Neuron Mommy

Well we are back on the topic of boobs...well, more specifically, breastfeeding.  You may recall from a previous post, "Hooray for Boobs", I laid out some very important contributions breastfeeding has on IQ.  In addition, in "If You're a Picky Eater and Ya Know It, Clap Your Hands", I also talked about how genes play a role on the like or dislike of certain foods by kids. Well gosh darn, I came across an article (2007) that studied a mother's diet while breastfeeding and how it may contribute to the foods her kiddo is willing to try.  According to researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, eating certain foods while breastfeeding will likely result in your kid enjoying those same foods.  I think we all know that once a baby is moved onto solid foods, repeated exposure to foods will increase the chance that the baby will accept it, and we all know that greater consumption of fruits and vegetables packs many, many health benefits.  This current study assessed 45 infants (20 of whom were breastfed) who had only been exposed to cereal.  One group received green beans for 8 consecutive days while the other group received green beans and peaches on alternating days.  All infants were assessed on their acceptance of green beans and peaches before and after the study.  Results suggests that, unlike formula fed (which is not a knock against those who formula feed), babies accepted peaches more if their mothers ate peaches and breastfed.  This was not found with green beans.  And why you ask?  Good question!  The researchers found that breastfeeding mothers consumed green beans way less than peaches, and way less than the recommend amounts for green vegetables.  Therefore, the results indicate that if the mothers would have consumed more green beans and/or green vegetables, the breastfed infants would have also accepted green beans more readily.

I do have one issue with a finding in this study.  The lead scientist states "Babies are born with a dislike for bitter tastes"...apparently they need to read my blog!  Studies indicate that a babies like or dislike for bitter tastes is GENETIC!  If Mom and Dad both have the gene that encoded for bitter taste YO BABY NO LIKEY BROCCOLI.  ( Wow I am so dorky...you don't even want to know how long I laughed at that...again).  But if Mom and Dad or just Mom/Dad don't have the gene that encodes for the bitter taste, an infant will be more likely to accept green or bitter foods.  However, as I stated in the "Picky Eater" blog, environment does play a role too.  If you are picky because you THINK you don't like a certain food, or whoever prepared it for you didn't need to be in the kitchen, your kids can/will model your behavior.

Another interesting point of this study is that the researchers also found that the facial expressions made by babies did not always parallel with their acceptance of the food.  They concluded that infants have an innate mechanism for displaying facial expressions for certain foods, which many not indicate their actual like or dislike of the food.

So the take-home message is that boobs rock!  If you breastfeed, you have the ability to influence what foods your baby will like.  How cool is that?!  Therefore, breastfeeding mamas should make sure to eat a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, not only for their babies benefit, but for themselves as well.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071203090135.htm

Since the 1930’s it has been accepted that breast milk is better than formula. Recently there has been an increased focus on the cognitive development of breast fed versus formula fed infants. Now I must start off by saying that this post is not meant to insult any woman that uses formula. Breastfeeding is my personal choice, but for various reasons is not feasible for everyone. I would also like to mention a huge caveat with this type of research…you cannot possibly account for all of the influences that determine IQ and cognitive development. However, the paper I am presenting did a fabulous job of taking 20 studies of breast fed and formula fed infants, tested on a variety of cognitive tasks, over an extended period of time, and has developed a convincing argument for why breast milk is better than formula for cognitive development.

Here are the benefits presented for breast fed infants:
1) ~ 3 points higher on IQ tests compared to formula fed
2) better academic achievement
3) better job performance (later in age)
4) lower delinquency rates
5) better performance on visual acuity tests
6) may have earlier acquisition of motor skills
7) fewer emotional/behavioral problems
8) fewer minor neurological problems later in life

The greatest beneficiaries of breast milk appear to be low birth weight babies. Normal birth weight babies score ~3 points higher on IQ tests compared to formula fed babies. Low birth weight babies scored 5.16 points higher.

So why all of the improvements for boob fed babies? Well, the basic credence accepted in this research is that breast milk contains 2 very important characters: arachadonic acid, aka omega-6 (AA) and decosahexanoic acid, aka omega-3 (DHA). DHA and AA are long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPs). “DHA is essential for retinal and nervous system development. AA is necessary for growth and ecosanoid synthesis (regulators of homeostasis and response to injury). Both LCPs are important constituents of neuronal membranes and blood vessels in the brain” (http://www.infactcanada.ca/fatty_acids_in_infant_developmen.htm)

So now that companies are now adding DHA/AA to formula (and pretty much everything else in baby food), it will be interesting to see if this offsets the benefit of boobs! The truth is, when it comes to most essential oils, fatty acids, proteins, vitamins, etc. the best place to get what you need is from the food itself. Vitamins will never give you the same benefit of a well balance, healthy meal. But now that they are adding DHA/AA to so many products, like milk, and to infant food products, maybe formula fed babies will reap the benefits?



Breast-feeding and cognitive development: a meta-analysis.Anderson JW, Johnstone BM, Remley DT. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Oct;70(4):525-35

I have always been interested in how babies bond with their mothers. Multiple studies, including primates, have shown that early bonding occurs and is crucial for development. But just how important is this early interaction? How early is early? What are the benefits of early bonding?

Previous research has indicated some really cool immediate postnatal abilities. For example, immediately after birth, a baby has the ability to crawl up to Mommy’s breast and suckle! Which brings up an interesting side-note: why do some infants have a harder time learning how to breastfeed compared to others? But I digress. There are basically 2 camps in the research into early bonding. Camp 1 has shown research showing immediate benefits to the mother-infant contact. Babies that are intensively handled because of all of the neonatal tests, weighing, etc are negatively affected. Camp 2 did not find these negative effects, more specifically, did not show the beneficial effects of immediate mother-infant bonding. Research using multiple animal models has found deleterious effects if the separation from the mother is long-term. In newborn rats, long-term separation can result in an increased neuroendocrine response and basically make for a more stressed out adult rat. However, short-term experiences, via handling, actually shows an attenuated neuroendocrine response and a less stressed out adult rat. In primates, even a single long-term separation episode results social distortions in play and interactions.

I found an interesting article called “Neonatal Handling Affects Durably Bonding and Social Development” by Henry et al., 2009. The purpose of this study was to examine how intense handling and maternal separation 1 hour after birth affects the newborn. This study used horses. I know! Horses! But, as the article points out, horses and their babies (foals) are remarkably similar to humans. Horses have single births, show similar bonding after birth and have long suckling/lactating periods. The article also points out that foals exposed to human handling during the newborn period will go on to show a mistrust of humans. The basic design of the study was: Group 1: experimental foals who were separated from their mothers, handled for 1 hour immediately after birth; Group2: control foals were undisturbed after birth. Both groups were monitored from early development into adolescence in their natural environment. Here is what the study found: foals that had 1 hour of handling and were separated from their mothers immediately after birth had “insecure attachment to their mothers (strong dependency on their mothers, little exploration or play) and impaired traits of social competence (increased withdrawal and aggressiveness, impaired play) from an early age to young adulthood, while other behavioral features were not affected” (Henry et al. 2009). These results suggest that disruptions in the immediate interaction and bonding between a mother and her foal resulted in some pretty clear disturbances in the foals social functioning.

So I guess the obvious question is should we change the testing procedures for newborns? Is there more flexibility in human newborns to allow for some minimal separation?

Your thoughts or input?

Henry S, Richard-Yris M-A, Tordjman S, Hausberger M (2009) Neonatal Handling Affects Durably Bonding and Social Development. PLoS ONE 4(4): e5216.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005216