.
Consider, also, that our perceptions of what is normal and average have been influenced by decades of formula use.