

Breast Milk Sugars Give Infants a Protective Coat - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/science/03milk.html

======
KoZeN
My partner is currently breastfeeding our 14 week old baby boy and despite
being born 5 weeks premature he just keeps going from strength to strength.

The benefits of breastfeeding are incredibly obvious and I now understand
completely why most women claim that it is one of the most difficult things
you will ever do. Despite being incredibly stressed out by the process, my
partner, who holds a biology degree, understands the scientific justification
for persevering and when she read this article she told me that it was one
more fantastic incentive to keep on going regardless.

I simply wish that this form of research could be made readily available in an
easy to understand format for new mothers who are debating with the breast or
bottle argument.

~~~
bhrgunatha
Many women (including my wife) have to be taught _how_ to breastfeed and for
some or many it involves a lot of struggle to get right without pain or too
much discomfort. From an evolutionary point of view why would the mechanism be
so difficult to get right? Shouldn't it be easier and, well, natural? Are
modern women somehow fighting against nature in the way they breastfeed? Have
the "natural skills" been lost in the modern lifestyle?

~~~
tocomment
I've always wondered this too. Most mammals seem to figure it out
effortlessly.

Perhaps since the time we've had hands and been able to grind up food for
babies, breast-feeding has been somewhat optional so there hasn't been much
selection pressure on us for millions of years to keep breast feeding working
well.

That's the only theory I've got.

~~~
Mz
_I've always wondered this too. Most mammals seem to figure it out
effortlessly._

Most mammals have mammaries that are purely functional and only round out due
to filling with milk. Human female breasts are full for other reasons, too
full in fact to be baby-friendly. Most other mammals also feed their offspring
in plain view of others of their species, which means there is plenty of
opportunity to observe how it is done. In human cultures, we debate the
morality of -- gasp! -- breastfeeding in public. When it is done in public at
all, it is handled very discretely so no one gets a glimpse of someone's
breast or, god forbid, nipple. Not exactly a learning opportunity for any
other women who happen to be around who might someday have a baby themselves
and might want to breastfeed.

Part of my experience with this subject: I breastfed my oldest until he was
nearly 2 and my youngest rejected the breast very early (due to lactose
intolerance), breastfeeding full-time for only 10 days and part-time until he
was 6 weeks old. And I helped my sister address some issues she had with her
baby so she could successfully breastfeed.

~~~
umjames
I'm sure others have done this already, but have you thought of putting this
information on the web to teach other mothers? Considering that breastfeeding
is so important on multiple levels, it couldn't hurt to have one more place
for mothers to learn this skill.

~~~
Mz
A) I thought I had posted something to the web about that on someone else's
site, but the link from my site to theirs is dead and the internet informs me
the domain name in question has expired. So I can't even confirm if I did a
breastfeeding story. (I think I did it as one of two contributions -- if I
really obsess about it, I might be able to find it in my email somewhere.)

B) I have a parenting site that I want to develop more. I have been thinking
since writing the above that I should probably post info about breastfeeding
to it as well. It was extremely important to the well being of my oldest
child, who has a serious health issue and needed the extra support it
provided. That site has languished while I got myself well, started my life
over post-divorce...yadda yadda. Thanks for the suggestion/encouragement. :-)

------
pierrefar
You can just imagine the adverts of products containing these sugars now. One
bite of some kind of goo containg these "inspired by nature" sugars gives the
baby a 5px dashed #eeeeee border.

Of course let us not forget another goo targeted at adults with an amusingly
named "new" strain of _Bifidobacterium longum_. Oh wait:
<http://whatisbifidusregularis.org/> .

~~~
pquerna
Actually, the marketing of formula is a major issue in infant care, especially
in poorer countries.

Large forumla companies, like Nestlé[1], have been doing marketing for decades
like you are suggesting, when even today, we are just discovering all the
things that breast milk does -- as the article closes with: Dr. Mills said.
“So for God’s sake, please breast-feed.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) has created standards for marketing of
Forumla and breast milk substitutes:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Marketing...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Marketing_of_Breast-
milk_Substitutes)

Which many large corporations still ignore.

[1] - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott>

~~~
teilo
When we were expecting parents, attending our birthing classes, one night was
dedicated to breastfeeding, and taught by a lactation consultant, basically a
nurse specializing in breastfeeding.

She told a story about Nestle and the third world that was rather chilling:

The company, at some point, donated a large amount of formula to some third
world country or other. (Sorry, it's been 15 years, so the details are
sketchy). Short story: they convinced a lot of very poor women to use the
formula. There was enough formula to last until their own breastmilk dried up.
Nestle didn't send any more, and these women had no means to get more, and
now, no breastmilk either. Lots of babies died.

~~~
dgrant
Not that I don't believe the story but it would be great to have a link to
this to read more about it. I googled for a bit but couldn't find anything.

~~~
sstrudeau
This would seem to be a good place to start:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott>

~~~
dgrant
There is mention of accusations of Nestle giving away free powder for a
limited time, but no specific story and Nestle denies the allegations.

Why would someone accept free formula over free breast milk? No one would be
dumb enough to think that the free formula would last forever. While I don't
deny that Nestle gave out free formula, I'm not convinced that new mothers
switched to it en masse only to later realize (after their breast milk stopped
flowing) that they'd have to pay to get more.

------
mian2zi3
> "The complex sugars were long thought to have no biological significance,
> even though they constitute up to 21 percent of milk."

Serious, modern biologists still say things like this? Amazing. It is the
biological equivalent of proof by lack of imagination.

------
pkulak
This is why it's so important to breast feed. Every time someone discovers
something like this, it gets added to formula in a couple years, but it seems
like every month something new comes out. Who knows what formula is missing
that we just don't know about yet.

------
cromulent
There's a lot of anecdotal evidence in this thread. I'll add something to
that: I was formula fed and I am fine. So are lots of other people.

Our kids were bottle-fed with breast-milk. I'm not sure where that fits in the
breast vs bottle debate, and I of course didn't do a double-blind controlled
trial to work out whether there were benefits - it simply suited our
situation.

I have always been surprised at how judgmental people get of mothers and how
they feed their babies. Some of the nurses in the maternity ward were
amazingly self-righteous about it.

Not every mother can breast-feed, for various reasons (eg mastectomy).
Fortunately in many countries there is a viable alternative. The mothers can
often feel very bad about it, and having someone ram the obvious benefits of
breastfeeding down their throat can be less than helpful, or healthy at that
time.

~~~
run4yourlives
Very few mothers cannot breastfeed, in the grand scheme of things. The self-
righteousness that exists is part of an ongoing effort to turn back 50 years
or so of misinformation that existed in North America regarding formula vs.
breast milk that caused women to turn away from breastfeeding in droves,
mainly under the guise that formula was "better".

Why I agree that the judgments are unwarranted,(in every case) the fact
remains that it is scientifically proven that breast milk provides _numerous_
health benefits over formula. If you were fed formula, you have, on average, a
higher risk of everything from a childhood cold/flu to asthma to leukemia.

While every mother needs to make the best choice in her particular
circumstance, choosing not to breastfeed for the sole sake of some
_convenience to the mother and/or others_ is not a responsible choice, in many
people's opinions.

~~~
jdminhbg
Full disclosure: I was breast-fed and am perfect in every conceivable way.

"The self-righteousness that exists is part of an ongoing effort to turn back
50 years or so of misinformation that existed in North America..."

Isn't this exactly the point? Nearly everything we've ever known about
nutrition has at some point been 'proven' to be completely, 100% wrong. Maybe
we shouldn't be so judgmental of people who make different choices?

~~~
cromulent
I'm also not convinced the choices are always for "convenience".

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8443904.stm>

~~~
run4yourlives
Sven Carlsen, the author behind this and basically every other study that
forwards that breastmilk isn't as wonderful as it is (he's a lone voice) has
questionable ties to GlaxoSmithKline.

~~~
cromulent
I would agree that there is much misinformation out there.

I would also suggest that very few mothers choose not to breast-feed solely
for convenience.

I am not as sure as you that it is a scientifically proven fact that breast
milk provides numerous health benefits.

Whilst the recommendation nearly always is to use it (and no modern study
suggests that formula is better) the studies are not as conclusive as I would
accept as fact.

The confounding and self-selection effects in the studies, and the differences
in formula and ethical considerations since the long-term studies were started
cast uncertainty on any conclusion.

However, I understand that the majority of the information out there leads
people to believe that it is a fact, and agree that the safe option is breast
milk.

Edit: "basically every other study...has questionable ties to
GlaxoSmithKline". Really? The WHO also says that the benefits are moderate,
rather than "wonderful".

~~~
run4yourlives
_I would also suggest that very few mothers choose not to breast-feed solely
for convenience._

Are you a recent parent or are you otherwise directly experienced in
witnessing the choices mothers make? I ask not only because the statement is
little more than random opinion if you are not, and because I'm surprised that
someone who is experienced would come to such a conclusion. It isn't the
obvious path in a country where women return to work 6 weeks after giving
birth.

 _the studies are not as conclusive as I would accept as fact._

Then you are self-selecting to support your own bias. The other link you
provided in this thread made pretty clear assertions regarding this topic.

The research is pretty strong. Stronger than most other areas. While that
doesn't mean it is perfect, it does mean that all signs point to the fact that
formula is not an equal replacement in certain key ways.

~~~
cromulent
> all signs point to the fact that formula is not an equal replacement in
> certain key ways

That's a much softer position than "the fact remains that it is scientifically
proven that breast milk provides numerous health benefits over formula. If you
were fed formula, you have, on average, a higher risk of everything from a
childhood cold/flu to asthma to leukemia." and one I could agree with.

------
sliverstorm
And here I though they meant some kind of external micro-plated armor. I've
never witnessed it, but babies with armor? It's cool enough I'd buy it.

