Gene 'links breastfeeding to IQ'

[lovuian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7075511.stm

A single gene influences whether breastfeeding improves a child's intelligence, say London researchers.

Children with one version of the FADS2 gene scored seven points higher in IQ tests if they were breastfed.

But the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study found breastfeeding had no effect on the IQ of children with a different version.

The gene in question helps break down fatty acids from the diet, which have been linked with brain development.

Seven points difference is enough to put the child in the top third of the class, the researchers said.


In the past people have had different results about whether breastfeeding improves IQ and this would sort out the reason why
Professor Jean Golding

Some 90% of people carry the version of the gene which was associated with better IQ scores in breastfed children.
more...
Interesting results the statistic reflects my family history

[Bitwit1234]

1. Maybe that's what is wrong with the group of Americans now

Most kids were breast fed up til at least the 40's. So the group called the baby boomers and their kids are probably the first bunch of Americans produced by not breast feeding. Correct...could that be why they are all under achievers.

[Pastiche423]

2. Huh?

Are you actually saying that mothers in the 70's and 80's breastfed their babies less?

[greyl]

3. It's true.

The introduction of effective and easy-to-prepare infant formulas, as well as improvements in bottle feeding technology, such as the collapsible, sanitary, and disposable plastic bottle,9 induced a dramatic shift from breast- to bottle-feeding between the 1920s and the early 1970s. To document this phenomenon, we mainly rely on two studies, Hirschman and Hendershot (1979) and Hirschman and Butler (1981), that combine data from the 1965 National Fertility Study and from the 1973 National Survey of Family Growth (Cycle I) conducted by the National Center of Health Statistics. These sources report information on changes in breast-feeding practices both by mother’s birth cohort and by child’s year of birth.
Figure 1 reproduces Figure 1 in Hirschman and Butler (1981). Each line represents successive cohorts of U.S. mothers, from those born in 1911-1915 to those born in 1945-1950.10 For each cohort, the figure reports the proportion of mothers that breast-fed their first born at birth (the intersection of each curve with the vertical axis) and who continue to breast-feed over the first 13 months of the infant’s life. More than two thirds of mothers who were born during the first half of the 1910s breast fed their first child at birth, and more than 40% of women belonging to this cohort were still breast feeding at 6 months. Since the median age at first birth in 1920 was approximately 23, this cohort of women approximately had their first child in 1933-1937. For the cohort of women who were born in the second half of the 1940s, only about 25% breast fed their first child and less than 5 percent continued for 6 months. Given that the median age at first birth was approximately 21 for this cohort, these women had their first child in 1966-1971.
The decline in breast-feeding rates is very dramatic and sudden, occurring over the span of two generations, and was particularly strong at longer breast-feeding durations. A similar pattern emerges for breast-feeding rates by children’s birth cohort (see Table A2 in the Appendix). The study by Hirschman and Butler also presents evidence on how breast feeding rates vary with mothers’ characteristics such as education, income and labor force participation over this period. Interestingly, from 1950 to 1970 breast-feeding rates declined both for working and for non-working mothers, although non-working women were more likely to breast feed for more than 3 months.

http://www.bu.edu/econ/ied/seminars/pdf/Olivetti3-26-07.pdf

[Pastiche423]

5. That says nothing about the 80's

[greyl]

6. You'll have to check page 12 of the pdf. :) nt

[Pastiche423]

7. No thank you

If you wanted to answer my question correctly, you would have in the 1st place.

[greyl]

8. Your loss, please remain as smug in your ignorance as you like. nt

[Pastiche423]

11. I am not the ignorant one here

[alittlelark]

10. I would say the poster answered your question to excess....

What more do you want?

[Pastiche423]

12. No, the poster did not

Besides, I did not ask him. I would never ask him anything wrt to truth.

[alittlelark]

13. 'I would never ask him anything wrt to truth'

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

I do not understand your visceral offense or your 'gut-reaction'....

I just don't get it.

[Pastiche423]

15. You don't have to understand

It has nothing to do w/you.

[alittlelark]

17. As a breastfeeding mother of 2 'tweens' (distattached at 16 mos) I disagree.

My '60's' mother didn't breastfeed, neither did sis.

Oddly enough my kiddies came out way left on the Bell Curve, sis's did not. It could be hubbies contribution.... I'd like to see A LOT more research on the subject.

It seems to me to be only obvious that the NATURAL state would produce a 'normal' to 'exceptional' child.

[Pastiche423]

19. Now it is I that don't understand

I was not breastfed (born in the 50's), but my daughter (born in the 80's) was.

My disagreement is w/the person in post #1.

[alittlelark]

20. It's bedtime... go to sleep.

Tomorrow is another day.

[greyl]

18. Why don't you show us how it's done? Provide evidence for your belief that

women breastfed their children more in the 1970s & 80s than in the 1940s. Let the evidence do the fighting.

[pansypoo53219]

4. my brother

is a Fux Gnews dittohead. was it not being breastfed that made him gullible and not as smart? who knows. just glad i was, if it did.

[frustrated_lefty]

9. Now, does that apply later in life?

Ladies, drive your men to brilliance!

[alittlelark]

14. I knew one of these would surface....

But it's all cool.

[Vickers]

16. In that case, I think that we can safely assume that Wee George has

never even SEEN a tit.

[Canuckistanian]

21. And it works better if done in public

:hide:

[krispos42]

22. Totally unneccessary...

... this thread is self-flaming! Like dropping a chunk of sodium metal into a pot of water...

:nuke:!

[Canuckistanian]

23. Like throwing a lit match on a burning warehouse, huh?

Oh, well, I tried.

[TZ]

24. Breast feeding is a good thing but

I get extremely skeptical when I see something that links one particular behavior to IQ. Its just not that simple. Okay first of all I happen to not think that a seven point IQ difference is that big of a deal (100 vs.107 isn't a big difference, IMHO). Second of all there are so many other things that breast feeding does including giving antibodies to the child. To me it stands to reason that a developing young child that does not suffer from as many various fevers and infections is going to develop better.
Most biologists/developmental psychologists will now tell you that things like IQ are not 100% genetic, nor 100% environmentally influenced. Its a combination of both.
But it is an interesting study none the less. Breastfeeding is always to be preferred over formula whenever possible

[SoCalDem]

25. And studies like this are always handy to lay an extra guilt trip

for a Mom who works at Denny's from 6 to midnight, and at Kmart from 11Am to 4 Pm..and has no time to breastfeed her baby..even if she wanted to :(

[momto3]

26. So right. eom

;(