breast milk: the magic elixir - Page 3 - ZEFRANK.COM

trisherina · 09-15-2006, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoscrappin4u

the germ fighting agents

Immunological benefits, you mean? Perhaps I should rename this thread "breast milk: the antibacterial YOU CAN DRINK!"

catbelly · 09-15-2006, 09:15 PM

I'm bf'ing Catbaby. She's 8 months old and has never been sick. I don't know how much of that is because of the bf'ing, though - my friend has a baby only two days younger who is also bf'd and gets colds.

I do think that bf'ing is amazing both for the health benefits and the bonding, but I think that a motivated mother or father who formula feeds can be just as good a parent and the baby can be just as healthy. Like Avalon says - the boob doesn't make the parent. All the stuff about health and IQ ... I am not convinced. How would one design a test to truly find out? You would have to have clone babies in controlled environments, statistical samples of bf'd and formula fed. Nutty.

The societal/cultural thing is a pet peeve of mine - I completely agree with Frieda. Bf'ing is what boobs are for and the north american sexualization of the almighty boob is unnatural. Not that boobs aren't sexy

But yep north america is odd.

trisherina · 09-17-2006, 12:15 AM

It's stuff like this that astonishes me.

From the 007b.com site:

Quote:

However, a careful study of statistics shows that 9,000 lives could be saved yearly in the USA by exclusive/extended breastfeeding! That is because breastfeeding infants have only 1/5th the rate of SIDS, and half the rate of the overall infant deaths.

That is not a careful study of statistics. Statistically speaking, that's called a weak explanation and an even weaker prediction.

l'azizza · 09-17-2006, 04:58 AM

Sry Trish, but for something to be deemed "statistically significant" in a published article, there has to be a formula for determining it so and a result of it being "significant".

If it wasn't determined to be "staticically significant" by the data ran, it wouldn't have been published. (although I don't know what 007b.com is.)

Any test of psychology is first determined to be "significant- that a sample relationship is too unlikely to occur by chance, so we assume that it represents the real, predicted relationship found in the population. You'll also read research that finds "significant differences," meaning that the differences between the means of the conditions are too large to explain as mere sampling error, so they must represent real differences that occur in the population."

In such cases, we conclude that the we have a believable sample relationship and gp on to interpret and generalize it accordingly."

Heiman et al, Research Methods in Psychology, second edition, 1999

trisherina · 09-17-2006, 12:39 PM

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Mine is that 007b.com (a pro-breastfeeding site) is attempting to establish breastfeeding as the causal explanation for reduced SIDS incidence in breastfed children. That's poor science of the sort that pisses me off, mostly because it is i) so exceedingly common and ii) so blithely accepted without analysis by the average reader. Of the three elements of causation (association, temporal order, and elimination of alternatives or "no spuriousness"), only association (the two phenomena occur together or appear to act together -- in this case breastfeeding and reduced SIDS incidence) applies to that "careful study of statistics."

Temporal order is absent (to establish this, you'd have to at the very least contrast a period of time in which breastfeeding was at an all-time low and SIDS at an all-time high with a period where there was more breastfeeding and less SIDS, OR more ideally you could take non-breastfed children in a family who were collapsing of SIDS and make their mother breastfeed subsequent sibs and show that their little lives were saved).

Also absent is the elimination of plausible alternatives, which I prefer termed "no spuriousness" -- plausible alternatives in this case include how the breastfed vs. the nonbreastfed infants were placed to rest, education and income and smoking factors in the infants' mothers (because these factors show positive and negative association with infant care/vigilance variables), bundling and swaddling, and family medical/psychiatric histories, just to name a few plausible alternatives I can think of off the top of my head.

As for a statistically significant association all on its own as a strong argument for causality, well, let me tell you about the way my dog makes the sun come up every morning by stretching and snuffling on her dog bed.

Source: my brain and Neumann's Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2006 (6th ed.).

catbelly · 09-22-2006, 01:56 AM

One of the magical things about the internet is that everything could be considered a "published article"

cherrybomb · 09-23-2006, 05:34 AM

I can't understand why there's even so much debate about this. Of course breast milk is best, that's why it's fkn there. You don't see other animals trying to feed their babies by any other means.
I'm sorry, but you Americans are a bit behind....here in New Zealand it's really strange if someone doesn't breastfeed. Why wouldn't you? It's free for God's sake!!
I think if you are a mother who has made a concious choice to not breastfeed and you really examine the reasons why not, you'll find they're all selfish. Which is not really something you can be for the first few months of a baby's life. I think.
But then again, I am a great believer in personal choice, so whatever. Except it's not just you you're affecting, so bloody breastfeed would ya?!

madasacutsnake · 09-24-2006, 07:02 PM

There's no shame in third.

Avalon · 09-24-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

I think if you are a mother who has made a conscious choice to not breastfeed and you really examine the reasons why not, you'll find they're all selfish.

Oh, do not even go there.

madasacutsnake · 09-25-2006, 08:09 AM

I've always thought of post-partum psychosis as quite self-indulgent.

Avalon · 09-25-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madasacutsnake

I've always thought of post-partum psychosis as quite self-indulgent.

Oh yeah.

And let's not forget all those fakers that claim Clinical and Manic-depression or Bi-polar disorders. Post-partum, bi-polar, depression? If they would just try harder, they could be happy. Just ask Tom Cruise.

BTW Cherrybomb, not everyone's reason is a selfish one. It just isn't your business.

catbelly · 09-26-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avalon

Oh yeah.

And let's not forget all those fakers that claim Clinical and Manic-depression or Bi-polar disorders. Post-partum, bi-polar, depression? If they would just try harder, they could be happy. Just ask Tom Cruise.

Slackers, slackers, all of them!

Cherrybomb, wondering when you think it would be OK to stop breastfeeding. Theoretically you could go forever, eh? Do you put the same judgement on women who wean after 3, 6, 9, 12 ... 58 months? Not wanting to put words in your mouth, but I am assuming that you would approve of a woman stopping at some point even though breast milk is wonderful.

Jack Flanders · 09-26-2006, 07:31 PM

I think when the child asks for chocolate milk, it's time to pull the nipple.

catbelly · 09-28-2006, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Flanders

I think when the child asks for chocolate milk, it's time to pull the nipple.

Or a non-fat extra foamy latte!

Jack Flanders · 09-28-2006, 01:08 AM

09-17-2006, 04:58 AM	#34
l'azizza 98.4% monkey Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: bummed out city Posts: 634	you cannot refute statistics Sry Trish, but for something to be deemed "statistically significant" in a published article, there has to be a formula for determining it so and a result of it being "significant". If it wasn't determined to be "staticically significant" by the data ran, it wouldn't have been published. (although I don't know what 007b.com is.) Any test of psychology is first determined to be "significant- that a sample relationship is too unlikely to occur by chance, so we assume that it represents the real, predicted relationship found in the population. You'll also read research that finds "significant differences," meaning that the differences between the means of the conditions are too large to explain as mere sampling error, so they must represent real differences that occur in the population." In such cases, we conclude that the we have a believable sample relationship and gp on to interpret and generalize it accordingly." Heiman et al, Research Methods in Psychology, second edition, 1999

09-23-2006, 05:34 AM	#37
cherrybomb Lady with a baby Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1	Breast is best I can't understand why there's even so much debate about this. Of course breast milk is best, that's why it's fkn there. You don't see other animals trying to feed their babies by any other means. I'm sorry, but you Americans are a bit behind....here in New Zealand it's really strange if someone doesn't breastfeed. Why wouldn't you? It's free for God's sake!! I think if you are a mother who has made a concious choice to not breastfeed and you really examine the reasons why not, you'll find they're all selfish. Which is not really something you can be for the first few months of a baby's life. I think. But then again, I am a great believer in personal choice, so whatever. Except it's not just you you're affecting, so bloody breastfeed would ya?!

09-24-2006, 07:02 PM	#38
madasacutsnake no more nice girl Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,054	There's no shame in third. __________________ He really shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all.

09-25-2006, 08:09 AM	#40
madasacutsnake no more nice girl Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,054	I've always thought of post-partum psychosis as quite self-indulgent. __________________ He really shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

09-15-2006, 09:15 PM	#32
catbelly monkey Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: the north Posts: 1,757	I'm bf'ing Catbaby. She's 8 months old and has never been sick. I don't know how much of that is because of the bf'ing, though - my friend has a baby only two days younger who is also bf'd and gets colds. I do think that bf'ing is amazing both for the health benefits and the bonding, but I think that a motivated mother or father who formula feeds can be just as good a parent and the baby can be just as healthy. Like Avalon says - the boob doesn't make the parent. All the stuff about health and IQ ... I am not convinced. How would one design a test to truly find out? You would have to have clone babies in controlled environments, statistical samples of bf'd and formula fed. Nutty. The societal/cultural thing is a pet peeve of mine - I completely agree with Frieda. Bf'ing is what boobs are for and the north american sexualization of the almighty boob is unnatural. Not that boobs aren't sexy But yep north america is odd.

09-17-2006, 12:39 PM	#35
trisherina meretricious dilettante Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 11,068	I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Mine is that 007b.com (a pro-breastfeeding site) is attempting to establish breastfeeding as the causal explanation for reduced SIDS incidence in breastfed children. That's poor science of the sort that pisses me off, mostly because it is i) so exceedingly common and ii) so blithely accepted without analysis by the average reader. Of the three elements of causation (association, temporal order, and elimination of alternatives or "no spuriousness"), only association (the two phenomena occur together or appear to act together -- in this case breastfeeding and reduced SIDS incidence) applies to that "careful study of statistics." Temporal order is absent (to establish this, you'd have to at the very least contrast a period of time in which breastfeeding was at an all-time low and SIDS at an all-time high with a period where there was more breastfeeding and less SIDS, OR more ideally you could take non-breastfed children in a family who were collapsing of SIDS and make their mother breastfeed subsequent sibs and show that their little lives were saved). Also absent is the elimination of plausible alternatives, which I prefer termed "no spuriousness" -- plausible alternatives in this case include how the breastfed vs. the nonbreastfed infants were placed to rest, education and income and smoking factors in the infants' mothers (because these factors show positive and negative association with infant care/vigilance variables), bundling and swaddling, and family medical/psychiatric histories, just to name a few plausible alternatives I can think of off the top of my head. As for a statistically significant association all on its own as a strong argument for causality, well, let me tell you about the way my dog makes the sun come up every morning by stretching and snuffling on her dog bed. Source: my brain and Neumann's Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2006 (6th ed.).

09-22-2006, 01:56 AM	#36
catbelly monkey Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: the north Posts: 1,757	One of the magical things about the internet is that everything could be considered a "published article"

09-26-2006, 07:31 PM	#43
Jack Flanders landscaping is fun Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: up river and down river Posts: 4,815	I think when the child asks for chocolate milk, it's time to pull the nipple.

09-28-2006, 01:08 AM	#45
Jack Flanders landscaping is fun Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: up river and down river Posts: 4,815