The Student Room Group

Nurtrients influencing health/development

You know how they say that the diet recieved in infancy can influence intelligence and brain development? Well can any loss be made up for in other areas for example by environment and interaction?

There is a new article about people who have recieved DHA and RHA during the first few weeks of life having better vision and brain development later on in life. Im no expert on diet thats why Im asking, are people who did not get these nutrients at a loss in later life, ie do they have poorer vision than they should? (second article gives statistics)

Or is there just a smuch research do you think suggesting that other factors play a part in brain and eye development


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/83382.php

If your bored read this as well

http://www.brightbeginnings.com/professionals/pro_lcpufa.asp
Reply 1
I doubt it makes as much difference as the research shows, those who get DHA are probably given more attention and better cared for in general.
Reply 2
Im no expert but Ive read enough research to know that this is a fact:

Babies need to be breast fed (hence DHA) for at least 9 months to have optimum development. 4 months and under would not show any difference to formula fed babies the difference starts after 6/7 months.
No, you are no expert.
The most crucial time for forumla feeding is the first 3 months. Infact the long term benefits of breast feeding for 9 months versus 3 months are not very different when compared to 3 months and never breast fed.

Thats why doctors and midwives always advise mums to try to breast feed for the first few months if possible.
Reply 4
Jamie
No, you are no expert.
The most crucial time for forumla feeding is the first 3 months. Infact the long term benefits of breast feeding for 9 months versus 3 months are not very different when compared to 3 months and never breast fed.

Thats why doctors and midwives always advise mums to try to breast feed for the first few months if possible.


Not from the studies Ive read, 3 months would hardly make any difference, the recommended duration is 6/7 months. Who says your the expert anyway.
Reply 5
Jamie
No, you are no expert.
The most crucial time for forumla feeding is the first 3 months. Infact the long term benefits of breast feeding for 9 months versus 3 months are not very different when compared to 3 months and never breast fed.

Thats why doctors and midwives always advise mums to try to breast feed for the first few months if possible.


Its 6 months for the best development, they advise women to start breast feeding for the immunity at the start. For development it seems 3 months would not make much difference to formula feeding in the long run.

Anyway, no one knows for sure whether there is any difference we can only go off what research tells us which is hard for babies as life in the womb (mothers diet, health etc) would have more of an effect on long term development than the few months after birth, thats where we are made after all lol.
Reply 6
To be fair, breast feeding is said to be best because people assume that since its natural it is perfect, nothing is perfect. It does provide immunity though which is important in preventing sickness and infant deaths whereas formula does not have this. However it can be argued that formula is just as nutritious, if not more, as breastfeeding relies on the mothers health and diet. There are all these studies finding that breast feeding protects against such a thing but there are also studies suggesting there is no difference and that formula is better in the long term.

I don't think it matters in the long term both feeding methods have their advantages and disadvantages but breast is best for immunity which is important.

As for brain development etc experience and learning would play the most important role I think. Also factors like how healthy the mother is while pregnant
Riddy
Not from the studies Ive read, 3 months would hardly make any difference, the recommended duration is 6/7 months. Who says your the expert anyway.

Me? I don't claim to be an expert. But I do claim to be up on the most recent medical advice. I had to dish it out to more than enough pregnant women in the summer.

The first 3 months is the most vital. Its the time at greatest risk of infections. Its the time of fastest development and nutrition requirement.
Its common sense, let alone the weight of evidence behind it. 1B level i think.
Reply 8
Jamie
Me? I don't claim to be an expert. But I do claim to be up on the most recent medical advice. I had to dish it out to more than enough pregnant women in the summer.

The first 3 months is the most vital. Its the time at greatest risk of infections. Its the time of fastest development and nutrition requirement.
Its common sense, let alone the weight of evidence behind it. 1B level i think.


I bet you were breast fed. Saying that you have advised people you should also know that babies thrive on formula too and there are health advantages of formula.
Reply 9
Jamie
Me? I don't claim to be an expert. But I do claim to be up on the most recent medical advice. I had to dish it out to more than enough pregnant women in the summer.

The first 3 months is the most vital. Its the time at greatest risk of infections. Its the time of fastest development and nutrition requirement.
Its common sense, let alone the weight of evidence behind it. 1B level i think.


lol I wasn't breast fed and am wondering healthwise have I missed out on much now compared to someone who was breast fed? Or does it not matter now?
horrorboy
I bet you were breast fed. Saying that you have advised people you should also know that babies thrive on formula too and there are health advantages of formula.

I hope i wasn't breastfed. MY mum smoked and drank, god knows what chemicals would have been in there.
But i never said babies on formula milk don't thrive.

People who go to uni are statistically smarter than those who don't. They statistically earn more.
But you still get stupid people in uni, and smart people who don't go to uni. You still get poor people who went to uni, and rich people who didn't.

In your normal mother there are no health advantages of formula milk over breast. Only in those cases where the mother cannot produce milk/enough milk (rare than you think), or has a disease transmissible through the milk. Or is on medication that is excreted into milk.
Reply 11
Jamie
I hope i wasn't breastfed. MY mum smoked and drank, god knows what chemicals would have been in there.
But i never said babies on formula milk don't thrive.

People who go to uni are statistically smarter than those who don't. They statistically earn more.
But you still get stupid people in uni, and smart people who don't go to uni. You still get poor people who went to uni, and rich people who didn't.

In your normal mother there are no health advantages of formula milk over breast. Only in those cases where the mother cannot produce milk/enough milk (rare than you think), or has a disease transmissible through the milk. Or is on medication that is excreted into milk.


Ahh but there is still research saying that breast fed babies have stiffer arteries as adults, don't get as much vitamin D and that there are more toxins in breast milk, however people ignore this and its probably not allowed to be given as advice. So there are, even if minor, advantages of formula. Though research is research take it or leave it. Just what I read but your obv more well up on this than me.
Riddy
Ahh but there is still research saying that breast fed babies have stiffer arteries as adults, don't get as much vitamin D and that there are more toxins in breast milk, however people ignore this and its probably not allowed to be given as advice. So there are, even if minor, advantages of formula. Though research is research take it or leave it. Just what I read but your obv more well up on this than me.

There is less vitamin D yes. THere are more toxins yes. stiffer arteries - no, other way around.
However, breast milk is far more bioavailable. It has less vitmain D, but has far greater levels of the compounds needed to absorb it - so you actually get MORE vitamin D and calcium absorbed. It has more toxins, but far far far more antitoxidents. The 'toxins' actually help protect the babies gut from bacteria. Its like putting salt onto meat - preserves it.
Reply 13
Jamie
There is less vitamin D yes. THere are more toxins yes. stiffer arteries - no, other way around.
However, breast milk is far more bioavailable. It has less vitmain D, but has far greater levels of the compounds needed to absorb it - so you actually get MORE vitamin D and calcium absorbed. It has more toxins, but far far far more antitoxidents. The 'toxins' actually help protect the babies gut from bacteria. Its like putting salt onto meat - preserves it.


Prevention is better than cure though, so breast fed still get toxins they can't all be got rid of, though I suppose there is toxins in the womb too. About vitamin D how come the studies show that formula fed babies have more vitamin D in them then? And the research I saw in the BMJ concluded that it was breast fed babies who had stiffer arteries as adults. Where does it say that its the other way round?

Like you said if breast milk has anti toxins and other good stuff that outweigh the toxins why couldn't yours and other babies mothers who drink breast feed?
Reply 14
Jamie
There is less vitamin D yes. THere are more toxins yes. stiffer arteries - no, other way around.
However, breast milk is far more bioavailable. It has less vitmain D, but has far greater levels of the compounds needed to absorb it - so you actually get MORE vitamin D and calcium absorbed. It has more toxins, but far far far more antitoxidents. The 'toxins' actually help protect the babies gut from bacteria. Its like putting salt onto meat - preserves it.


Ignore riddy he's just looking at the other side of the argument. So how would I have been healthier now if I had been breast fed? Or would I not have been much healthier?
Reply 15
This is interesting:

''Work describing maturation of the immune system in breast-fed and bottle-fed infants is needed. Most milk formulas for infants in the Western World are now considered to meet the conventional nutritional requirements of newborn infants. Despite this, investigation of the effects of breast- and bottle-feeding on select immune functions has shown that breast-feeding has contrasting effects on the development of immunity. In the early neonatal period, up to 6 weeks of age, there are enhanced immune responses in the breast-fed infants. But by 3 months of age, many of the immune responses are higher in formula-fed infants. These results suggest that, during the first 6 weeks, breast-fed infants are receiving enhanced immune protection from breast milk, while formula-fed infants must produce this immunity themselves. Developing immunity is not usually a problem for formula-fed infants in societies where the public health standards are high. '' http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/6263/1/Nutrition-and-a-Robust-Immune-System.html

Does this mean formula fed have stronger immune systems as they have to develop their own? Or is it bad?