> Young adults who were breastfed longer than 4 months show
> greater "stiffness" in arterial walls than those breastfed less
> than 4 mos, or those never breastfed at all...
>


> Opinions?
>

I printed off, and read, the original paper and the commentary in the
British Medical Journal.  Here's my opinion.

I'm not sure about the validity of the techniques used - I just don't have
the background to do that, but, if you think about it in evolutionary terms
it makes sense.  Our present lifestyle (especially diet) is very recent.
The paper infers that breastfeeding past 4 months makes our bodies conserve
extra calories (cholesterol) more efficiently.  That makes sense to me.
However, the conclusion that extended breastfeeding is in someway unhealthy
in the long run is leaving out a big chunk of the picture, our high animal
fat, high protein, high calorie DIET!

This is supported by the study of baboons (not very close to humans
evolutionarily) referenced in the study.  Baboons were either breastfed or
fed formula, and then fed a similar diet to Western humans (high in
saturated fats).  The baboons that were breastfed showed more evidence of
arterial disease (they conserved cholesterol).

"Were these findings supported in humans, it would have implications for
infants weaned on to a Western diet."

The big problem with this paper is how it may be reported in the media and
how the conclusion was worded.  It implies that we should look into the
potential health problems related to adults that were breastfed longer than
4 months as babies - it does not question the health of our "typical Western
diet".

Any other thoughts?


Alicia Rudin, LLLL, AAPL, IBCLC
Gainesville, FL
mailto:[log in to unmask]

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html