You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

saliency comments on Less Wrong Parents - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: saliency 03 November 2012 04:59AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (58)
Tags: parenting

Comments (58)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: saliency 02 November 2012 09:00:24PM 5 points [-]

I am pro-breast feeding but skeptical of the IQ claim. Can you link the study?

My guess is they compare the avg IQ to the average of a selection of people who breast feed.
I would expect this to be subject to selection bias.

Comment author: shminux 02 November 2012 10:18:01PM *  12 points [-]

Google says:

breastfeeding was found to raise intelligence an average of nearly 7 IQ points if the children had a particular version of a gene called FADS2.

Later:

Ninety percent of the children in the two study groups had at least one copy of the "C" version of FADS2, which yielded higher IQ if they were breast-fed. The other 10 percent, with only the "G" versions of the gene, showed no IQ advantage or disadvantage from breastfeeding.
The gene was singled out for the researchers' attention because it produces an enzyme that helps convert dietary fatty acids into the polyunsaturated fatty acids DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and AA (arachidonic acid) that have been shown to accumulate in the human brain during the first months after birth.
Since the first findings about breastfeeding and IQ appeared a decade ago, many formula makers have added DHA and AA fatty acids to their products.

Basically, it's one of those cases where doing it is probably better than not, but not at all costs. If you are constantly stressed because your baby prefers the bottle, or you get repeated breast infections, or you don't produce enough milk, it's time to direct your efforts elsewhere.

Comment author: Kawoomba 03 November 2012 06:42:19AM 7 points [-]

Since the first findings about breastfeeding and IQ appeared a decade ago, many formula makers have added DHA and AA fatty acids to their products.

This translates to "cited study is obsolete, new study needed".

Expected result = if DHA and AA were the main causal agents for the difference, and they have been introduced to formula food, the difference should be much reduced (extent of reduction being contingent on the existence of other causal factors).

Comment author: gwern 03 November 2012 03:54:24PM 6 points [-]

I'd say it translates more to 'investigate DHA/AA addition to formula and see whether it is anywhere near as much as breast milk or if it is just another cynical marketing ploy where trivial amounts are added to allow a popular claim on the label'.

Comment author: Kawoomba 03 November 2012 04:18:20PM *  7 points [-]

For human breast milk, the median concentration of polyunsaturated fatty acids - including both DHA and AA - is given as 588 mg / 100 ml, subject to fluctuation. [1]

The local topselling Amazon baby formula contains 800 mg / 100 ml, closely monitored. Feel free to check your local products.

There are supplements that can be added if you want more, those are trivial molecules to manufacture and store.

Comment author: gwern 03 November 2012 04:30:44PM 3 points [-]

Cool. Is there much variation between baby formulas - are the unpopular ones worse?

Comment author: Randy_M 05 November 2012 04:56:26PM 0 points [-]

Do you mean in regard to these nutrients, or in general? In general they vary quite abit in composition and price. Though for all I now DHA & AA are constant (though I'd doubt it, given most parents aren't going to bother to look for it, ime).

Comment author: saliency 03 November 2012 01:12:49AM 0 points [-]

Very interesting, thanks.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 03 November 2012 01:55:41PM *  5 points [-]

Why are you in favor of breast-feeding at all?
It is correlated with socio-economic status, and thus with all good things. But every correlation I have seen corrected for parental SES goes away, including IQ. Decades of randomized controlled studies demonstrate no effects. On the positive side, I must admit one cluster-randomized (n=31) study of IQ in Belarus, but I am not impressed.

Comment author: saliency 03 November 2012 08:02:10PM 1 point [-]

Because when in doubt go with convention.

I think there is a lot we don't understand.

Now if my wife found it bothersome perhaps we would not follow convention, but so far it she likes doing it. From a fathers perspective it is vastly superior due to the ability to leave a bottle out of the refrigerator for 6 hours instead of 1.

Comment author: Randy_M 05 November 2012 04:58:49PM -1 points [-]

Is that a serious question? Because when you add "at all" and then list sudies which only address IQ benefits it seems like you think that is the only potential benefit.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit