Infant feeding 'may affect brain'
 Early nutrition may have a profound impact |
Nutrition in the first weeks of life could have a profound impact on the way the brain develops, research suggests. London researchers found preterm babies fed enriched formula milk in their first weeks consistently outperformed other premature babies in IQ tests.
Their latest study, published in Pediatric Research, shows the benefits continue into the teenage years.
It also found a particular part of the brain is better developed in those given the enriched milk.
The team from Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children and the UCL Institute of Child Health note that while nutrition has been linked with behaviour, their findings are among the first to show how early feeding may even alter brain structure.
Lead researcher Dr Elizabeth Isaacs said: "It is not clear whether this just relates to preterm infants, who have very specific development issues.
"But obviously a next question would be if there are any wider implications, both for feeding beyond those first few weeks, and for babies who are born at term."
Explaining the gap
Babies were given either standard formula, or a version enriched with extra protein, fat, calcium, phosphorous, iron, zinc, copper and several other micronutrients.
Other babies received "bank" breast milk - ie not from their own mothers, while others received a mix of bank milk and formula.
Whatever the comparison, the child who had received the enriched formula milk performed better.
At the age of seven or eight, the difference was particularly notable in boys: those fed the normal diet had a verbal IQ 12.2 points lower on average than those fed the enriched formula.
In the latest analysis, carried out when the babies were aged about 16, there was a wider gap between the girls fed the standard version and their enriched counterparts, of nine points, than there was between the boys, which had narrowed to seven.
But this time in addition to IQ tests, researchers also took scans of the children's brains in an attempt to explain these variations.
They found substantial differences between the two groups in the size of the caudate nucleus - a part of the brain associated with memory and learning.
They speculated that this could account for the differences seen, particularly given that there were no particularly striking variations in other key areas of the brain between the two groups.
These days many preterm babies are fed a highly-enriched formula milk.
It is unclear whether it is one or the combination of the many extra nutrients in this formula which accounts for the differences in development among premature babies.
Bliss, the premature baby charity, welcomed this latest research.
"These findings are potentially very interesting and could have an influence on current thinking about how, when and what to feed premature infants.
"The care that premature babies receive in their first few hours and days of life is crucial and will shape their future development and quality of life.
"Anything that improves outcomes for these vulnerable babies is very welcome."
About one in 10 babies in the UK is born prematurely.
ARTICLE HERE
I found this really interesting, and on the first glance, it looks, of course, anti-breastfeeding for premies, but then I got to thinking.( yah, uh oh)
The article has a lot of emphasis on "quality of life" and don't get me wrong, smarts are definitely quality of life, but however, they have completely ignored any health benefits or detriments!! What about all the studies that show children are more inclined to be obese, have high blood pressure, higher cancer risk etc etc when formula fed? To me, health is the most important thing for quality of life, not IQ. And not when you are talking a few points. As much as I tout all the benefits of breastfeeding, IQ points honestly is the last one I am concerned with. The health benefits have ALWAYS been first and foremost on my mind.
I understand where they are coming from with premies, they are at a greater chance for slower development, delays etc, but also, are they not at greater risk for health as well?
I also have a HUGE (see bold in article) problem with the fact that the babies received "banked breast milk", last time I checked, (and I did check into donating breastmilk LOL!) they have to pasteurize it! Which means steaming it and destroying who knows what properties? Also, the milk is not a genetic mate to the mother. Remember good ol' stem cell discovery I already posted? So, no genetic matching in the breastmilk either. So they took steamed breastmilk not genetically matched to the baby, and compared it to super enriched formula.
I want to know who bankrolled this study, I really do. The more I read and thought on this, the more I went Heeeeey, this doesn't match up...
Can we say formula company?
Sorry folks, there STILL isn't any getting around it. Breastmilk, straight from mom, is the best. I fully believe that if they took milk pumped from the babies mothers that went straight to their baby, and compared it to the formula, they would have at best been a match, and probably breastfeeding would come ahead.
Stuff like this pisses me off, because not everyone stops to think HEY like I do (or looks for an argument like I do.) This is just one more thing for people to ignorantly glance at and think , Oh, formula is BETTER!
And to think that this Bliss, this premature baby charity, not the breastfeeding one, is thinking about re-evaluating current thought on feeding premies, based on an obviously flawed study is really scary.
The care that premature babies receive in their first few hours and days of life is crucial and will shape their future development and quality of life 
