There was just a book published, Your Breasts Are Trying to Kill You, by author Florence Williams.  It seems as though she is taking a serious, yet humorous look at what our breasts do and don’t do for us.  I think there is much truth in this book.  I haven’t read it yet, just the review, but have ordered it and will read it.  More to come on that.

That is not what I want to talk about.  I want to talk about the fact that breasts, breastfeeding, and breast milk are always getting bad and miss-informed press!  In the review, Lindy West has a list, “Five things I learned about breasts from Florence William’s Breasts” #2 is “Babies are cannibals and your breasts may be sexist.”  Huh?  The author of the review, Lindy West, goes on, “  A male baby requires almost 1,000 megajoules of energy in his first year of life. “That is the equivalent,” Williams writes, “of one thousand light trucks moving one hundred miles per hour.” And do you know where he gets all that energy? Not from the sun, unless you are a fern that somehow learned how to read the Internet (good job!). No, it’s from your boobs. HE’S EATING YOU. That little dude sucks it right out of you like the world’s chubbiest and least stealthy vampire. Which, of course, is exactly how it’s supposed to be—but it’s not surprising that so many women are leery of breast-feeding.”  I think they are leery of breastfeeding because of people like you!  Yikes!

Also, there is talk to our breastmilk being contaminated.  Guess what?  So are the cows, soy beans, and whatever other stuff they put in baby formula!!!  Duh!  However, unlike baby formula, there things in breastmilk that will protect your baby from the effects of these contaminants.  Ha!

Let’s get the story straight.

Breastfeeding is not always easy but it also not the parasitic relationship the author of the review presents.  Stop.  Please.  Thank you.

Parenting is hard!

I just read an article on parenting research and had to respond.  The article is about a study which found that parenting basically sucks and we are lying to ourselves if we say otherwise.  This research paper was published in Psychological Science. Research proves parenting is costing us $193,000 and change per child to raise them, and this doesn’t take into account the emotional and social toil we are subjecting ourselves to.  According to research, parents are “angrier and more depressed” then their unencumbered counter parts.    This “new paper shows that parents fool themselves into believing that having kids is more rewarding than it actually is. It turns out parents are in the grip of a giant illusion.”  Really???

The article continues:  “All parents know that having kids is a blessing — except when it’s a nightmare of screaming fits, diapers, runny noses, wars over bedtimes and homework and clothes. To say nothing of bills too numerous to list. Some economists have argued that having kids is an economically silly investment; after all, it’s cheaper to hire end-of-life care than to raise a child. Now comes new research showing that having kids is not only financially foolish but that kids literally make parents delusional.”

The way they conducted the research may show that we lie to ourselves at times to get through rough spots but I strongly disagree that my children have been leaching away my soul and resources.

My children have been the best thing that happened to my life.  I am the first to admit that I have started out with an emotional deficit from the way I was raised.  So maybe that is why they were able to help me grow in so many ways.  They were able to teach me about true unconditional love which, by the by, has helped my marriage and my relationships with close friends.  They have taught me to give away my energy for a good cause and NOT expect anything back.  Do it because you want to, not because you are hoping to have something given to you in return.  True bliss.  I had never been truly blissful; felt all was well with myself and the world, until I was ice skating with my children one day several years ago.  They taught me how to be in the moment, let go of the small things, don’t be obsessive, guilt is a wasted emotion, worrying is an even bigger waste of time and emotion.    Be peaceful.  Be grateful for what you have.  People before things.  So many lessons to be learned.  And like good teachers, my children unrelentingly kept at me with these lessons until I got them!

I don’t think I am delusional about how hard it is to have children.  Having my children is also the hardest thing, by far, that I have ever done in my life.  I stayed at home with them for years and was so BORED in the beginning.  This forced me to get out in the world with them and over come my shyness and try all sorts of new things.  Was it hard on us financially?  You bet!  We are still recovering for the years I was not earning money and they were helping us spend it.

Having a child should not be entered into lightly.  They are not just another “step” on the ladder to human success.  But if you are brave and ready to be challenged, get ready for the change of you life!  I wouldn’t trade it for the world.  The research article ends; “Of course parents should be commended for one little thing they do: maintain the existence of humanity. I praise them for that, but I think they’re both heroes and suckers.”   Why is it that I just feel lucky?

Why are diabetes cost are going through the roof?   According to an article in the New York Times, it is costing us  $174 billion dollars a year to cover the health costs of people who have developed diabetes in their life time.  More and more of our population is developing diabetes.  ““Diabetes is the noninfectious epidemic of our time,” said Dr. Ronald Loeppke, vice chairman of U.S. Preventive Medicine, a company that offers wellness and prevention programs to employers and individuals.”   What can be done about this?  The article does summarize some of the things a person can do to stay healthy.   “The good news, said Dr. Loeppke, is that 80 percent of Type 2 diabetes in the United States can be prevented with three steps that do not have to cost money: stopping smoking, eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly.”  I think all of these suggestions are great, but what was astonishing to me is they did not mention breastfeeding as a prevention.  I kept scanning the article thinking I must have missed the reference to breastfeeding, but nope.  It wasn’t there.  In our area, they are building a bigger and better hospital which includes a HUGE area to help care for our diabetic population.  As stated in this article, they see the need for care increasing massively over time.

OK, what else can we do?  We can exercise, eat healthier, not smoke.  AND we can BREASTFEED our babies.  Breastfeeding can help with diabetes protection in three unique ways.  First of all, if a mother develops gestational diabetes during pregnancy, the longer she breastfeeds post-natally will help protect her from developing type 2 diabetes herself.  The longer she nurses, the better the protection.  Secondly, breastfeeding will help prevent her baby from developing Type 1 AND Type 2 diabetes in their life time.  Again, longer is better.  Many breastfeeding benefits are great if a mother breastfeeds for even 1 month.  What many families are not aware of is that breastfeeding protection is dosage related.  A little is great, more is fabulous!  We forget that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding exclusively for 6 moths, then slowing introducing solids, and continuing breastfeeding for at least one year.  The World Health Organization recommends nursing for at least two years.

Why is breastfeeding  not being emphasized as a protective health benefit?  Are we worried about making families feel guilty?  Is there very little money to be made and a TON of money to be saved (I wonder how the pharmaceutical companies feel about that!)  If we saved the billions of dollars we hear about from breastfeeding, many medical businesses would be struggling.  Who are we really trying to protect?  Our mothers?  Our babies?  Our economy?   Breastfeeding will help protect all of these.

Many mothers in the US return to work when their babies are quite young.  If they are breastfeeding and want to continue to exclusively provide breastmilk for their babies, it can make things more complicated.  In most industrialized countries there are laws and governmental policies that help mothers of young children.  In Canada for instance, mothers receive 15 weeks of paid leave.  After that, parents may take up to 35 weeks off with at least partial pay.  Often the mothers take the first six months or so but then they can arrange things as they feel works best for their families.  In France families have 22 weeks of paid leave and in Germany it is 44 weeks.  There was an interesting report I found called “Parental Leave Policies in 21 Countries” by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.  Page 6 has a nice bar graph illustrating paid time off and unpaid time off.     Something of note to me is that in the United States we provide 0 weeks paid and up to 24 weeks unpaid family leave which is very low compared to the rest of the world.

In my opinion, our working mothers in the United States are not well protected.  Here it is really up to their employers as to what mothers are offered in terms of returning to work and job protection.

Most of the mothers I work with are going back to work.  In the past, I talked to them about what their options really were.  Sometimes families are not aware of all the costs of returning to work.  Usually we spend more on nice clothing, gas, take out food, and then of course we have childcare, which is quite expensive.  Here is a website that can help you figure out exactly what it will cost you to return to work.  Many times once all of the costs are added up, it might not seem like the amount of money that is actually left over is worth the unwanted separation of mother and babies.

However, because of the fragile nature of the job market in Michigan, I now have reservations about encouraging mothers to explore the possibility of whether to return to work or not.  I worry about whether there will be a job available for my mothers later when their babies are older.  Also, according to a 2009 article in the New York Times, men make up 82% of those being laid off.  Therefore, it is becoming more common that women are the sole bread winners for their families.

The fact is many mothers truly have to go back to work, whether they want to or not, because they simply cannot afford to lose their income or their job security.  I hate the tension between mothers working outside the home and those at home with their babies.  What I wish for, is that each woman decides what she wants to do, stay home or not.  If a new mother truly wants to return to work right after her baby is born, I support that fully.  If she wants to stay home with her baby for years, I support that fully as well.  Isn’t that true feminism?  Each woman deciding what is right for her and her family?  I am sad that it seems as if we have switched from one model of what womanhood means, staying at home and raising a family, to a new definition of womanhood that also lacks choice.  It involves maybe having children or not, but returning to work in rather quick order once the baby is born.  In other words, all women have to work outside the home.  I would love more options for the women of the United States!

Next week I will start a series on how to make the transition to work smoothly for breastfeeding mothers.  There are many great resources and it can be done, especially with support and good resources.

Wow!  Who knew that feeding a baby could be so controversial!

I want to make sure it is clear that it is my job to help mothers feed their babies in the manner of their choosing.  I get calls all the time from families who want to/need to wean, and from formula feeding families who have questions about appropriate feeding for their babies.  There is not much support out there, period, and I help families all the time and it is not my job to judge them in their choices.  Rather it is my job to support them in whatever decision they make.  I feel I do a good job with this.

So, back to breastfeeding…My plan for this next column was planned before I even wrote my last one.  It was to talk about some of the research that is out there.  I did look at the studies one of the commenters provided.  I was familiar with the old one from the 70’s.  One of the problems with that study is that until recently we didn’t have good definitions of how to categorize a “breastfed” baby.  Is it one that has been breastfed once in their life?  Twice?  40 times?  Or what we now consider the standard, exclusively breastfed.

This means nothing but breastmilk has passed through that baby’s lips.  My first child, while he was breastfed, he was not exclusively breastfed.  We used formula in the beginning as we transitioned to nothing but breastmilk.  So, my first baby would not now have qualified for this category, exclusively breastfeed, although he received nothing but breastmilk from 3 months until 6 months when we started solids for him.

Many older studies put all the babies who received some breastmilk in the breastfed category.  So my son would have been included with the “breastfed” babies when he in fact started out completely formula fed and switched to breastmilk over time.  What we find is if we tease out the babies who only received breastmilk, we see the biggest differences in outcomes.  We do this with breastfeeding “initiation” as well.  A woman who puts her baby to the breast, even once, is put in the breastfeeding initiation category.  It doesn’t matter if the baby actually feeds, if it hurts the mother, or she never does it again.  The JOINT Commission on Health is now looking at these breastfeeding numbers and have found a more useful number would be who is “exclusively” breastfed while in the hospital for their maternity stay.   So, it is rightfully confusing as to what these terms mean.

There was an article that was written in the Atlantic many months ago which caused many important discussions about breastfeeding.  It was interesting that when I was discussing it with my friend Joe, the father of two breastfed babies.  He said something like, “Even if there isn’t research proving breastmilk is better for babies, doesn’t it just seem like the right thing to do?”  This is getting back to the idea that we are mammals and mammals breastfeed their babies.  But fortunately for Joe and all of us, there is good research out there showing that most babies are healthier from breastfeeding.

People argue that most breastfeeding studies aren’t rigorous enough.  In particular, you cannot do double blind, randomized controlled studies with infant feeding.  Most parents have strong feelings about how they are going to feed their babies and don’t want to be part of a feeding experiment.  There are a few that are in the middle, not sure if they are going to breastfeed or formula feed, but most are sure.  On the other hand, as with all scientific studies, the researchers have to show that no harm will be caused by their study and the fact is we cannot promise that formula feeding will not cause harm.  You could say, “Well, you can’t show that breastfeeding won’t cause harm!”  While that may be true, it doesn’t matter because regardless of how people feel about breastfeeding, it is the biological norm to feed a human baby with breastmilk.

I am not going to beat you over the head with studies but there is a wonderful meta-analysis of breastfeeding research done in 2007.

A meta-analysis is one of the best types of research evaluation.  They looked at many breastfeeding studies (9000!) and tossed out the weak ones and keep the best studies with rigorous methods.  The other thing I did was google “Risks of Formula Feeding” to see what came up.  Read some of these and see what you think.  Finally, Marsha Walker, one of the world’s leading experts on breastfeeding, has a wonderful page on this subject.

In my mind, the science is clear.