<< U.S. market for urological devices to reach over $5.4 billion in 2016 | SMART Modular Technologies releases XceedIOPS SATA >>
Read in | English | 简体中文 | العربية | Bahasa

New research shows breast milk is not as important for mother or child's health

Published on January 6, 2010 at 5:39 AM · 3 Comments

Feeling guilty that you didn't breastfeed your children enough - or at all? Relax. New research shows that breast milk is not as important for either the mother or the child's health.

Researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology have found that the association between breastfeeding and healthy children is not as strong as has previously been believed. It is true that breastfed infants are slightly healthier than bottle-fed babies. But apparently it is not the milk that makes the difference. Instead, the baby's overall health is all determined before he or she is born. So why do so many studies associate breastfeeding with better health for young babies. The answer is simple: If a mother is able to breastfeed, and does so, this ability is essentially proof that the baby has already had an optimal life inside the womb.

Hormones are a determinant

Researchers at NTNU's Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine have recently found a correlation between the level of male hormones (androgens) in pregnant women and how much the women breastfed after birth.

"Pregnant women who have higher levels of androgens breastfeed less," says Professor Sven M. Carlsen. "Probably, this is a direct effect of hormones that simply limit nursing ability, by reducing milk production in the breast."

For example, there is a clear link between testosterone and breastfeeding ability. In fact, until 1980, when more suitable drugs were introduced, testosterone was used to stop milk production in circumstances where it was desirable.

"This was one of the reasons that we wanted to investigate whether the effects attributed to mother's milk really should be attributed to hormonal factors in pregnant women", says Carlsen.

Not a matter of will

Carlsen and colleagues have for years researched the connections between the conditions for the foetus in utero, and the effects these conditions have on the newborn. Among other things, they have looked at the relationship between testosterone levels and various risk factors that are believed to affect breastfeeding.

Women who are smokers, or are overweight, or who have the hormonal disorder polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) tend to breastfeed less than their peers. All the women in these groups have higher levels of testosterone in their bodies when they are pregnant.

In contrast, the older a woman is, the more likely she is to breastfeed.  All these relationships can be explained by the level of testosterone, Carlsen says. "It's thus not the woman's will to breastfeed. Women who had more testosterone in their bodies during pregnancy feel the effects of a hormone that limits breastfeeding. That is clearly why it is not as easy to breastfeed."

Placenta is key

Carlsen believes that it is the placenta, not breast milk, that has more of an effect on children's health.

"What happens is that there are hormones that come from the foetus that are converted to testosterone and oestrogen in the placenta -- if the process goes as it should. This is an energy intensive process. If the placenta does not have enough energy, a portion of the testosterone that would have been converted to oestrogen is in fact not converted. Then what happens is that the testosterone goes to both the mother and child, and probably affects both of them", he said.

For the mother, this means reduced development of glandular tissue in the breasts, so that the ability to make milk does not develop optimally during pregnancy. This translates into less or no milk breast milk.

For the child, it looks as if increased exposure to testosterone as a foetus can lead to an increased incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes and polycystic ovary syndrome in girls.

Much fuss

Breastfeeding is less common in younger women, smokers, women who have had preeclampsia or are overweight, or with lower birth weight or premature babies, or in women with PCOS, and when the child is a boy.

There are a number of models that are used to explain this - erroneously, Carlsen and his colleagues say. For example, it is claimed that the bond between a mother and her child will not be as strong if the baby is a boy than if the baby is a girl.

Comments
  1. Shawn D Shawn D United States says:

    News sources like The Press Association and the Telegraph have watered down this information so much that the key information is lost. Neither of the sources chose to fully address the key information presented by the researchers. They glossed over the hormonal theory, and in the Telegraph's case, chose to immediately provide dissenting opinion.

    While it's important to show both sides of the argument, the Telegraph article felt somewhat biased. While this article has a slightly positive bias, I can appreciate it ten times more due to the presentation of the facts. Thanks for that!

  2. Tony Wright Tony Wright United Kingdom says:

    Tens of millions of years of unimaginably complex and extremely precise molecular design versus some junior chemistry set junk to build the most advanced neural system we know. In fairness the article does identify a major cause of the general idiocy that goes for science and human behaviour generally. The hormone regime that once gave us the most incredible brain and was essential for its normal development has gone to hell. To find out exactly why check out this piece on the Beckley foundations new web site and make up your own mind for a change http://www.brainwaving.com/2009/11/17/377/

  3. Sharon Forrest Sharon Forrest United States says:

    In fact, the study did not measure the effect of breastfeeding on the health of the mother or the child nor did it compare breastfed infants to those who were formula fed.  The study merely found an inconsistent link between hormone levels during pregnancy and breastfeeding rates and duration.

    "The press release and the statements by study author Sven M. Carlsen are outrageous, and irresponsible," says Arthur Eidelman, MD, vice president of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine and Professor of Pediatrics at the Hebrew University.  "To distribute a statement ostensibly based on research data that are not related in any way to what was published violates the basic standards of responsible science.  One cannot state that breast milk affords no health advantages when no measure of health was studied."

    Gerald Calnen, MD, president of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, is concerned that inaccurate reporting will undermine mothers who want to breastfeed.  "Mothers who want to breastfeed face a litany of 'booby traps,' including poor quality maternity care, no paid leave, harassment for breastfeeding in public, and prohibitions against expressing milk at work," Calnen says.  "Carlsen's unfounded claim that 'Baby formula is as good as breast milk' legitimizes policy makers, indignant strangers, and employers to continue undermining mothers who want to breastfeed their babies."

    According to a recent US government review, babies who are not breastfed are twice as likely to develop ear infections, almost four times as likely to develop pneumonia, and twice as likely to suffer from diarrhea.  Mothers who do not breastfeed face increased risks of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and breast and ovarian cancers.   "Breastfeeding is good for mothers and good for babies," Calnen says. "Mothers who want to breastfeed deserve support."

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News-Medical.Net.



  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading