|
|
eLetters is an online forum for ongoing
peer review. To submit an eLetter please go to the article you wish
to respond to and click on the link that reads
"eLetters: Submit a Response." Submission of
eLetters are open to all health care professionals
and experts in related fields.
eLetters to:
-
- ELECTRONIC ARTICLE:
Dror Mandel, Ronit Lubetzky, Shaul Dollberg, Shimon Barak, and Francis B. Mimouni
- Fat and Energy Contents of Expressed Human Breast Milk in Prolonged Lactation
Pediatrics 2005; 116: e432-e435
[Abstract]
[Full text]
[PDF]
|
|
eLetters published:
-
How long is "prolonged"?
- James E. Akre
(30 September 2005)
-
Fat and energy in breastmilk
- Jack Newman
(6 October 2005)
|
How long is "prolonged"? |
30 September 2005 |
|
|
James E. Akre, Child-feeding commentator Freelance
Send letter to journal:
Re: How long is "prolonged"?
akrej{at}yahoo.com James E. Akre
|
The report by Mandel and colleagues about the fat and energy content
of expressed human milk in “prolonged” lactation (Pediatrics, Vol. 116,
No. 3, 3 September 2005) provides as interesting a scientific analysis of
the composition of human milk as it does a glimpse at the cultural bias
from which the analysis is made.
Indeed, the authors’ very definition of “prolonged lactation” is at
odds with the article’s last sentence, which appears to acknowledge the
contribution of anthropologist Katherine Dettwyler to our collective
understanding of the normal and natural – not the prolonged – duration of
breastfeeding for modern humans: 2.5 years at a minimum and about 7 years
at a maximum (1).
The article’s last sentence also provides a striking contrast to its
first: “The optimal duration of breastfeeding is unknown.” Even if we
don’t know yet, from the perspective of child-led weaning it is safe to
say that at least the children do.
Unfortunately, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ open-ended
recommendation – “Breastfeeding should be continued for at least the first
year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and
child” (2) – has not been cited fully; whereas the World Health
Organization’s policy – “while breastfeeding continues for up to two years
of age or beyond” – has been omitted entirely (3).
That researchers are only just getting around to investigating human
milk’s fat and energy content after one year of lactation speaks volumes
about breastfeeding’s perceived nutritional and psychosocial value for
toddlers. It also brings to mind, at the opposite end of the child-feeding
spectrum, the widespread belief just a generation ago that human milk was
fine but only for babies born at term; that is, until researchers took a
look at the milk of mothers who actually delivered preterm and concluded
that it was in fact better suited for babies born early (4).
The statement “Whether continued high saturated fat and cholesterol
intake through breastfeeding beyond the first year of life is beneficial
is unknown” only serves to reinforce the article's cultural bias. (Why
wouldn’t it be? After all, breast milk is still milk.) Not so long ago
pediatricians believed that breast milk was “deficient” in iron because it
was “low” in iron, at least compared to infant formula. If breast milk is
now seen as “high” in saturated fat, to what is it being compared? Milk’s
fat content varies considerably among species, and even within the same
species, for example the kangaroo that routinely produces two milks for
different-age offspring. It’s time we adopted the perspective that what
Mother Nature has provided is the default even as we strive to understand
why.
We could also take a cue from the results of Australia’s first study
of mothers who were breastfeeding children at least two years of age or
older (107 mothers aged 21 to 45 years (average 34 years) and 114 children
aged 24 to 78 months (average 36 months)). When children were asked about
breastfeeding, nearly all said they breastfed because they liked the milk
and it made them feel happy or good. They also reported that breast milk
tastes “as good as chocolate” and “better than ice cream” (5).
James Akre, Geneva, Switzerland
References
1. Dettwyler KA. When to wean: biological versus cultural perspectives.
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2004;47:712-723.
2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Breastfeeding and the Use of Human
Milk. Pediatrics, 2005;115:496-506.
3. Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding. Geneva, World
Health Organization, 2003.
4. Lemons JA et al. Differences in the composition of preterm and term
milk during early lactation. Pediatr Res., 1982;16:113-117.
5. Gribble K. Breastfeeding into toddlerhood and beyond: the experience
of mothers and children. Breastfeeding the Natural State. Australian
Breastfeeding Association International Conference, Hobart, 28-30
September 2005 (cited with permission).
Conflict of Interest:
None declared |
|
Fat and energy in breastmilk |
6 October 2005 |
|
|
Jack Newman, pediatrician Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto
Send letter to journal:
Re: Fat and energy in breastmilk
drjacknewman{at}sympatico.ca Jack Newman
|
I read the article on fat content in breastmilk (1) in September’s
Pediatrics with interest. It will be a useful article to quote since I am
frequently in a situation of having to answer many paediatricians' beliefs
that there is no nutritional value in breastmilk after 6 months, a year
etc. As incredible as this sounds, it is a statement I hear not
frequently from pediatricians.
However, I don't think the authors have considered one other
possibility to explain the higher fat in the milk of women who breastfeed
longer than a year (this I would consider a normal period of
breastfeeding, incidentally, not "prolonged"). In most affluent,
industrialized societies, support for breastfeeding is, shall we say,
spotty. Indeed, if the slightest problems arise, mothers are often
encouraged to stop or supplement, often when good help would avoid
supplementing or weaning. From my knowledge of what goes on in Israel, I
doubt the support for breastfeeding is better than here in Canada or the
US or much of western Europe. Thus, the mothers who are still
breastfeeding at a year or longer may have some advantage that results in
their babies having few problems breastfeeding. One possible advantage
may be a higher concentration of fat in their milk, which results in their
babies growing quickly and the babies being content and happy. Thus, the
results of this study would only mean something if the authors had
followed the same mothers from early in lactation to later in lactation.
The authors may answer that the mothers in the short duration group did
not have as high CMT's as those in the normal duration group, but there is
some overlap, isn't there? It would be interesting to see if the mothers
with 12% CMT in their milk were more likely to breastfeed longer than
those with 3%, say.
In the conclusion, the authors suggest that it is possible that the
high concentration of fat in the milk might increase the risk of cardiac
disease later on. This is quite a leap, for several reasons. First of
all, most babies over a year who are not breastfeeding, are not drinking
formula with low cholesterol, but regular cow's milk with high
cholesterol. Secondly, though few studies have followed babies breastfed
for over a year, many studies now show a decreased risk for breastfed
babies of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and LDL/HDL
ratios, all suggesting they are protected against atherosclerosis (2-7).
Citing an article following men who were born in the 1920's as a concern
about cardiac disease makes no sense. These men would have been more
likely, in those days, to have been breastfed or breastfed longer if they
were in the lower socio-economic group, and several studies show increased
risk of atherosclerosis in those in the lower socio-economic stratum.
Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC
Breastfeeding Clinic,
North York General Hospital
Toronto, Ontario M6P 3H6
1. Mandel D, Lubetsky R, Dollberg S, Barak S, Mimouni FB. Fat and
energy contents of expressed human breast milk in prolonged lactation.
Pediatrics 2005;116:e432-e435
2. Bergmann KE, Bermann RL, von Kries R, Böhm O, Richter R, Dudenhausen
JW, Wahn U. Early determinants of childhood overweight and adiposity in a
birth cohort study: role of breastfeeding. Int J Obesity 2003;27:162-72
3. Grummer-Strawn LM, Mei Z. Does breastfeeding protect against pediatric
overweight? Analysis of longitudinal data from the centers for disease
control and prevention pediatric nutrition surveillance system. Pediatrics
2004;113:e81
4. Pettitt DJ, Forman MR, Hanson RL, Knowler WC, Bennett PH. Breastfeeding
and incidence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in Pima Indians.
Lancet 1997;350:166-8
5. Young TK, Martens PJ, Taback SP, et al. Type 2 diabetes in Children:
prenatal and early infancy risk factors among Native Canadians. Arch
Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156:651-55
6. Ravelli ACJ, van der Meulen JHP, Osmond C, et al. Infant feeding and
adult glucose tolerance, lipid profile, blood pressure and obesity. Arch
Dis Child 2000;82:248-52
7. Martin RM, Ness AR, Gunnell D, Emmett PE, Smith GD for the ALSPAC Study
Team. Does breastfeeding in infancy lower blood pressure in children.
Circulation 2004;109:1259-66
Conflict of Interest:
None declared |
| |
|