Thank goodness we are emerging from the
darkest of the dark ages on this subject now, but even so it seems to
me that some young mothers are still not adequately informed about the
benefits of feeding their baby the way nature intended. In the
alternative health field, one of the saddest things we see is the
steady stream of babies and young children who are not enjoying the
glowing health that is natural at that age. They have asthma, and ear
infections, and allergies, and behavioral problems, to name but a few.
| Even by the year 2000, when breastfeeding was once again subtly
on the increase:
|
It is strange to look back and try to
determine how women were dissuaded from doing something so uniquely
feminine, and so uniquely motherly: nothing else can bring about the
same level of bonding between mother and infant as the act of
breast-feeding, and nothing else reinforces a woman's sense of being
an irreplaceable mother as much as having this tiny creature dependent
on her for its very life. While I have come across
many women who regret that they didn't breast feed, I have never come
across a woman who was sorry she did! These, however, are emotional
arguments, and nowadays we have far more impressive facts to support
this decision.
In 2007, Nestle made it known that they will
market a formula with breast milk oligosaccharides.
Immediately, those Mothers who are less than dedicated to the
concept of breast-feeding their babies are asking for "the
formula like breast milk". While it is obviously good that
available formulas should be the best possible, it is also
impossible for them to be the same as breast milk. Here is
an excellent analysis of the situation, at
The MotherWear breast-feeding blog.
I have come across some rather specious
suggestions that because of the chemicals in the environment,
breast-feeding may be a danger for the baby.
Here is an article posted at the Canadian
Women's Network, which addresses that question
very thoroughly.
If an animal is orphaned, it can often
thrive on the milk of another species: but almost all animals are full
grown by the time they are one or two years old. The level and kind of
proteins required to bring about this rapid growth are unprecedented
in food sources. Human beings, on the other hand, do not reach
maturity for 18 to 20 years, and therefore the food they require in
infancy is far different. Equally, we know from hard experience that,
formulate infant foods as we may, new research is always turning up
proving that some new nutrient essential to the health of baby
(naturally already present in mother's milk) needs to be added to
infant formulas.
The use
of soy for infant formulas is truly questionable: we have always
known of the possibility of allergies, but now there is also the fear
that the isoflavones in the soy may affect hormonal development in
children.
As a
side note to that, I recall when I first arrived in the United
States (I am British by birth) being amazed at the number of children
wearing glasses. Even now, many more children here, and ever younger
ones, seem to be prescribed glasses than overseas. I realize to a
certain extent there may be other factors at play, but recently
formula manufacturers came to the conclusion they should probably put
DHA (all together, now: naturally present in breast milk) in
their formulas - and guess what? This is a nutrient essential for the
healthy development of the eye. There are also figures coming out that
suggest breast fed babies have higher intelligence levels than formula
fed - and DHA is also necessary for mental function. Formula- faint
but pursuing yet again!
DHA is one of the two "featured" fatty acids in Fish Oil, and
it seems that being low in these oils is not only harmful to the baby
in the ways mentioned above, but also cause an increase in pre-term
births. (BMJ
2002;324:447-450) Analysis showed that among
women who never ate fish the occurrence of preterm delivery was
7.1%, while for women who ate fish at least once a week the
occurrence of preterm delivery was only 1.9%.
Studies published in 2004 make a connection between
eating
oily fish during pregnancy, and lower rates of asthma. This would
tend to suggest a protective effect from EPA and DHA. Fish STICKS,
on the other hand, fried in Omega 6 oils, had a negative effect,
causing MORE asthma in the children.
An infant's digestive system is unable
to handle with complete success, anything but the one substance it was
designed to receive. Anything else, the body does not process
correctly, and the immature system is damaged, some would say
permanently. The most unfortunate result is that large protein
molecules from the unacceptable diet, which the child cannot break
down properly, penetrate the gut and are challenged as enemies by the
body. Many of the current childhood problems can be traced without any
question to so-called leaky-gut syndrome, and the
allergies/food intolerances which result. It is unfortunate, but
all too often these childhood problems are treated with antibiotics,
further damaging the development of a proper digestive system by
killing the friendly bacteria needed to absorb many nutrients,
and before a desperate mother knows what's happening she is off on an
unending round of doctor's visit after visit.
For many mothers it is too late now to
go back and change the past: but if your child fits the health pattern
described above, you can help by determining whether an allergy is at
the bottom of the problem, replacing the probiotics needed for
digestive health, and sometimes also by using a mild digestive enzyme
to help the body's natural process. I would also consider using a
Colostrum supplement, particularly if immune failures, such as
recurrent ear infections, are a problem. If you are pregnant at the
moment, strongly consider nursing your child: the benefits do not end
with the baby's health; you will return to your pre-pregnancy weight
faster, many women say their breasts stay more shapely, and there are
some studies which suggest long-term protection against cancer of the
breast for mothers who nurse their baby's first year. La Leche
League, listed in most local phone books, is invaluable for both
advice and support.
I am appending a recent study which
gives yet another good reason to breast feed:
WESTPORT, CT (Reuters Health) Nov 20 -
Results of a study of more than 5000
Brazilian schoolchildren indicate that many breastfed children are
less likely than
others to have asthma or wheezing disorders.
Reporting in the October issue of the Journal of Asthma, Dr. Isabelle
Romieu, of
the Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Morelos, Mexico, and
colleagues
elsewhere note that they sought to examine the association between
breastfeeding
and chronic respiratory disorders in children.
The researchers examined questionnaires completed by 5182 Brazilian
schoolchildren (ages 7 to 14) and their parents. Of these, 4.6%
reported medically
diagnosed asthma and 11.9% reported current wheeze.
A total of 90% of the children had been breastfed, and after adjusting
for
confounders, the researchers found that children who had not been
breastfed were
1.51 times more likely to have an asthma diagnosis, 1.29 times more
likely to
experience current wheeze and 1.51 times more likely to have wheeze
after exercise
than those who had been breastfed for at least six months.
However, this protective effect was observed "only among children with
no family
history of asthma," and, say the investigators, "we did not observe a
dose-response
relationship with duration of breastfeeding."
The researchers call for further studies, but the low prevalence of
asthma and
wheezing seen in the studied population, they conclude, "may be partly
related to
the high level of breastfeeding."
J Asthma 2000;37:575-583.
| Keywords: breastfeeding health,
breast feeding intelligence, breast feeding asthma, infant
intelligence, dha breast vision, dha breast intelligence,
the vitamin lady writes about breast feeding |
|
