Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:38 PM Mar 2015

The longer babies breastfeed, the more they achieve in life - major study

Source: Guardian

Brazilian study of 6,000 babies from all backgrounds since 1982 finds those who breastfed were more intelligent, spent longer in education and earned more

<snip>

And the longer they were breastfed as a baby, the better they tended to be doing.

It is already known that breastfeeding can increase a child’s IQ by a small amount. The question that Dr Bernardo Lessa Horta from the Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil wanted to answer was whether this translated into greater intelligence and better prospects as an adult.

“Our study provides the first evidence that prolonged breastfeeding not only increases intelligence until at least the age of 30 years but also has an impact both at an individual and societal level by improving educational attainment and earning ability,” he said.

It is not just the age of the participants that makes this study unusual. Horta says it is free of the major complication of most breastfeeding studies because, when it began in 1982, it was not just the more affluent and educated mothers who breastfed in Brazil. Breastfeeding was not limited to one socio-economic group. It was, he says, evenly distributed across the social classes. So the higher achievers at the age of 30 did not come from better-off homes.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/18/brazil-longer-babies-breastfed-more-achieve-in-life-major-study

45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The longer babies breastfeed, the more they achieve in life - major study (Original Post) bananas Mar 2015 OP
I'll drink to that seveneyes Mar 2015 #1
Is it the breastfeeding? RandySF Mar 2015 #2
More quality time with mom than dad, I'd say. :-/ n/t DeSwiss Mar 2015 #7
that is an interesting point. drray23 Mar 2015 #10
And a mother that does not have to work for two years or more BrotherIvan Mar 2015 #13
The writer said the study accounted for varying income levels. Having enough money pnwmom Mar 2015 #16
And the writer was wrong. jeff47 Mar 2015 #30
The study was conducted in Brazil, not the US. Cultural conditions are different there, pnwmom Mar 2015 #32
A supporting family does not mean a ric family. RandySF Mar 2015 #41
My daughter couldn't nurse her baby either. But she and I are both aware pnwmom Mar 2015 #42
They didn't control for wealth vs. poverty jeff47 Mar 2015 #31
You're assuming that poorer women were more likely to go back to work. Where is your evidence pnwmom Mar 2015 #33
Do you think poor Brazilian women can make food magically appear? jeff47 Mar 2015 #34
Families with women who DON'T go back to work will have lower incomes. pnwmom Mar 2015 #35
And those families are relatively well off. jeff47 Mar 2015 #36
No, not necessarily. Some families just get by on less. And this study was conducted in Brazil, pnwmom Mar 2015 #37
Cultural conditions do not make food magically appear. jeff47 Mar 2015 #38
Poor women who work on family farms in rural Brazil help MAKE food appear --and can breastfeed pnwmom Mar 2015 #39
And that might be relevant if the study was in a rural area. jeff47 Mar 2015 #40
I think that the shorter babies benefit, too. NYC_SKP Mar 2015 #3
Probably the generals, too. bananas Mar 2015 #5
A study of 6,000 Brazillians? Thor_MN Mar 2015 #14
I saw a 26-year-old being fed at Olive Garden once, TheCowsCameHome Mar 2015 #4
I was breast fed during my PhD oral exam. Honors Monk06 Mar 2015 #6
Bwahahahahahahahahah! crim son Mar 2015 #24
As someone who nursed her two until they were a bit over two, SheilaT Mar 2015 #8
As someone who was not able to nurse AwakeAtLast Mar 2015 #23
You are right, of course. crim son Mar 2015 #25
Yes, not everryone can breastfeed SheilaT Mar 2015 #28
True..... DeSwiss Mar 2015 #9
CBS News video bananas Mar 2015 #11
Robert Arryn will ascend the Iron Throne. nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #12
Or it might be that the infants did not get cow or soy milk. Maybe subtle food allergies interfere McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 #15
The components in breast milk have never been completely replicated in any formula. pnwmom Mar 2015 #17
That headline is way off the mark... Thor_MN Mar 2015 #18
Booby food rules!!! Kip Humphrey Mar 2015 #19
Not exactly ninjanurse Mar 2015 #20
My daughter refused anything in a bottle HockeyMom Mar 2015 #21
Goat milk was what was feed to babies who could NOT take regular milk even in the 1920s happyslug Mar 2015 #26
Breastfeeding in the bathroom douggg Mar 2015 #22
Upscale restaurants with an attached ladies lounge HockeyMom Mar 2015 #27
And in this week's episode of "Shitty study design" jeff47 Mar 2015 #29
So I'm guessing Ted Cruz was a bottle baby. KamaAina Mar 2015 #43
Just look at how wealthy John McCain is... Orsino Mar 2015 #44
How Long? Masha Feb 2016 #45

RandySF

(58,776 posts)
2. Is it the breastfeeding?
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 09:46 PM
Mar 2015

Or is, as the breastfeeding would indicate, that the child is part of a supportive family?

drray23

(7,627 posts)
10. that is an interesting point.
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:05 PM
Mar 2015

Very often, it is hard to decipher which factors are correlated or not in scientific study. Your question is certainly a propos.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
13. And a mother that does not have to work for two years or more
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:05 PM
Mar 2015

There is a best, correlation in this study but causation has yet to be proved.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
16. The writer said the study accounted for varying income levels. Having enough money
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:00 AM
Mar 2015

is a key part of any family's support, and this study controlled for that.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
30. And the writer was wrong.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:58 AM
Mar 2015

The writer claimed to account for income levels because there was not a cultural stigma against breastfeeding - all classes did it.

Poor mothers still had to go back to work, which meant less and shorter breastfeeding.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
32. The study was conducted in Brazil, not the US. Cultural conditions are different there,
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:03 PM
Mar 2015

and the researchers designed their study to account for varying income levels. You cannot prove that the "poor mothers still had to go back to work, which meant less and shorter breastfeeding." Some of the the poorer families may have had lower incomes BECAUSE the mothers didn't go back to work. In any case, the study was peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, where its reviewers didn't dispute the claim that the study had been designed take class differences into account.

It is not just the age of the participants that makes this study unusual. Horta says it is free of the major complication of most breastfeeding studies because, when it began in 1982, it was not just the more affluent and educated mothers who breastfed in Brazil. Breastfeeding was not limited to one socio-economic group. It was, he says, evenly distributed across the social classes. So the higher achievers at the age of 30 did not come from better-off homes.

Nonetheless, in analysing their results, now published in the Lancet Global Health journal , they took account of family income at birth, parental schooling, genomic ancestry, maternal smoking during pregnancy, maternal age, birthweight and type of delivery to try to avoid any of those factors skewing the results.

SNIP

But, he said, there is evidence from other studies of the nutritional value of mother’s milk, rich in long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids that are essential for brain growth. Some studies have suggested babies with a particular genotype are more likely to get the IQ benefit from breastfeeding than others. Horta and colleagues are now looking to see whether that applies in their cohort.

RandySF

(58,776 posts)
41. A supporting family does not mean a ric family.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:27 PM
Mar 2015

There is a public elementary school close to where I live where more than 70% of the kids are eligible for free lunch, but the test score are among the highest in the entire district. Did they all breastfeed, or are the parents encouraging their studies all the way? I know breastfeeding is important but let's not start acting like it has magical properties. My wife was unable to nurse and our son is at the top of his class.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
42. My daughter couldn't nurse her baby either. But she and I are both aware
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:03 PM
Mar 2015

that the formula makers have not been able to replicate all the ingredients that are in breast milk. It is quite possible that some of these ingredients have an effect on brain development.

My granddaughter is doing beautifully without a drop of breast milk. But that doesn't mean breastfeeding might not have physical benefits for most babies.

From the article at the OP:

Horta acknowledged he could not completely rule out the possibility mothers who breastfed helped their babies’ development in other ways. “Some people say it is not the effect of breastfeeding but it is the mothers who breastfeed who are different in their motivation or their ability to stimulate the kids,” he told the Guardian.

But, he said, there is evidence from other studies of the nutritional value of mother’s milk, rich in long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids that are essential for brain growth. Some studies have suggested babies with a particular genotype are more likely to get the IQ benefit from breastfeeding than others. Horta and colleagues are now looking to see whether that applies in their cohort.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
31. They didn't control for wealth vs. poverty
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 12:01 PM
Mar 2015

The author tries to dodge this by saying that all classes breastfed in 1982, what he leaves out is a poor mother would have to return to work sooner. That would lead to less breastfeeding and weaning sooner.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
33. You're assuming that poorer women were more likely to go back to work. Where is your evidence
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:04 PM
Mar 2015

that is true in Brazil?

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
35. Families with women who DON'T go back to work will have lower incomes.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:17 PM
Mar 2015

But the women are still able to breastfeed.

And your rudeness doesn't strengthen your argument.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
36. And those families are relatively well off.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:19 PM
Mar 2015

Because they can afford to have an adult not go back to work. A single income covers the entire family's expenses.

Now, what if both parents bring in the same money as your single-parent-income example? Then mom has to go back to work.

And your rudeness doesn't strengthen your argument.

Your ignorance of poverty doesn't help yours.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
37. No, not necessarily. Some families just get by on less. And this study was conducted in Brazil,
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:24 PM
Mar 2015

where cultural and economic conditions are different. You have failed to take that into account.

In Brazil, as opposed to the US, much of the worst poverty is in rural areas, where families get by on incomes from small farms. A woman working on a family farm isn't running off to an office every day; her small children are nearby and she's still able to breastfeed a baby or toddler, despite her poverty.

http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/brazil

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
38. Cultural conditions do not make food magically appear.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:28 PM
Mar 2015
Unless you show the research, you can't demonstrate that women from lower income families in Brazil are more likely to work.

So are you arguing food magically appears in Brazil, or that math doesn't work the same way in Brazil? That 1+1=4 south of the Equator?

"Just get by on less" only works for the relatively well-off. It does not work for the very poor, because of basic math. When food costs $10/day, and each adult makes $7/day, both adults have to work. You can't "just get by on less".

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
39. Poor women who work on family farms in rural Brazil help MAKE food appear --and can breastfeed
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:35 PM
Mar 2015

because their children are nearby. They're not going to offices in cities and leaving their children behind.

You are betraying a first-world, urban-centric point of view that fails to take into consideration the rural poverty that exists in Brazil.

In Brazil, as opposed to the US, much of the worst poverty is in rural areas, where families get by on incomes from small farms. A woman working on a family farm isn't working at an office every day; her small children are nearby and she's still able to breastfeed a baby or toddler, despite her poverty.

This is true, by the way, in many parts of the world, where rural women nurse toddlers till they are as old as three or even four. They don't breastfeed because they are wealthy and privileged, but because they don't do the kind of work that would prevent them from nursing.Also, older toddlers eat solid foods and don't need frequent nursing. This can be managed around even jobs away from the home.

http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/brazil

Although the country is an important agricultural and industrial power, with the strongest economy in Latin America, poverty is widespread in Brazil. Despite recent improvements in income distribution, the issues of income inequality and social exclusion remain at the root of rural poverty. Brazil is a middle-income country and is rich in natural resources, but poverty levels and human development indicators in poor rural areas are comparable to those in the poorest countries of Latin America. In the country as a whole, about 35 per cent of the population lives in poverty, on less than two dollars a day. But in Brazil’s rural areas poverty affects about 51 per cent of the population.

SNIP

The poorest and most vulnerable groups among Brazil's rural poor people are women, young people and indigenous peoples. Households headed by women account for 27 per cent of poor rural people. Either because their husbands migrate to other parts of the country in search of work, or because they are single parents, women bear responsibility for running the family farm as well as their households. And child labour is still common among poor households in Brazil.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
40. And that might be relevant if the study was in a rural area.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:42 PM
Mar 2015

It wasn't. It was in a city.

You are betraying an urban-centric point of view that fails to take into consideration the rural poverty that exists in Brazil.

No, you're desperately searching for any reason why a study you want to believe is 100% correct. Again.

This is a correlation study. You can't prove causation from this study's results.
 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
8. As someone who nursed her two until they were a bit over two,
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:04 PM
Mar 2015

I'm not terribly surprised. If you bottle feed, it is remarkably easy to prop the bottle and do other things while the baby is eating. Breast feeding requires you actually be there, and even though you might be watching TV, you're still directly connected to the baby, and very likely to interact quite a bit. You talk more, play with the baby, and so on.

AwakeAtLast

(14,124 posts)
23. As someone who was not able to nurse
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 09:47 AM
Mar 2015

I can assure you I never propped a bottle. I was always there. My daughter is a very verbal, intelligent person.

Not everyone is successfull at breastfeeding.

crim son

(27,464 posts)
25. You are right, of course.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:26 AM
Mar 2015

The implication that mothers who aren't able to breastfeed, either at all or until the kid is five years old, are somehow doing their children damage, get's really freaking old.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
28. Yes, not everryone can breastfeed
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:14 AM
Mar 2015

but I don't think I've ever seen any kid who is a year or more old, being held and cuddled while taking the bottle. Whereas the older nursing baby is still being held.

Which isn't to say that you can't have an amazingly smart, verbal, wonderful child who is not breastfed. The study is talking about relatively subtle differences.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
11. CBS News video
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:20 PM
Mar 2015
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/breastfed-babies-have-higher-iq-and-income-as-adults-study-shows/

Breastfed babies have higher IQ and income as adults, study shows

MARCH 18, 2015, 8:32 AM|There's new evidence of the lasting benefits of breastfeeding. A large new study finds the longer a baby is nursed, the higher their IQ, education and income when they grow up. Dr. Holly Phillips joins "CBS This Morning" to discuss the findings.


Found it on their youtube channel, posted in the Video forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017252720

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
15. Or it might be that the infants did not get cow or soy milk. Maybe subtle food allergies interfere
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 12:29 AM
Mar 2015

with brain development. They need to see if being fed breast milk from a bottle is just as good.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
17. The components in breast milk have never been completely replicated in any formula.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:02 AM
Mar 2015

It is possible that the milk itself contains substances, not in formula, that have positive effects on a developing brain.

 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
18. That headline is way off the mark...
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:07 AM
Mar 2015

While there may be a correlation between being breastfed and success, I have to imagine that any college students that are still being breastfed are not destined for great things. Corporate boardrooms seldom allow mothers in to feed their CEO children.

ninjanurse

(93 posts)
20. Not exactly
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 07:07 AM
Mar 2015

The children who did best were breast fed for about a year. I'm an advocate of breastfeeding but also for women. It's okay to wean the baby. I think when the teeth come in is nature's way of telling you when.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
21. My daughter refused anything in a bottle
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 08:22 AM
Mar 2015

Breastmilk, goat's milk (cow/soy allergies), juice, water. Other than breastfeeding, she would only drink liquids from a sippy cup. She weaned herself at 20 months.

At 31 today, and a new mother herself, she is still alergic to dairy, soy, and now beef. She drinks goats or almond milk. No, Lactaid doesn't work for her. I was told by her pediatrician all those years ago that goats milk is closer to human milk than cows. Apparently, it even works for adults with allergies.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
26. Goat milk was what was feed to babies who could NOT take regular milk even in the 1920s
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:30 AM
Mar 2015

My mother, knew of such a child. Could not breast feed and could not drink cow's milk, thus goat milk was given to that child. Goat's milk was the milk of choice (and is believed to be where we get the term "Kids" for children, Kid is the name of a baby goat).

It is presently believed that the word "Kid" was restricted to goats in the middle ages. The first recording of the word "Kid" for children is in 1599, but remain rare in print till the 1840s. This may be do to the introduction of Pulp paper. Pulp paper was invented in 1801, but really took off in the 1830s. Thus by the 1840s you start to see what we would call a "Newspaper". Prior to that time period, Newspapers were printed in Linen paper, a much more expensive paper (Dollar bills are still printed in linen paper for example). Linen paper last longer and thus was preferred when the main purpose of newspapers was advertisements. What we call "Headlines" and even "Front page news" did NOT become the norm for newspapers til the US Civil War. Prior to that time period (1860s), when you saw a newspaper for sale, what you saw on the front page was advertisements.

I bring this up for whenever I see something new in print in the 1830-1860 period, I have to remember that it is possible it is new in print for no one prior to that time period would waste costly linen paper to print such an item or word. i.e. the world may have been in use, but not used in print. You see this today when it comes to computers, how much "data" is kept today, that 30 years ago would NEVER have ever been recorded. i..e in the days of manual recording of data, no one would have wasted their time writing it down. You see the same increase in records in the 1300s as linen paper replaced parchment as the main form of "Paper" in Europe. Parchment is thin leather, and thus costly to make, but can last for 1000 years. Due to the cost of Parchment, only important things were written down and kept as records. This does NOT appear to include records of births, deaths, marriages EXCEPT for important persons (kings, dukes etc, but rarely knights or peasants). Bibles were kept in the village church, it was rare to have one in anyone's home and then mostly in homes of the aristocracy.

Linen paper, introduced in the 1300s, permitted less important records to be kept, such as records of births, deaths, marriages and even transfer of property, but not minor issues like what time to show up for work, how long did you work, and if you had a contract to work for someone. Such day to day records had to wait till the introduction of pulp paper in the 1800s. Linen paper permitted people to buy a books to read, mostly just the bible for while linen paper was cheaper then parchment, it was still to expensive for papers intended to be read once and then thrown away.

We are going through the fifth increase in record keeping in history. The first was actual writing but mostly in stone. The second was the switch to papyrus (in Egypt and places that could trade with Egypt around 2200 BC, but it was a common paper throughout the Mediterranean world by the time of the Greek Golden age and the Roman Empire). The third increase was the switch to Parchment around the time of the Golden Age of Greece, mostly due to the high cost of Papyrus given the over harvesting of Papyrus to satisfy the demand for something to write on. Papyrus continued to be used in Europe till the 700s, the Vatican continued to use it till 1022. Parchment permitted local production of writing material so that you did not have to to worry about secure trade lines to have something to write on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchment

In the 1200s came Linen Paper, the FOURTH big increase in record keeping. Linen paper had been known to the Chinese by 100 AD, but they kept it a secret till the Mongol Conquest of the 1200s. From the Mongols the technology arrived in Baghdad in the mid 1200s and into Europe in the 1300s. This was the Fourth increase in record keeping. In 1801 Pulp paper was invented, but a way to produce it commercially was NOT made till 1844. This lead to the massive increase in record keeping and transfer of information that was the hallmark of the Mid 1800s till today. Prior to the 1840s, it was perfectly possible to live well and enjoy life without knowing how to read and write. Most information was spread orally during that time period (Through much of the information was being spread by writings on papers, but then read to the public by readers hired to read such writings). After the 1840s that was no longer the case.

We are now in the fifth massive increase in Record keeping, electronic record keeping. Radio and Television really did NOT increase record keeping, they did help information being spread, but not in record keeping. Computers and modern data bases have increased what records can be kept AND USED. Pulp paper increased the amount of record keeping, but much of those records were NOT usable for it was hard to retrieve. That is rapidly becoming a thing of the past for with modern computers even those old records can be searched for data that someone wants.

Sorry about going off on this tangent, but we are entering an age where information can be at our fingertips, when just decades ago most of the same information was either never recorded OR if recorded hard to retrieve. This includes information on things like Goat's milk and how it relates to human Milk. Many people knew that if a baby could not be breast feed, and could NOT take cow's milk, the best option was goat's milk. While people knew this, it was NOT often written down, and if written down NOT easily found by the people who needed that information.

This increase in access to "Data" is the main thing that separate us from even the people living in the 1980s. We are in the middle of a massive increase in data keeping and data sharing and it will change our society, hopefully for the better.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
27. Upscale restaurants with an attached ladies lounge
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:07 AM
Mar 2015

I wore those nursing shirts with just an opening for the nipple. One did not have to put up the entire shirt. Fine in warm weather, but not so much wearing coats, sweaters, etc.

When I went into those lounge areas (attached room to the toilets), I could not understand how other WOMEN were offended by breastfeeding. Another woman has never seen a breast before?

Don't MEN go into public urinals and "let it all hang out" in front of other MEN? If men can pee in front of other men, why can't women feed their babies in front of other women???????

BTW, back then it was the YOUNGER women who made nasty remarks. The older women smiled and gave me compliments on nursing my daughter. As I said in my other post, my daughter totally refused a bottle, and had allergies to top it all off. I could not give her that sippy cup until she was about 6 months old. If she did not nurse, she did not eat at all, and would have been screaming her brains out.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
29. And in this week's episode of "Shitty study design"
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:54 AM
Mar 2015
when it began in 1982, it was not just the more affluent and educated mothers who breastfed in Brazil. Breastfeeding was not limited to one socio-economic group. It was, he says, evenly distributed across the social classes.

And social class had absolutely nothing to do with how long a mother could breastfeed. A rich mother had the exact same need to return to work as a poor mother.

Oh wait, that's utterly fucking wrong.

Masha

(5 posts)
45. How Long?
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 04:24 AM
Feb 2016

That's a widely-known fact... But I think that breastfeeding up to 7 years may affect the emotional aspect of the baby. It's a controversial issue - when exactly to stop. Two years is fine to me. And the WHO confirms http://motherhow.com/how-long-to-breastfeed/

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»The longer babies breastf...