Pat Gima writes:
<< Well, as I see it, if, in fact, breastfeeding for longer than 4 months
causes "stiffer" blood vessels, then we are supposed to have "stiffer"
blood vessels. >>
I guess I don't agree here. I think there's a subtler but different, and
maybe more important, point to make about this: Bf is better overall,
including cardiovascularly, *whether or not* it causes stiffened arteries.
I'm thinking by comparison about the research that shows pretty clearly that
there is more pesticide etc residue in human milk than in cows milk or soy
milk or the infant formulas made from them. In that case, it is *true*
that there's more pesticide in our milk, since we're higher up the food chain
than cows or plants. But the superficial conclusion -- that more pesticide
in our milk might lead to more cancer in those that consume it -- is wrong.
Because human milk is *so much* better for human babies overall that that
down side is vanishingly small compared to other considerations -- and indeed
research so far suggests that people who were bf as babies do indeed have
less cancer, notwithstanding pesticide residues.
In the same way, I am prepared to say that the stiffened arteries themselves
may well be bad. After all it may be true, as someone suggested, that bf
sets up our fat-processing systems for a human diet that we no longer
consume. But since all the available evidence suggests that humans who
were bf as infants do indeed have less cardiovascular disease later, we can
safely conclude that the deleterious effect of the stiffened arteries, *if
any*, is negligible compared to other benefits.
This is the same thought process I went through in discussing iron
supplementation with my pediatrician. The study we looked at -- I don't
have the ref any more but it was published by a Brazilian group in 1992, I
think -- showed that beyond 4-6 months of exclusive bf the rate of anemia in
bf babies was significantly higher than in formula fed babies. So far, OK
-- more knowledge is better. My problem was with their conclusions: they
figured that since anemia is associated with worse health status and
diminished cognitive scores, we should supplement those bf babies' iron.
But wait a minute -- we know that bf babies have *better* health status and
*higher* cognitive scores! So why would we want our "experimental" group of
bf babies to approximate the iron status of the formula-fed "controls"?
Again, if someone were to compare the cognitive scores of iron-supplemented
but otherwise bf babies against exclusively bf babies, and find them higher,
I might well consider that the iron supplementation would be a good thing --
but this study IMO was not sufficient to tell me how to act based on its data.
My underlying point here: the data are one thing, and what public health
considerations we draw from them are another thing. If the data collection
is any good I am always happy to have more information. But I want to look
closely at what assumptions are coloring the jumps people use in interpreting
that data.
Elisheva Urbas, NYC
truth seeker in training (long term)
and getting ready to take Heather's and Rachel's advice and go read the study
in the BMJ
***********************************************
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
|
