LondonMix

DaveR- Yes, I tend to agree that an a**hole will always find a cause and they don't need a special name! I believe in breastfeeding if it works for your family so I totally agree the two should not be conflated. However, issues surrounding babies well-being are different. Some people who would not normally interfere really feel compelled to simply because they believe mothers who are not breastfeeding are seriously harming their babies. This of course is nonsense which is why I advocate sharing and discussing information in an honest, open way. If I saw someone harming a child, even though I don't consider myself an interfering jerk, I don't think I would be able not to intervene. I think the same thing might be happening with this issue due to misinformation. DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "DaveR- most people fully agree with you (often > based on person anecdotal experience). The > difficulty is that popular literature often > overstates the case to such an extent that people > are not making informed decisions. There was a > woman who actually delayed treatment for CANCER > because it would have prevented her from breast > feeding. Part of this is clearly misunderstanding > the proven benefits and relative vs absolute > outcomes (which I believe is widespread), part of > it is wrapped up in our natural / organic > zeitgeist which makes parents intuitively believe > that breast milk is even better than practitioners > say it is and part of it is wrapped up in this > idea a mothering as a kind of annihilation of the > self (no risk, no matter how remote can be > accepted regardless of the personal cost to the > mother)." > > I get all of this. But it's still essentially > unobjectionable to say that there is evidence that > breastfeeding has advantages, whereas it's > completely objectionable to directly criticise or > interfere in someone else's life and choices. And > people who engage in the latter should not be > associated with the former, because in truth, they > are probably the kind of people who would find > something to be objectionable about in any > situation.

This is a very interesting study. It has come under some criticism for not having sufficient regression analysis but I haven't actually read it myself. DaveR- most people fully agree with you (often based on person anecdotal experience). The difficulty is that popular literature often overstates the case to such an extent that people are not making informed decisions. There was a woman who actually delayed treatment for CANCER because it would have prevented her from breast feeding. Part of this is clearly misunderstanding the proven benefits and relative vs absolute outcomes (which I believe is widespread), part of it is wrapped up in our natural / organic zeitgeist which makes parents intuitively believe that breast milk is even better than practitioners say it is and part of it is wrapped up in this idea of mothering as a kind of annihilation of the self (no risk, no matter how remote can be accepted regardless of the personal cost to the mother). Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting question, Ellie78... > > Here's a recently published article by Caspi et al > (2007, from the journal PNAS): > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18860.short > Children's intellectual development is influenced > by both genetic inheritance and environmental > experiences. Breastfeeding is one of the earliest > such postnatal experiences. Breastfed children > attain higher IQ scores than children not fed > breast milk, presumably because of the fatty acids > uniquely available in breast milk. Here we show > that the association between breastfeeding and IQ > is moderated by a genetic variant in FADS2, a gene > involved in the genetic control of fatty acid > pathways. We confirmed this gene?environment > interaction in two birth cohorts, and we ruled out > alternative explanations of the finding involving > gene?exposure correlation, intrauterine growth, > social class, and maternal cognitive ability, as > well as maternal genotype effects on breastfeeding > and breast milk. The finding shows that > environmental exposures can be used to uncover > novel candidate genes in complex phenotypes. It > also shows that genes may work via the environment > to shape the IQ, helping to close the nature > versus nurture debate.

The strongest evidence regarding the increase in IQ came from a study in Belarus (PROBIT by Kramer) that is one of the only somewhat randomized studies ever conducted on breast feeding. The study controls for many confounding variables including maternal age and socioeconomic background though not maternal IQ (which the study admits might still be a uncontrolled confounding factor). In a large meta-study of mothers and babies in highly developed countries, there is no IQ advantage once adjusting for maternal IQ. Der G, Batty GD, Deary IJ. Effect of breast feeding on intelligence in children: prospective study, sibling pairs analysis, and meta-analysis. BMJ 2006;333:945. In response to the Balarus study done by Kramer, Unicef themselves discuss that broad based iron deficiency affecting school age children at that time in that part of the world and suggest that the iron in breast milk might be responsible for the intellectual advantage given poor later life nutrition. Analysis in countries not suffering from broad based nutritional deficiencies may produce different results (as in the meta-analysis). The advantages of breast milk must be analysed against broad based nutritional quality where you live, access to clean water, and the current quality of formula. Current formulas have less sodium than in the 80s and some are now fortified with fatty acids due to omega?s potential role in brain development meaning that the results of older studies are not always relevant. Short answer, intelligence is partly genetic and partly socio-economic including the adequacy of basic nutrition. If over your child?s life they won?t be deficient in any key vitamins and minerals it really isn't something I?d be preoccupied about. Many studies in breast feeding suffer from a self-selection bias (not sufficiently randomized) and small sample sizes. There are ethical issues that make this hard to overcome when designing studies. Many don?t properly adjust for maternal IQ and socio-economic background and there is a huge publication bias towards positive correlations. Even well designed studies cannot control for all confounding variables that might better explain observed correlations (see my SIDs example). Even then, while certain correlations are statistically significant they are not ?clinically? significant- i.e. they make no real difference in absolute terms. None of this is to say that breast feeding isn't wonderful and beneficial but the state of the science is not always clear cut and even when the results seem robust, the clinical impact is usually marginal.

What does that even mean? Is she simply asking if its becoming a more affluent / desired area? Clapham (for better or worse) is really very different from Dulwich as it is far younger, busier and more built up.

This debate about artificial milk shows how full circle we've come. I'm guessing the term formula was coined to foster an association with science and medicine as well as the idea of mathematical precision. This would have been so appealing to a previous generation who had witnessed modern science's dramatic positive impact on human health and quality of life. I am sure if they'd written 'made in a lab' it would only have increased appeal back then!

Breast milk has distinct properties that confers certain benefits but I think we need to be careful about what we know scientifically and what some of us may believe about it intuitively. I don't want to turn this thread into a bunch of parents waving studies at each other and I think the tone so far has been great (save a few hurt feelings). I do think for those who may not be aware though its worth noting the gap in the scientific literature and the popular press / literature. Breast milk has only been consistently (from a scientific perspective) correlated with reduction in various infections during the period of breast feeding, reduction in SIDs and a few points increase in IQ. http://www.motherhood-cafe.com/advantages-of-breastfeeding/ http://www.motherhood-cafe.com/breastfeeding-and-bottle-feeding/ The correlation with SIDs cannot be adjusted for all confounding variables (such as stronger risk aversion parenting). Breastfeeding is actually associated with lower death from physical injury (accidents) in general. It would be difficult to make the leap of logic that breast milk was actually conferring any actual protection against injury and so it could be that parents who breastfeed adopt other parenting behaviours that reduce various risks. The reduction in SIDs may also be the result of reduced rates of infection associated with breastfeeding. The correlation may be a combination of the two factors- we don't know. However, the real point is that the risk of SIDs remains incredibly low for both breastfed and formula fed babies (less than 1 per 1,000 live births). The marginal improvement is somewhere in the region of .2 per 1,000 live births and that is what I mean when I say the benefits are marginal despite being statistically significant. Similarly, the correlation with IQ may be something in breast milk itself or it may be the additional interaction associated with breast feeding aiding cognitive development. The research is still unclear and contradictory evidence abounds. A similar increase in IQ is associated with taking music lessons before the age of 10 years old. Fighting infection is without a doubt the strongest evidence that exists for breastfeeding's benefits despite certain methodological issues. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/09September/Pages/breastfeeding-helps-babies-fight-infection.aspx. However, in reality what does this reduction mean? It depends on the study but approximately moving from a 25% chance of infection over the course of a year to a 17% chance of infection is typical. In the case of diarrhoea it is the statistical likelihood of 1 bout per child over the course of a year vs. half a theoretical bout of diarrhoea. I think it would be difficult to argue that breast feeding does not have real benefits but I also think in an attempt to increase rates of breast feeding we should not distort the proven impact. Mothers need to honestly weigh up the benefits and the costs (emotional / psychological etc) they feel breast feeding will involve for them and their families and make a decision accordingly.

We are courteous because everyone is armed :) I do miss the US terribly! If only I weren't married to a Brit....

Yes, that's true. American politics and culture is very different from those of Europe. Most things Europeans take for granted many Americans view as nothing short of communism and a threat to the American way of life!

Agree entirely! Breast milk confers certain benefits but the benefits while statistically significant are in reality marginal and often overstated and misunderstood. We are not talking about the difference between healthy and unhealthy. No other parenting decision of similar consequence gets quite so much attention and I am convinced this is because it relates to mothers and women's bodies. Am travelling but will post properly when I get home tonight. MGolden Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oimissus and Strawbs - I absolutely agree. > > I too bit my tounge whilst reading the last thread > on this so thanks for bringing it up. Actually I > also find the not breastfeeding because 'of a > sound reason for not wanting to' a bit > disconcerting. What is a 'sound reason' and who > determines it? > > Michele

I agree about Romney. The reason he came across as fake is because at his core he's a progrssive moderate. The win the GOP nomination he had to pretend to be something he's not. Like anyone pretending to be someone they aren't he became a caricature of what he understood these people to be which appeared even more monstruous than a real extreme right winger. My real concern with him was that his main guiding conviction was to become president. He was willing to say and do whatever it took and was able to go against his 'true' moral convictions for political expendiency. All politicians do this to some extent but he was so extreme it compromised my perception of his ability to lead. A leader will be under huge pressure post election and they need to be able to take a stand despite the political implications. My family are swing voters (though left leaning progressives so usually vote Democratic). We were discussing Romney this morning and agree the GOP will not be able to win unless they redefine themselves to avoid the lurching from right to centre that occurs between the nomination and the election.

The violation of law will be Health Care reform for those of you who missed the reference!

BHO tends to be provocative (particularly when combined with criticism). Bringing up Hilary Clinton is just odd. I support her and would vote for her but she is one of the most polarising figures in American politics. Republicans hate her even more than Obama and the partisan divisions that brought congress to an infuriating standstill would likely have been worse not better under her leadership. Obama has disappointed a lot of democrats (particulalry young ones) as he way over sold what he could realistically accomplish. He basically suggested he could reshape American politics in 4 years. He also disappointed as a leader as he didn't always have a clear vision or conviction. And who can be happy with the levels of unemployemnt and weak recovery (though clearly not all down to him!) With that said he did more than I thought he would. Having lived through the Clintons' attempts in the 90s to reform Health Care, I thought that campaign promise was impossible. The political goodwill you need to burn through in America to get that done is impossible for Europeans to imagine. Obamacare is deeply unpopular (among the electorate and Republicans) and put his re-election at risk. That along with officially allowing gays to openly serve in the military will be his legacy in decades to come. I saw both the concession and victory speach and I am thrilled both men asked for Americans to come together and the stop the political stalemate in congress for the good of the country.

Is this why we are all on the EDF during work hours :)

You're back H-- people were speculating you might have had an unfortunate accident (see M&S thread)

This link gives you a feel for the 2012 election http://www.politico.com/2012-election/swing-state/ You can see which states (and thus electoral votes) each candidate has in the bag and which ones are swing states. This year there are a lot of swing states. While you can see in the polls Obama is likely to win enough swing states to take the election, the margin of victory (for both Romney and Obama) in quite a few of the swing states is within what most people would consider the margin of error for pollsters. That?s why the race in my view is too close to call and I wouldn?t be taking the odds that bookie was offering! Romney is winning Florida by only half a percentage point in the current polls which is really a dead heat. If Romney loses Florida there is no way he can win the election even if all the other swing states ended up going his way so that?s the result everyone in the US will be focused on tonight.

Yes, I agree entirely! Starving children, no matter what valid reasons one may have, is totally unacceptable :) Studies show food, at this delicate stage of development, is crucial for life.

The crazy thing about winning Florida (the largest swing state) is that you have to appeal to both the Cuban vote and the super high concentration of elderly that retire in the state. This is why the US embargo with Cuba can?t be undone by either political party even though trade relations have long since normalized with other communist states. Also, if you propose to do anything that affects retirees, you know you?ve lost Florida which can cost you the entire election.

Almost right. The discrepancy with the popular vote is more complex. No matter if 51% or 80% of a states voting population vote for a candidate 100% of the state's electoral votes go to that candidate. This combined with voter turnout as a percentage of each states population is why the popular vote can be very different from the votes won via the electoral college. Electoral votes are almost like points based on a state's population. In the US, candidates try to win states as each state (regardless of how many people vote or by what percentage you win it) gets you all of the state's electoral votes (or points in the analogy) in 48 out of the 50 states and DC. Bigger states have more electoral votes and are so are worth more. Swings states are the most important. If you are going to lose a state 45% to 55% you don't even bother campaigning there as its just a waste of time and money. The roots lie in US History. The states were once more like individual nation states - sort of like the EU today- with their own identity. Therefore each state had its individual voice heard but its say in determining things was weighted by its population within the union.

Ask away... An expat here to help :)

I think the OP has a right to ask for information regarding formula etc without being asked to justify her choice. As the OP expressly said she feels under pressure from her partner and is unhappy about this I thought it could be seen as a bit insensitive to question her decision and motives (as if the idea is so odd you can't imagine why any reasonable person would make it). Perhaps I am totally wrong though and she'll come back to answer you shortly.

Decisions on how to feed infants has become a bit of a polemic in the "mommy wars". I think it?s a kind of understood taboo to openly question someone?s choice on something that is a deeply personal matter and that really isn?t anyone else?s business. Even if you are just curious, since it?s a rather sensitive topic people will often take it as an attack these days regardless of your intentions. If you are really curious, I can give you a list a mile long though ask me on another thread as not to hijack this one. There are clearly pros and cons and everyone experiences these differently (Susyp found formula more convenient for her life and Sillywoman found breast feeding more convenient for instance).

The OP didn't ask for help making the decision about how to feed her infant so its not our business to advise her or try to influence her. Just because you don't understand her decision doesn't open it up to discussion. All choices come with pros and cons and everyone weighs these up differently for their families. SusyP, I agree men sometimes have strong opinions about things women should do with their bodies. One of my dearest friend's wife recently admitted to me that her husband bullied her into having a vaginal birth (despite being warned her baby was very large) and she bitterly regrets it. He is one of my dearest friends but I was furious with him on her behalf! ButtercupSE11, if there is a special brand you want to use, I would suggest you bring it along. Good luck! lucyA1308 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All the advice here about what others did is not > really necessary if you seem to have made up your > mind, but I would urge you to make sure your > partner is really on board with your decision. > > The bonus of being able to breast feed is that the > food is always there when ever your baby needs it. > No warming up / cooling down milk, while the baby > is crying with hunger. Sterilising bottles. Coming > down to a cold kitchen in the middle of the night > to re-load the next bottle etc etc. (These are > just the reasons that I prefered to breast feed, > but that is not to say breast feeding dowen't have > it's down sides too). > > I just felt that I could quite happily get on with > breastfeeding without creating too much extra work > for me. > > If you do decide to bottle feed, do make sure that > your partner is cool with this, and will be some > help to you with the preparing - particularly in > the early days, when you still feel very tired.

Another recommendation for the Crooked Well. The Palmerston is also great.

Animals aren't very good at this to be honest. At Yosemite they have CCTV footage of a bear breaking in to someone's car who had locked food away in the trunk. The bear ripped of the driver's side door and walked through the entire car including the back seat and then out again. Confused he couldn't find the food, he decided to rip off another door to see if it might lead somewhere different. He proceeded to rip off all four doors of the car before finally shredding the back seat to try to reach the trunk! KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any cat that doesn't know that on the other side > of the back door is the garden (or from the > outside, the kitchen) is thick. If the cat has > been let out/in at all he presumably will have > usually been let out through same door for ages > before the catflap is installed. > Putting a catflap in the door doesn't recreate > what's on either side of the door, it's not Narnia > !! > > Any cat that can't suss this out, needs to go > straight to a rescue centre, unless it's known for > mental health issues. > > BTW - "Would you want to stick your head through a > hole in what would normally be a solid structure": > yes I would want to actually. Doors are 'human > flaps' are they not ? And we spend a lot of time > going through them, vene when we're not entirely > sure where they go.

I love Halloween (but I?m American so you?d expect me too)! I think having childhood memories of the whole experience changes your perspective. As children it was a combination of everything we loved- being scared, dressing up, doing something totally out of the ordinary, and candy! The carnival atmosphere is unlike any other holiday and I?m happy it?s catching on in this country so much now. I think if you participate, your reservations about it might soften. All traditions that weren?t part of someone?s upbringing can seem odd if not tawdry until they get in the spirit of it. I agree with Molly that you might have a hard time with your daughter next year if you let her go this once.