If last week’s headlines about breastfeeding gave you a pang of guilt, screw that. Here’s what you need to know about the ‘breastfeeding makes your baby smarter’ study.
Over the past week the headlines have been triumphant: “The longer babies breastfeed, the more they achieve in life – major study” from The Guardian. And “Breastfed babies grow up smarter, richer, study shows,” from The Telegraph.
Around the world, two things happened – breastfeeding advocates shouted “See – we told you so!!!” And non-breastfeeding mothers either wept over their formula tins or furiously typed into comment boxes, “But I can’t! Mastitis and… pumping… PND…. Don’t you dare judge me!”
Now, you might expect a person who wrote a book called, “Guilt-Free Bottle-Feeding: Why your formula-fed baby can be happy, healthy and smart” to be in the latter category. But actually my response was a big, fat:
“Meh.”
It was so meh that I wasn’t going to bother writing about it, but the continued attention it’s received has drawn me out of my meh-ness, to explain why, as the mother of a predominantly formula-fed child I am not at all perturbed by the study and its findings, and why you shouldn’t be either. So here goes:
1) The study doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know, or didn’t already suspect. Multiple studies into children have suggested a small dose-response boost in IQ from breastfeeding. This study is unique in that it tested adults, but it’s not surprising that it finds adults receive a small boost in IQ from breastfeeding if it’s already generally acknowledged that kids do.
Related content: Some say this picture is beautiful. Others say it’s “sexualising” breastfeeding.
Top Comments
What a load of BS. I was bottle fed as my mother had rhumatoid arthritus and had to go back on her medication after I was born, my brother was breast fed. We are equally "smart" (though he trumps me at maths, but I have a creative brain). I am studying psychology (at 30, I went through my 20s climbing the corporate ladder) and getting credits - its not easy.
Smart or stupid is relative. I know pleanty of "smart" people that are the dumbest people on the planet - its called book smart. And if you actually know about IQ testing, its one of the least favourable testing methods as it does not cover all forms of intelligance.
I am now pregnant and I am not stressed about these silly studies, which by the way are studies - lets look into the bias (who sponsored them? boob natzis or formula companies) what is the study make up etc. if you are a stressed mother you will likely have a child with behavourial problems - lets look into that and smarts.
The study is not without its flaws (very few population studies are perfect) but I take issue with some of your assertions.
“4 IQ points ain’t that much”
4 IQ points is equivalent to 0.26 of a standard deviation, which would be considered pretty strong in most other observational and intervention studies. If a person moves from 100 up to 104 they move from the 50th percentile to the 60th percentile of IQ leapfrogging 10% of the population.
“It is those on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum who are less likely to be pinned down and return for follow-up testing. This may have skewed the results towards those on the upper end of the social spectrum”
It may have but it didn't. They detail follow-up completion by family income tertiles in the paper. The intermediate group had a higher level of follow-up (68%) but the high and low income groups both had similar levels of follow-up (63%).
“So, maybe they have other advantages in life which can help boost their IQ.“
Certainly, the authors accounted for the following factors in their analysis:
Monthly family income
Maternal education
Parental education
Household assets index
Maternal smoking during pregnancy
Maternal age
Maternal pre-pregnancy body-mass index
Type of delivery
Gestational age
Birthweight
Genomic ancestry