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 childs 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
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)RandySF
(58,776 posts)Or is, as the breastfeeding would indicate, that the child is part of a supportive family?
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)drray23
(7,627 posts)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)There is a best, correlation in this study but causation has yet to be proved.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)is a key part of any family's support, and this study controlled for that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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)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.
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 mothers 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)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)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:
But, he said, there is evidence from other studies of the nutritional value of mothers 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)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)that is true in Brazil?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your question is idiotic.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)But the women are still able to breastfeed.
And your rudeness doesn't strengthen your argument.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)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.
Your ignorance of poverty doesn't help yours.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)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)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)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 Brazils 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)It wasn't. It was in a city.
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.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Just sayin'
bananas
(27,509 posts)I'll meet your pun, and raise you one!
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Wow, talk about your sample size!!!
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)but thankfully, he wasn't smoking.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)crim son
(27,464 posts)Just scanning the thread and saw this. Nice.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)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)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)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)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.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...but did you know: Researcher: Men in kilts swing free, have happier sperm.
- Both make sense......
K&R
bananas
(27,509 posts)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
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)with brain development. They need to see if being fed breast milk from a bottle is just as good.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)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)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.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)ninjanurse
(93 posts)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)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)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.
douggg
(239 posts)Would you eat your lunch in the bathroom?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)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)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.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...after sucking at the govetnment teat all his life.
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/