"Breastfeeding benefits overstated" study?

Published

This was linked in another thread and then no one else wanted to talk about it, but I'm really interested hearing what other nurses thought about it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140225122210.htm

Is it really "poorly designed"? Are studies that show more benefits to breastfeeding better designed? Is it significant at all?

It seems like such a challenge to account for other factors in studies on breastfeeding due to the demographics of breastfeeding so I thought the approach to look at siblings seemed to account for many confounding variables. But research is definitely not my strong point.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.

When I have some free time at work later today, I will look at it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I'm definitely interested in hearing what you think of it. It looks at long term benefits not short term ones so I don't think it argues that breastfeeding isn't beneficial, just not as beneficial as currently thought.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.

Okay, here are my thoughts after having read the study.

A) One major flaw I found was that the study doesn't differentiate between exclusive breastfeeding and ANY breastmilk at all. Some of the breastfeeding benefits are mitigated by introduction of formula. For instance, gut flora changes to that of a formula fed infant as soon as one bottle of formula is introduced. And there is a lot of emerging research on the link between neonatal gut flora colonization and obesity

B) Again, regarding obesity, if they're looking, in part, at children and teens, I would think that any protective value of breastfeeding would be overwhelmed by family influence and environmental influences, especially once you get beyond age 5 or 6

C) While they looked at lots of children, it appears from what I was able to glean, that with actual discordant siblings (which is really the meat of their hypothesis), the N was only 1700, which isn't an extremely large sample size to extrapolate meaningful outcomes

D) and this, along with A, is my biggest beef with the study and how it was publicized. All the headlines read "no longterm benefits to breastfeeding!" but when you look at the actual outcomes they're looking at:

intelligence (which, if there is a benefit, is negligible and is not something I ever even touch on in breastfeeding education)

hyperactivity (huh? didn't even know anyone was making that claim in the first place)

asthma (no argument there except for my point in #A - no differentiation between ANY breastfeeding and EXCLUSIVE breastfeeding)

Various factors WRT academic achievement (number recognition? Really? Who cares?)

With the exception of obesity and asthma (which I have already addressed above), as far as I'm concerned, those are things that I care very little about. What I care about are things like reduced risk of infection, childhood illness, diabetes, heart disease, maternal osteoporosis, breast, uterine and ovarian cancer, as well as things like improved child spacing and financial savings.

So, that's my $.02.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

If it wasn't so great, after how many thousands of years? We probably wouldn't be here now.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Thanks for your thoughts on it, klone. That definitely helps me place it in a better perspective. When I first read it I wondered why I was exclusive pumping like a chump if the benefits were only short term ones. As a nurse the population I see that is at a point where lactation education is pertinent is a NICU population, and there's actually a pretty respectable population that does pump at my hospital especiallu considering my state's breastfeeding rates. I wasn't ready to start telling families to not bother and just give formula, but it did make me wonder a lot about patient education. But I hadn't looked at it much more closely than the article about it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Eventually Midwifery.

I find it so strange that time and money are put into researching to justify the benefits of breast milk when it obviously has been the way our species has been sustained for thousands of years. Why are we not putting more effort into assuring that formula is really a safer alternative? I would like to see some long term case studies comparing formula use to instances of allergies and autism.

The Risks of Not Breastfeeding for Mothers and Infants

Up Vote Up Vote ×

If there's a body of proof supporting breastfeeding instead of just assumptions, it can be useful in drafting policies that affect women and support breastfeeding. Laws requiring employers to support lactation at work would be an example of that.

So I don't find it to be an odd topic. One of the things I really appreciated about the study I started this thread to talk about is that the author does discuss the challenges that women face breastfeeding when there's not a ton of formal, societal support for parenting infants and that programs that ease the financial burden of taking an extended maternity leave would be supportive of breastfeeding.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.

Klone, I can't add anything. You summed it up beautifully. I always enjoy the enlightenment I get from your posts. Thank you.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.

Wow, thank you so much! I'm very flattered. :)

Up Vote Up Vote ×

And this is what is known as "research", folks.

Let's combine babies who breastfeed once per week with those that exclusively breastfeed effectively invalidating results. Sheesh.

Klone, you having stated your assessment eloquently.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion