Are breastfed babies smarter?

by Jennifer Jordan (Subscribe to Jennifer Jordan's posts) May 5th 2008 8:26PM

Categories: Newborns, Just For Moms, Babies, Pregnancy & Birth, Safety, Eating & Nutrition, Development, In The News, Mommy Wars

Print Email More

One article--and one set of research--would have us think so. Perhaps this story is more the sort that would fall under "Pregnancy Fact or Fiction," as breastfeeding in general is a REALLY hot topic, but let's investigate the findings.

To be honest, before we get started, I'd like to point out that this story feels very familiar. That's probably because it is. We never seem to stop talking about breastfeeding--those for it, those against it, etc.--I guess that discussion is a good thing. Way back when no one ever talked about breasts or using them for anything other than filling out a bullet bra.

In this most recent study, 14,000 babies were studied by an international research team. Their findings suggested that breastfeeding makes babies smarter, especially when not mixed with formula. The way the process worked was a little unsettling to me, though: half the mothers were strongly encouraged to breastfeed and the other half were given no encouragement.

As someone who was a recent new mom myself, I can't say that a lack of encouragement would be especially helpful. I guess I wouldn't want the medical staff breathing down my neck about it either, but it would seem especially unfair to a new mom to not encourage her to give breastfeeding a chance. I was able to breastfeed, but I was also given a ton of support and encouragement from everyone from my family to the OBGYNs and nurses to our ParentDish readers. Not everyone gets that kind of support.

What really upset me about the article are some of the other assertions made by the researchers, namely that mothers who breastfeed are "different" because they are smarter and more invested in their children. Say WHAT? So, someone who chooses to not breastfeed or can't breastfeed given the circumstances is not as invested in her child? I disagree. Completely.

Yes, current wisdom holds that breastfeeding is the best thing since sliced bread. Hopefully it's true. But considering we live in a society where women are in fierce competition with one another to be the best mommy ever coupled with all the controversy already surrounding breastfeeding, I think it's a tad out of line to suggest that a woman is less invested in her child because she chooses to not breastfeed.

The results of the study did not include how breastfeeding was thought to make babies smarter. It was asserted that the close contact/time spent with the child could be more nurturing. It's also possible the vitamins, proteins and minerals present in the breastmilk have a different effect on the brain.

I'm certainly no expert and can't speak for anything except my own experience. Will Mr. Pickles turn out to be smarter? Who knows. What I do know is that he'll be smarter than me--kids always outsmart their parents at some point. Let's just hope he doesn't figure out how to open the front door locks. He's already disabled all our childproofing devices.

Source

Comments (16)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Uly 5-07-2008 @ 3:02PM

This is news, now? I thought this was news two decades ago, not today.

At any rate, it's not right.

Breastfeeding is the biological norm. We're fortunate in that, if we can't breastfeed, we have an alternative. However, that does not make this alternative natural.

Breastfed babies are *normal*. Formula fed babies suffer and have their intelligence damaged.

ivory 5-06-2008 @ 12:23AM

I am going to put myself out there by saying that perhaps what makes mothers who breastfeed different than mothers who do not is the physical skin to skin contact they consistantly get with baby. The emotional bond if hightened by the physical one, so perhaps that makes the mother more 'engaged'. That isn't to say parents who formula feed are not capable to have the same physical bond, but it is harder to structure in the time, and many parents rely on others to help feed baby (or they use props, or when baby is old enough to hold them own bottle, letting them do it).

Also, there have been pretty comprehensive studies that show that less educated, lower income mothers tend to breastfeed less consistantly, and for shorter times. Be it because they need to go back to work sooner (and can not afford the nice breastpump) or because they do not realize the benefits of breastfeeding, the economic and education line is there.

Perhaps a hypothosis you can agree with is that mothers who are economically better off are able to be at home with their kids, thus their breastfeeding relationship is not threatened by having to leave baby, and they are also able to give baby more one on one floor time. So it isn't the way they feed baby that makes them 'different', it is the circumstance that creates the two effects.

eugene 5-06-2008 @ 12:43AM

Why is it hard to accept that during the most vital part of the development of a child's brain, the quality of their food will affect that development?

I don't think breast feeding is the only determining factor in the success of the child, but obviously a food source, engineered by God, gods, evolution, whatever you believe, for the express purpose of sustaining and nurturing early life is going to better for the baby then a powder you mix with water.

Having said that, I disagree with the people who make it sound like if you don't breast feed, you're an uncaring parent who might as well put your child up for adoption because obviously you have no heart.

Carolyn 5-06-2008 @ 2:43AM

Last week I read a post here about how the guilt that formula feeding moms feel is largely self-inflicted. I would say that whatever guilt we feel is due to stories like this.

Maybe you've caught me on a bad day here, but I am just so sick of being separated into "moms who breastfeed" and "moms who don't." As though that categorization defines us as mothers somehow, or gives any insight at all into our children.

I think that as long as we love our kids and do what's best for our families, we're all on the same side.

Carolyn
http://www.momsontheedge.ca

pbhj 5-06-2008 @ 4:54AM

>>> Yes, current wisdom holds that breastfeeding is the best thing since sliced bread.

If you mean that briefly there was a bit of lunacy around the 70s when we thought we should all be living in space-stations eating only pills, and apart from that blip, people have believed forever that breastfeeding is best - then, yes.

"current wisdom", puts the lie to any semblance at neutrality you were attempting to achieve.

That aside, remembering that Mum's milk is adjusted to the child's needs so that milk from a milk-bank (the second best option according to the WHO) isn't even so good - then you can see plainly that generic formula will never be as good as the real thing.

If you can't. That's fine. But make your best effort.

Inger 5-06-2008 @ 8:45AM

Man, this is just a fight waiting to happen...

And let me make a little clarification. I don't think there is anybody who is actually AGAINST breastfeeding, we just choose not to or are unable to do it. I have been all three - with my first I couldn't, with my second I did, and with my third I chose not to because his latch was so poor it left me no time to care for my other children.

And I agree that statistics that say that "breastfed babies are smarter" is really a lot of hooey because unless you can take identical twins (and do this with several sets of them) and breastfeed one and formula feed that other there is no real way to "prove" anything. And even then there are still going to be differences as even identical twins are different people.

I really hate studies like this.

Rhonda 5-06-2008 @ 9:10AM

Hmmm, my bottle-fed-from-birth baby tested gifted when she was 8. 98th percentile. Interesting. Wonder what the study has to say about her. Exception that proves the rule? :-)

I hate studies like this too. There are so many other factors that contribute to intelligence - why do we get caught up with breastfeeding as a prime factor?

Karen 5-06-2008 @ 9:57AM

You can't prove that breastfed babies are smarter by comparing them to other children. You could only prove that if compared to themselves.

Maybe your gifted at 8 child would be even MORE gifted if she was breastfed. Since there is no way to determine this, it is something that can't be proven. We can't go back and compare the children to themselves. This is a dumb study that doesn't take into consideration a multitude of other factors and that can't single out one cause of intelligence.

Clearly breast is best. There are reasons for not breastfeeding and there are medical reasons it isn't possible (although not nearly as many as claim there is). I'm not sure how the arguments about "whatever works for each family" work. At whose expense? Because if it is the child that suffers, then how is that ok?

That said, and knowing that I'm 100% right about breastfeeding being the best thing for the baby, I'm certainly not critical of a mother, that in all other respects is devoted to their child. People are complex and sometimes we make decisions that are not the best. I just wish people would admit it and stop trying to justify it.

And there are many other behaviors that are much more harmful to a child than not breastfeeding. It isn't ONE thing that makes a mother good or bad, but an overall pattern. It is generally the compilation of decisions that makes a mother good vs. bad.

Either way, the great thing is that we all do judge parenting behaviors as we judge all other behaviors and make a character decisions based on the choices. This is not a bad thing. God will judge their soul (judge not lest you be judged) but it is my responsibility to judge behavior and make choices about relationships.

Either way guilt is useless. If you make the best decisions you know to make at any given time, there is no point feeling bad about it even if you find out later there may have been a better way. You cannot change the past.

Mel 5-06-2008 @ 12:01PM

You make so much sense!

This was my favorite line: "I'm not sure how the arguments about "whatever works for each family" work. At whose expense? Because if it is the child that suffers, then how is that ok?"

CLM 5-06-2008 @ 10:01AM

As a parent through adoption I am largely unaffected by the breastfeeding debate. That being said, I am sick to death of hearing reports that breastfeeding mothers are more vested in their children than other mothers. It's a ridiculous conclusion that completely ignores the variety of circumstances that preclude breastfeeding.

Mel 5-06-2008 @ 10:53AM

"So, someone who chooses to not breastfeed or can't breastfeed given the circumstances is not as invested in her child?"

Yes, precisely. And don't bring up that ubiquitous hysteria about "some mothers just can't." Yeah, I get that. Medical impossibility applies to a tinytinytiny percentage of non-breastfeeders. Certainly, you're lumping together working mothers in your "given the circumstances" caveat. See, that's still a choice. It just is. So, the long and short of it is that breastfeeding mommys are more invested than non-breastfeeders. UNLESS: The non-breastfeeder fits into the miniscule percentage of women for whom breasfeeding is IMPOSSIBLE.

Kelly 5-06-2008 @ 12:49PM

In response to mothers who breastfeed are more vested I suppose your opinion wouldn't include mothers who breastfeed and work? It is insulting to say that a woman isn't vested in their children solely on the way they choose to feed their child. I breastfed both of my children but would never say that I am more vested in my children than my friends who opted not to and I am sure their children would agree. Show a little bit of tolerance.

Kate 5-06-2008 @ 11:11AM

Love the new site design, hate the same old vitrulent commenters.
"Knowing that I am 100% right about breastfeeding" and "the long and short of it is that breastfeeding mommys are more invested than non-breastfeeders" makes me glad we can choose our friends and the blogs we read. And teach tolerance to our children.

Sabrina 5-06-2008 @ 11:46AM

They've been bothering me to put my 3 year old in Kindergarten, she's outsmarting the 5 year olds in her class. I hesitate to think how much smarter she'd have been if she'd have latched on, if I had not had to work, if I had not made the concious choice to take the only post-partum depression medication my state-sponsored insurance would pay for, which wasn't safe for breastfeding moms, in short, If I Chose Another Path. As far as my son goes, I know he'd be dead if I'd continued to breastfeed him, I'm glad they caught his rare allergy to all mammal milk as early as they did. No guilt on that one, and he's of above average intelligence too.

Meagan 5-06-2008 @ 1:34PM

He was allergic to your milk??? Am I reading that right? That's rough...

Sabrina 5-06-2008 @ 1:42PM

My milk, your milk, cow's milk, goat's milk, any milk from any mammal. It's more rare than a regular milk allergy, and unfortunately a lot of formula options carry protiens from at least one mammal's milk. It was interesting. Luckily he's now old enough for straight soy milk.