Guest guest Posted February 7, 1999 Report Share Posted February 7, 1999 Dear , Thanks a lot for this. I'm also still nursing my 2 year old. Actually I have wondered if immunity to childhoold deseases that I've had are passed through the milk to her as long as I breastfeed her? Do you know? Lone Mom2Q wrote: > Though this is not vaccine related I felt is was important to pass along. I > believe that most of us that do not vaccinate believe strongly in > breastfeeding!! I'm still nursing my 2 1/2 year old daughter and pregnant > with #2, who of course will be breastfed too. > > > List Owner > > The Ills of Not Breast-Feeding Newborns > Mike Bykowski, Senior Writer > [Pediatric News > <http://www.medscape.com/IMNG/PediatricNews/public/archive/1999/toc-3301.htm > l> 33(1):37, 1999. © 1999 International Medical News Group.] > > Washington -- By the year 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services > wants 75% of new mothers in the United States to initiate breast-feeding, > but it doesn't look like that goal is going to be met. > The most recent data from 1996 indicate that only 58% of American women > start to breast-feed their newborn infants, Karin Cadwell, Ph.D., said at a > conference on breast-feeding sponsored by the Department of Health and Human > Services. > The number of women who don't breast-feed is troubling, given the wide range > of benefits to the mother as well as the infant, said Dr. Cadwell, a faculty > member of the Healthy Children 2000 Project and director of Baby-Friendly > USA, the organization that implements the UNICEF Baby-Friendly hospital > initiative in the United States. > Maternal benefits of breast-feeding described in peer-reviewed medical > journals include an earlier return to prepregnant weight, delayed resumption > of ovulation with increased child spacing, improved bone remineralization > postpartum, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, and a reduced risk of > premenopausal breast cancer, said Dr. Cadwell, who is also a registered > nurse. > The disadvantages to infants, children, and adults of not being breast-fed > have also been well documented in a number of peer-reviewed journals and > include: > Gastrointestinal Illness. At least 400 infants die annually in the United > States from diarrheal disease; an estimated 250-300 of these deaths are > attributed to not being breast-fed, Dr. Cadwell said. Other gastrointestinal > disorders such as Crohn's disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and celiac > disease are minimized or occur at a later age in people who have been > breast-fed. > Respiratory Illness. Between 500 and 600 infants die annually in the United > States from acute respiratory disease that can be attributed to those > infants not being breast-fed. The risk of fatal or nonfatal respiratory > infections is two- to fivefold higher among non-breast-fed infants. > Otitis Media. Otitis media occurs more frequently in infants who are not > breast-fed. > Bacteremia and Meningitis. There is a fourfold higher risk of bacteremia and > meningitis among babies who are not breast-fed. > Juvenile Diabetes. More than 100 studies indicate that breast-feeding can > delay or prevent the onset of diabetes in some children, she said. > Malignant Lymphomas. A six- to eightfold increase in the risk for developing > lymphomas among children younger than 15 years has been found in children > who were not breast-fed for at least 6 months. > Breast Cancer. Having been breast-fed as a child has been shown to reduce > breast cancer risk in women over 40 years of age by more than 25% > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Name: winmail.dat > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 1999 Report Share Posted February 7, 1999 Actually, I think it is very related! If a tiny fraction of the money put into vaccine research was put into promoting breastfeeding and making the US a breast feeding friendly country there would not be a need for some of the vaccines. Talk about cost effective! I would love to see a cost effectiveness study done on this this subject. But I doubt I will as the pharmacutical industry will not have much to gain promoting breast feeding. There is alot of talk about Baby-Friendly hospitals. Has anyone been to one? I would love to hear about it. I used to work at a large teaching hospital but I have been on a small island for awhile. I wonder if this is really being put into practice and how quickly. We were supposed to do this over a year ago but still have not. The " culture " at most hospitals is such that the formula sales people have become the " educators " . They provide free formula and gifts for parents. They have been forced more or less to say breast is best but they get their " plugs " in. The other week a rep from a formula company taught a class on respiratory Dxs of the infant for CEU credits. I did not attend. ly, I do not thing they belong in the hospital as ultimately they are there to boost formula sales. Its a sad state when formula and pharmaceutical reps are the self appointed educators for health care professionals. Thanks for bringing that up. Mahalo Marcy PERCEPTION You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are. Mom2Q wrote: > Though this is not vaccine related I felt is was important to pass along. I > believe that most of us that do not vaccinate believe strongly in > breastfeeding!! I'm still nursing my 2 1/2 year old daughter and pregnant > with #2, who of course will be breastfed too. > > > List Owner > > The Ills of Not Breast-Feeding Newborns > Mike Bykowski, Senior Writer > [Pediatric News > <http://www.medscape.com/IMNG/PediatricNews/public/archive/1999/toc-3301.htm > l> 33(1):37, 1999. © 1999 International Medical News Group.] > > Washington -- By the year 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services > wants 75% of new mothers in the United States to initiate breast-feeding, > but it doesn't look like that goal is going to be met. > The most recent data from 1996 indicate that only 58% of American women > start to breast-feed their newborn infants, Karin Cadwell, Ph.D., said at a > conference on breast-feeding sponsored by the Department of Health and Human > Services. > The number of women who don't breast-feed is troubling, given the wide range > of benefits to the mother as well as the infant, said Dr. Cadwell, a faculty > member of the Healthy Children 2000 Project and director of Baby-Friendly > USA, the organization that implements the UNICEF Baby-Friendly hospital > initiative in the United States. > Maternal benefits of breast-feeding described in peer-reviewed medical > journals include an earlier return to prepregnant weight, delayed resumption > of ovulation with increased child spacing, improved bone remineralization > postpartum, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, and a reduced risk of > premenopausal breast cancer, said Dr. Cadwell, who is also a registered > nurse. > The disadvantages to infants, children, and adults of not being breast-fed > have also been well documented in a number of peer-reviewed journals and > include: > Gastrointestinal Illness. At least 400 infants die annually in the United > States from diarrheal disease; an estimated 250-300 of these deaths are > attributed to not being breast-fed, Dr. Cadwell said. Other gastrointestinal > disorders such as Crohn's disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and celiac > disease are minimized or occur at a later age in people who have been > breast-fed. > Respiratory Illness. Between 500 and 600 infants die annually in the United > States from acute respiratory disease that can be attributed to those > infants not being breast-fed. The risk of fatal or nonfatal respiratory > infections is two- to fivefold higher among non-breast-fed infants. > Otitis Media. Otitis media occurs more frequently in infants who are not > breast-fed. > Bacteremia and Meningitis. There is a fourfold higher risk of bacteremia and > meningitis among babies who are not breast-fed. > Juvenile Diabetes. More than 100 studies indicate that breast-feeding can > delay or prevent the onset of diabetes in some children, she said. > Malignant Lymphomas. A six- to eightfold increase in the risk for developing > lymphomas among children younger than 15 years has been found in children > who were not breast-fed for at least 6 months. > Breast Cancer. Having been breast-fed as a child has been shown to reduce > breast cancer risk in women over 40 years of age by more than 25% > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: winmail.dat > winmail.dat Type: IEXPLORE File (application/ms-tnef) > Encoding: base64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 I am not sure what this has to do with formula. Is the doctor who did the study suggesting that these children should be bottle fed rather than breastfed? Anyway, having spent some time in a third world country, my opinion would be that the babies there will be much better off being breastfed. In the first place, unless the bottles and formula were given to the mother for free, she sure wouldn't be able to afford them. Secondly, clean water to mix the formula and to wash the bottles is NOT available. The filthy water would seemingly put the baby at even greater risk of infection. breastfeeding Just one reason why formula companies are so evil: Undernutrition in Poor Indian Children Linked With ShorterBreastfeeding DurationDELHI (Reuters Health) Oct 24 - Shorter than average periods ofexclusive breastfeeding lead toundernutrition at an early age among children living in slums, accordingto the results of a study conducted inPune, a rapidly growing city in India."Slum populations living in adverse conditions represent nutritionallyvulnerable groups that need immediateattention," Dr. Shobha Rao and colleagues write in the October issue ofIndian Pediatrics.Over a 2-year period, Dr. Rao and her team, from the Agharkar ResearchInstitute, Pune, studied changesin nutritional status and morbidity in 845 preschool children residingthree Pune slums. The investigatorsgathered socioeconomic information, took anthropometric measurements,made clinical assessments ofnutritional deficiencies and gathered information about recent illnessesin all the households."Socioeconomic information revealed that 44.6% of mothers wereilliterate and 15% had only primaryeducation," they report.The average duration of exclusive breastfeeding was 3.5 months, asignificantly shorter period comparedwith rural areas.The weights and heights of the slum children were satisfactory only upto the age of 4 months, and fellsignificantly below the standards by 6 months of age. During infancy,22% children were underweight and by5 years of age more than 40% were underweight. Only 7% of infants werestunted at baseline, while 35%were stunted by 5 years. The peak prevalence of malnutrition was around18 months of age, a younger agethan reported in previous studies.Dr. Rao's group suggests that the decrease in nutritional status after 4months of age is probably attributableto the short duration of exclusive breastfeeding and lack of appropriatesupplementary weaning foods.The researchers also observed that morbidity was higher in the youngestchildren and least well-nourished.Gastrointestinal illness and fever contributed to more than 50% of thetotal days of morbidity."The observation that malnutrition sets in at an early age and thatyounger children experience highermorbidity, has obvious implications for growth velocity," note theresearchers.The height velocity was also significantly lower at 3 years of age amongthe slum children compared withstandard values. The lower velocities in early life resulted in heightsbelow 10 cm of standard values by 5years of age, the researchers note. "This highlights the importance ofearly life undernutrition which may beresponsible for shorter adult size in poor communities of India", writethe researchers."Our study additionally provided data on changes over time innutritional status of slum children", writes Dr.Rao's group. Up to 50% of the "children below 2 years age furtherdeteriorated in their nutritional statusduring the study period, while most children above 2 years of ageremained in their same grade of nutritionalstatus." They conclude that "undernutrition thus sets in at an earlyage, which increases risk of infections,leading to further deterioration of nutritional status," Dr. Rao's teamconcludes.Indian Pediatr 2000;37:1060-1071. Copyright © 2000 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved.Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent ofReuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in thecontent, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>eGroups eLertsIt's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!>'>1/9698/10/_/489317/_/972912999/--------------------------------------------------------------------> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 I would love to see this paper! I have read Milk, Money, and Madness and it's a very good book! I haven't been able to find The Politics of Breastfeeding in our local library though. I'm planning on buying this book for myself for Christmas if I come up with some extra $$$. <3, Robin sah nursing AP mommy to Mae (12/08/1998) and Chloe Madison (OR ??? Gage----EDD 11/22/2000) also wife to Nate (since 04/18/1988) Re: breastfeeding > > I also wrote a paper this summer, and I'd be happy to > > share it with you if you like (don't worry, everyone, I'll send it > > privately! LOL!) > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 Burley4 wrote: I am not sure what this has to do with formula. Is the doctor who did the study suggesting that these children should be bottle fed rather than breastfed? This has EVERYTHING to do with formula. I'm not going to go into too much detail, as we got into this back in the summer. But briefly, the article states that babies are only being breastfed for 3-4 months. After that time they are being given formula. This is happening in part b/c formula companies particpate in very aggressive marketing of formula to mothers and health care providers in less developed countries. Women are convinced that their milk is not good enough, and that formual is better. As you pointed out, most people living in these countries do not have access to clean water to clean the bottles or mix the formula, and babies become very ill and often die (1 million a year). You are also right when you say that women can't afford the bottles and formula. B/c formula is so expensive, a family will spend between 1 and 3 months' salary for a small supply of formula. What often happens is they are given free samples, which they use, and in the meantime their milk dries up, and they don't have access to info about how to relactate, as we privileged mamas here in the North do. This just propagates the poverty that these people are living in. It is a very complicated issue, and, in fact, 2 very good books have been written on the topic: The Politics of Breastfeeding by le Palmer and Milk, Money and Madness by Naomi Baumslag and Dia L. Michels. I also wrote a paper this summer, and I'd be happy to share it with you if you like (don't worry, everyone, I'll send it privately! LOL!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2000 Report Share Posted November 1, 2000 <This has EVERYTHING to do with formula. > I'm sorry. I guess I just didn't read the article closely enough. Anyway, when I was in the Dominican Republic, we passed through a very small village on the way to our destination. We talked to many of the villagers and encountered a young mother of three. Her youngest was eight months old but I would have guessed closer to five monhs because he was so small and weak. He was so beautiful though. Ten days later we came through the same village and sought out the mother again. When we asked her where the baby was she told us that he had died. It seems that she couldn't afford milk for all of her children. Since her older children were fairly strong and thriving well, she decided to let her youngest die so that her older children could live a better life. I didn't have time to ask her about breastfeeding and all that. I would presume that she had been talked into formula at some point. Peggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 In a message dated 9/24/02 9:21:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, writes: > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:53:22 EDT > From: Cakedreams@... > Subject: Re: Reglan and Breast Feeding > > As a nurse in the Neonatal ICU for over 10 years total, I have seen some > very > good results with the use of Reglan. Don't give up the ship. > Dunlap, RNC (certified in the care of high risk neonates) > Hi I would like to add just one more thing here... Breastmilk production is a supply and demand thing. BUT there is at least a 24 hour lag before the production catches up to the demand. So if your production is down, let the baby nurse as much as possible. The stimulation of suckling, even tho the baby isn't getting much milk, will stimulate the production. Supplementing, while meeting the current demand, doesn't do much for stimulating production. In fact, it actually can decrease production. So if you DO supplement, allow the baby to nurse first. Also, if the baby needs more milk at night, and you allow it to suckle at night, there will be more production the next night. I hope that's not confusing. :-) Bravo to you for sticking to it! You are doing the best thing possible for your baby. ebbieday in VA MGB 9/14/00 313/185 and holding :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Also, you need to increase your fluid intake to help with the increase in milk production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Maddviking@... wrote: > I think that's great. We succumbed to the pressure but we were young and > both of our mothers had used formula because the doctors said it was better and > breast feeding caused babies to be sickly. I was young and not good at listening to authority :-) So my kids got breastfed (Feb 1970 was the first one) regardless of the heavy pressure. Besides who needs the hassle of fixing formula. In my view Nature never made bad design mistakes, only man does that. I still think that way. ...Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom. P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703. http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Hi Bee and all, I just joined this group a couple of days ago. As I'm reading through the material, I find myself wondering if and how the guidelines (supplements, ratio of protein/fat/carbs, etc.) would change for a breastfeeding woman. I find myself eating what seem to me *enormous* amounts of calories every day - including a *lot* of animal fats - and certainly not only three meals a day, because of the low blood sugar crashes in between and feeling of almost-constant hunger. It feels very difficult to keep myself full for more than an hour without grains/legumes, although I'm not eating them right now. My daughter's a rapidly growing big girl - just over one year old - and breastfeeds for most of her nutrition. I don't have the need or desire to shift the amount we breastfeed; just wondering what you might have to say as far as any adaptations a frequently-breastfeeding mom could need to make. Thanks for reading! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Hello Thank you all for your input. I am on non- dairy now as my little girl seems to react to it. Thinking about it, you are right, Miriam, I have not been eating very well - there is just so much going on with a baby and a toddler. Throw in me studying during my maternity leave as well and food is the last thing on my mind. She is also starting to eat 'proper' food now so hopefully that will be fine. I will mention it to the endo next week though. Thank you again, Anja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.