Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"?

I just read an interesting article about hormones and breastfeeding.



"It said the researcher, Professor Sven Carlsen, said the child鈥檚 health is actually determined by the hormone balance in the mother's womb, with a high level of male hormones affecting both her ability to breastfeed and the baby鈥檚 health."



Your thoughts on this?

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/01January/Pa鈥?/a>Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"?I find it interesting that the newspaper article says 'this study says there is no difference nutritionally between the two'.

I've READ the study (rather dry and boring reading, but still) and NOWHERE in it does the author come to the conclusion that there is no nutritional difference between the two.

The study focuses solely on factors that appear to influence the breastfeeding SUCCESS rate of women, and says that women with high levels of male hormones in their bodies while pregnant appear to have a lower chance of success. Now given that most of the women I know who struggled to breastfeed had MALE children, I feel there is a good bit of circumstantial evidence to back that up.



The study also concluded that maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, and low maternal weight also increased the chances of poor breastfeeding success- which are things that lactation consultants have been telling us for years!



I HAVE read an extract of a study that DID say there is no difference between the two, HOWEVER it said that 'after eliminating the variables of parental lifestyle, nutrition, intelligence and education levels there appears to be minimal difference between breastmilk and formula nutritionally' It also said that there appears to be a major psychological development advantage to the breastfed babies.



What needs to be remembered when reading these things is that they are STUDIES, research if you will, working to increase our knowledge and point us in the right direction for future studies- they are NOT scientific fact!Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"?
I think breast is best, and it will always be this way, but I also think the benefits of breast milk are exagerated, along with the horrors of formula. I have seen breastfed babies get sick, and formula kids as healthy as a horse. I believe the benefits of breastfeeding are 1) not set on stone, 2) more on the emotional and psicological side of both the mother and the baby than physical.Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"?The article also says, "The researchers have supplied no evidence to back up their claim that there is no benefit from breast milk."



Without getting into the specific science of it, there's a reason why women were developed to produce milk for their young. Otherwise, we would have no breasts. Because that is their primary function - to feed our young (regardless of whether you use them for that purpose or not). If it weren't so, we'd have two cans of Enfamil strapped to our chests.



I'm curious whether Dr. Carlsen is getting some funding from formula companies, perhaps. It's entirely possible. It's pretty clear through the personal anecdotal experiences of many moms in the US, at least, struggling to nurse their babies, that the formula manufacturers are sending subliminal messages to mothers that undermine the breastfeeding relationship and make them rely less on nature and more on their product. Plus, the hospital/doctors often get compensated for it.
Even if that one man's opinion is correct, to me there are still many other reasons to breastfeed. It's easier, it's free, it's a way to bond with baby. I just hope no one reads that and makes the decision to use formula based on an article.



I actually was watching "The Doctors" the other day, and they were discussing breastfeeding. One of the Dr's actually said something along the lines of "formula is almost exactly like breast milk now that it contains DHA, and is a perfect alternative to breastfeeding." I just thought about how that statement would go over on Y!A, lol.Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"?There are about a million things wrong with this claim, but the one that immediately jumped out at me is the assumption that all, or even most women who don't breastfeed do so because they 'can't'. True inability to breastfeed is VERY rare. Most women who formula feed do so by choice, or due to lack of advice or support, NOT lack of milk. (And the hormonal issue is far more complex than just 'too much testosterone' = too little milk.)Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"?
of course breast milk is better.. its real milk and the way initially intended for every mother to feed their child until aomeone was lazy and created fake milk.. formula is a powder milk that can live on a shelf for like a year and then u add water to it.. how is that milk? breast milk is way better for a baby.. breastfed babis see and hear better.. have higher i.q.s and are less likely to get sick and if they do get sick its for like 2 days.. they are less likely to have developmental issues.. its just better
I LOVE "scientist" crap! Sorry, but people put sooo much stock into what "scientists" say, and it changes all of the time. When I had babies, it was. "Put them to sleep on their stomaches, in case they throw up, so they won't choke." Now, it's, "Put them to sleep on their backs, because there is less SIDS". People don't believe in God, thanks to "scientists".

My advice, do what you want in the way of feeding, and love your baby, because that is what they need the most.Scientist claims "breast milk is no more beneficial for a child's health than formula milk"?
They're making fun of that "scientist".



It says later "The researchers have supplied no evidence to back up their claim that there is no benefit from breast milk."



They tried, but sorry, you can't put live white blood cells in a can.
It says right in the second paragraph that "the researchers have supplied no evidence to back up their claim that there is no benefit from breast milk". I'll wait to see the evidence before I let this study influence any of my decisions.
That is one researcher and his opinion not borne out by years of studies, in other words that is one person against a tsunami of evidence that says otherwise. Utter horse sh*t.
In the debate of breast milk vrs. formula: formula has come along way to be very healthy for babies but breast milk will always be best. There is no way to scientifically put the mothers natural antibodies into a can of formula.
Most studies have found that breast milk is better. Until there's more of a scientific consensus, Professor Carlsen's claims are not something to base your decisions on.