This new research will give us more ideas how good breastfeeding is for babies.
What is role of Gut flora in health and disease?
The human gut is the natural habitat for a large and dynamic bacterial community, but a substantial part of these bacterial populations are still to be described. However, the relevance and effect of resident bacteria on a host's physiology and pathology has been well documented. Major functions of the gut micro flora include metabolic activities that result in salvage of energy and absorbable nutrients, important trophic effects on
intestinal epithelia and on immune structure and function, and protection of the colonised host against invasion by alien microbes. Gut flora might also be an essential factor in certain pathological disorders, including multisystem organ failure, colon cancer, and inflammatory bowel diseases. Nevertheless, bacteria are also useful in promotion of human health. Probiotics and prebiotics are known to have a role in prevention or treatment of some diseases.
So what are the real scientific benefits of breastfeeding?
Here are many Scientific Benefits of Breastfeeding which I found in web. This is intended only as a summary of the major conclusions.
The benefits to the child
There are a number of health benefits to the breastfed child, some of them are significant and others are less significant. For full term infants the benefits include:
Acute otitis media (middle ear infections)
Babies that were ever breastfed had a 23 percent lower incidence of acute otitis media than exclusively formula fed babies.
Atopic dermatitis (type of eczema):
In families with a history of atopy, exclusive breastfeeding for at least 3 months was found to have a 42 percent reduction in atopic dermatitis compared with breastfeeding for less than 3 months.
Gastrointestinal infections:
Infants who were breastfeeding had a 64 percent reduction in the risk of non-specific gastroenteritis compared with infants who were not breastfeeding.
Lower respiratory tract diseases:
There is a 72 percent reduction in the risk of hospitalization due to lower respiratory tract diseases in infants less than 1 year of age who were exclusively breastfed for 4 months or more.
Asthma:
Breastfeeding for at least 3 months was associated with a 27 percent reduction in the risk of asthma for those without a family history of asthma and a 40 percent reduction for those with a family history of asthma.
Type 1 Diabetes:
Breastfeeding for at least 3 months results in between a 19 and 27 percent reduction in incidence of childhood Type 1 Diabetes compared with breastfeeding for less than 3 months (findings confirmed through multiple studies, but some cause for caution in interpreting results).
Type 2 Diabetes:
Found a 39 percent reduction in risk of Type 2 diabetes later in life for people that were breastfed as infants (some cause for caution in interpreting results).
Childhood Leukemia:
Breastfeeding for at least 6 months associated with 19 percent decrease in risk of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia and a 15 percent decrease in the risk of acute myelogenous leukemia.
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS):
The meta-analysis found that breastfeeding was associated with a 36 percent reduction in the risk of SIDS compared to not breastfeeding. Another study completed since the meta-anlaysis was done found a 50 percent reduction in the risk of SIDS as a result of breastfeeding.
The benefits to the mother
Often people only talk about the benefits to the baby, but forget to talk about the benefits to the mother. Women that are having trouble breastfeeding and considering giving up should think about not only their child's health, but also their own health and weigh the short-term issues they are having with breastfeeding against the longer term potential health benefits. Those benefits include:
Maternal type 2 diabetes:
In women with no history of gestational diabetes, each additional year of breastfeeding resulted in a 4 to 12 percent reduction in the risk of maternal type 2 diabetes (only nurses included in these studies though, so interpreting results for general population must be done with care).
Breast cancer:
A reduction of risk of contracting breast cancer of 4.3 percent for each year of breastfeeding (one study) or 28 percent for 12 or more months of breastfeeding (another study). Another study that I reported on in Save Yourself, Save Our Health Care System, found that if women in Canada breastfed for at least 16 months over their lifetime, we could cut the breast cancer rate from 6 percent of women to 3 percent of women.
Ovarian cancer:
Breastfeeding results in a 21 percent decrease in the risk of ovarian cancer.
Nutrient Comparison of Human Milk and Formula
NUTRIENT FACTOR
|
BREAST MILK CONTAINS
|
FORMULA CONTAINS
|
COMMENT
|
Fats
|
| -No DHA -Doesn't adjust to infant's needs -No cholesterol -Not completely absorbed -No lipase |
Fat is the most important nutrient in breast milk; the absence of cholesterol and DHA, vital nutrients for growing brains and bodies, may predispose a child to adult heart and central nervous system diseases. Leftover, unabsorbed fat accounts for unpleasant smelling stools in formula-fed babies.
|
Protein
| -Soft, easily-digestible whey -More completely absorbed; higher in the milk of mothers who deliver preterm -Lactoferrin for intestinal health -Lysozyme, an antimicrobial -Rich in brain-and-body- building protein components -Rich in growth factors -Contains sleep-inducing proteins | -Harder-to-digest casein curds -Not completely absorbed, more waste, harder on kidneys -No lactoferrin, or only a trace -No lysozyme -Deficient or low in some brain-and body-building proteins -Deficient in growth factors -Does not contain as many sleep-inducing proteins. |
Infants aren't allergic to human milk protein.
|
Carbohydrates
| -Rich in lactose -Rich in oligosaccharides, which promote intestinal health | -No lactose in some formulas -Deficient in oligosaccharides |
Lactose is considered an important carbohydrate for brain development. Studies show the level of lactose in the milk of a species correlates with the size of the brain of that species.
|
Immune Boosters
| -Rich in living white blood cells, millions per feeding -Rich in immunoglobulin’s | -No live white blood cells-or any other cells. Dead food has less immunological benefit. -Few immunoglobulin’s and most are the wrong kind |
When mother is exposed to a germ, she makes antibodies to that germ and gives these antibodies to her infant via her milk.
|
Vitamins and Minerals
| -Better absorbed, especially iron, zinc, and calcium -Iron is 50 to 75 percent absorbed. -Contains more selenium (an antioxidant) | -Not absorbed as well -Iron is 5 to 10 percent absorbed -Contains less selenium (an antioxidant) |
Vitamins and minerals in breast milk enjoy a higher bioavailability-that is, a greater percentage is absorbed. To compensate, more is added to formula, which makes it harder to digest.
|
Enzymes and Hormones
| -Rich in digestive enzymes, such as lipase and amylase -Rich in many hormones: thyroid, prolactin, oxytocin, and more than fifteen others -Varies with mother's diet | -Processing kills digestive enzymes -Processing kills hormones, which are not human to begin with -Always tastes the same |
Digestive enzymes promote intestinal health. Hormones contribute to the overall biochemical balance and well- being of baby.
By taking on the flavor of mother's diet, breastmilk shapes the tastes of the child to family foods. |
Cost
| -Around $600 a year in extra food for mother | -Around $1,200 a year -Up to $2,500 a year for hypoallergenic formulas -Cost for bottles and other supplies -Lost income when baby is ill |
New Research-How Breast Milk Boosts Beneficial Growth Of Gut Flora
Unlike infant formula, breast milk promotes more beneficial growth of gut flora, the colonies of friendly bacteria that help absorb nutrients and develop the immune system. This may explain why it is better than formula at protecting newborns from infection and illness, according to a new US study published as an epub ahead of print in the journal Current Nutrition & Food Science this week.
Senior author William Parker, associate professor of surgery at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, in the US, told the press, This study is the first we know of that examines the effects of infant nutrition on the way that bacteria grow, providing insight to the mechanisms underlying the benefits of breast feeding over formula feeding for newborns.
"Only breast milk appears to promote a healthy colonization of beneficial biofilms, and these insights suggest there may be potential approaches for developing substitutes that more closely mimic those benefits in cases where breast milk cannot be provided," he explained. Researchers have already established that breast-milk feeding reduces diarrhea, flu and respiratory infections in babies, and lowers their risk of developing allergies, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other diseases later in life. And, more and more studies are suggesting some of this could be due to the effect of early diet on the development of the microbial universe in the gut without which human digestion doesn't function. For their study, Parker and colleagues grew cultures of bacteria in cow's milk, infant formula, and human breast milk.
For the cow's milk they used whole milk sold in grocery stores, for the infant formula they used three popular brands of milk and soy-based products. The breast milk was donated by volunteers.
They separated the breast milk into various components, including proteins, fats and carbohydrates. And they also ran some tests comparing breast milk with a purified form of secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA), infant formulas and cow's milk. SIgA is an antibody that is abundant in human breast milk, and helps develop the infant's immune system.
They incubated the SIgA, cow's milk, human breast milk and infant formulas with two strains of E. coli, two types of bacteria that are essential for the early development of gut flora colonies. They are friendly relatives of the E. coli bacteria that cause food poisoning. It only took minutes for the bacteria to start growing, in all the samples. However, the colonies developed differently in the different samples. In the human breast milk sample, the bacteria clung together and formed biofilms: an essential layer of flora that acts as a barrier against pathogens and infection. This did not happen in the cow's milk and infant formula samples: the bacteria in those cultures grew prolifically, but as individual organisms, more like plankton that you find in the ocean than a biofilm of associated cells. In the SIgA sample, the results were in between the two, suggesting SIgA on its own is not enough to cause aggregation that is enough to make a biofilm. Also, bacterial aggregation occurred over a broader range of bacterial concentrations in the breast milk sample than in the SIgA: "affecting the aggregation of bacteria at concentrations 1000-fold less than could be mediated by SIgA," note the authors.
They conclude that their study shows human breast milk uses "multiple mechanisms to facilitate bacterial association". In contrast, infant formula and cow's milk encourage more plankton-like colonies of bacteria. The authors suggest the study gives some important clues about how human milk might protect against infections and illnesses. Parker said the findings could also help develop infant formula that is better at mimicking nature. This could have a long-lasting effect on the health of infants who, for many reasons, may not get mother's milk. He said more research was needed to find out why human breast milk encourages the clumping of E. coli bacteria to produce a biofilm, and whether it does this to other strains of bacteria. Parker said additional studies should explore why human whey has the clumping effect on the bacteria, and whether it has a similar effect on strains of bacteria other than E. coli. The Fannie E. Rippel Foundation and a pre-college research fellowship from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute helped finance the study.
(Source-Current Nutrition & Food Science)
No comments:
Post a Comment