Breast feeding may not be all that much better than bottle feeding says a new research study that has been released this week. It is sure to restart the argument over whether breast feeding is best for a baby over being the bottle. The new study was printed up in the journal Social Science & Medicine, and examined information from three different sets of child groups. One was about 8,240 children, the second was nearly 7,320 siblings and the third was around 1,770 sibling pairs where one youngster was breast-fed and at least one of the other siblings were not.
Researchers looked at 11 outcomes that had formerly been believed to have been affected by breast feeding. They were obesity, body mass index, hyperactivity, asthma, behavior compliance, parental attachment, achievement in vocabulary, intelligence, math ability, reading recognition and scholastic aptitude.
When they examined the information from all the various families, the children that were breast fed ended up showing having better outcomes than kids who have been bottle fed in areas such as lower body mass index, math skills, hyperactivity, reading recognition, vocabulary word identification and obesity.
Yet when the scientists looked only at the siblings who were fed in a different way, the benefits did not seem that substantial. The one exception ended up being that children who had been breast fed children actually had higher chances of getting asthma, although it was not clear if such reports were real diagnoses. It is a proven fact that mothers who have a higher level of education, more disposable income and greater flexibility in daily agendas are more probable to breast feed their children. Prior research has also shown definite economic and racial inequalities between families who breast feed and those who do not.
There have been other studies that have also been cynical about the various claims over the benefits breast feeding, such as weight being maintained. However, the newest study is also unlikely to get any new recommendations to come out, and breast feeding a baby will still be highly sanctioned by the majority of pediatric crowds.
Numerous studies declare that breast feeding is good for the baby’s development, and that it is also healthy for mothers. The CDC states that it is dedicated to increasing the rates of breastfeeding all over the United States and that it wants to promote and support ideal breastfeeding practices so to help improve the health of the public.
However the study seems to show that any benefits of breast feeding have been overstated. The study’s chief research lead, Cynthia Colen, from Ohio State University, explained that most former breast feeding studies had selection bias. They either did not or were unable to statistically regulate for certain factors such as age, family income, race or mother’s employment. These were all things that are known to affect breast feeding and also health results.
When children from various families were matched, the kids who had been breast fed did better than kids who were not breast fed. But mothers who breast feed their children always seem to have some sort of financial or educational advantage. They are most often better educated and/or wealthier. When children were fed in different ways that came from the very same family were equated, there was no difference except for the asthma as was mentioned above.
This study seems to show that breast feeding is good, but it should not be given such a high priority in society. Colen stated that everyone needs to take a more careful look at what occurs after the first year of life and understand that breast feeding just may be extremely difficult, even impossible to do, for certain women. Rather than placing blame, society needs to be more realistic about what breast feeding does and does not really do for a child. More research seems to be coming out that shows breast feeding benefits are modest at best.
The new research study will surely restart the argument over whether breast feeding is best for a baby over being bottle fed. The new study was printed up this week in the journal Social Science & Medicine.
By Kimberly Ruble