Tell that to Zdeno Chara

I love how tall that man is. I enjoyed the photo of him with the 4'11 iceskater

Breastmilk is and has always been better than formula. formula is full of chemicals. Try reading the ingredients list on a container of formula.

Everything is full of chemicals! Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. :p But feel free to do some research of your own. You can Google Dr. Cynthia Colen (author of the OSU study) as well as Hanna Rosin and Jessica Valenti, who have written about the extensive reviews of medical literature showing that there's no statistically significant difference between kids who were breast vs. formula fed. What seems to have the actual impact on kids' development is the parents' income, education levels, and level of involvement with their kids. Traditionally, parents who have higher levels of these qualities are the ones able to devote the time necessary to breastfeeding, which is the real reason so many studies have shown a link between it and healthier children. I will concede, based on my limited experience on the actual day-to-day reality of dealing with an infant (don't have kids, don't like them, don't want them), that breastfeeding is cheaper and more straightforward. But medically speaking, there's no reason to push it over formula.

ah. I hadn't realized tall people came from more affluent backgrounds..

@47, read closely... that is NOT what #45 was saying. Healthier children (height =/= health) are statistically more likely to come from families who are not necessarily "affluent," as you put it, but have FEWER financial stresses, ex. not living paycheck-to-paycheck or deeply in debt. Why? Families with higher incomes might able to spend more resources (including time and money) on their kids than families with lower incomes. Higher income =/= filthy rich. "Higher income" can just mean lower-middle class. And this doesn't have to do with height, but with health in general. (You know... like being able to pay for medical care, or not even being able to afford basic insurance.)

@28, would you consider studying biochemistry?

Perhaps in first world countries. However in countries where you can not get clean water to make the formula or sterilize bottles breast really is best for the child because it prevents catching waterborne illnesses. Breast milk is beneficial for both the child and the mother, it forms and strengthens the child's immune system, creates a bond between mother and child, and also reduces the mother's risk of developing breast cancer. The World Health Organization suggests breast feeding for up to 2 years or beyond with real food as supplement and exclusive breast feeding for the first six months of life.

ONE article vs hundreds. Hmm... Until the majority of studies start saying man made is better than natural, breast is still best.

@63, [Citation Needed] Where's your journal article and citation? No articles were linked here. Additionally, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles, particularly in the area of economics of poverty, show that health is highly correlated with family income, family background, family size, even education level. And you're trying to say that breast milk is responsible, but not these factors? Really?

@60, here's a quote from an article for you, which might explain what could be more common in such underdeveloped countries: 'When Dr. Jackson questioned the woman, who had 10 other children, he discovered that she had never breast-fed her two youngest. Their diets since birth had been infant formula. Because the family income averaged only $7 a week, the mother had to heavily dilute the expensive formula to make it last longer. ''For the 4-month-old baby,'' Dr. Jackson later told Senator Edward M. Kennedy's Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, ''one tin of feed should have lasted for something just under three days. She said that one tin of feed lasted two weeks to feed both of the children."' Splitting 1 tin of formula between two kids... for two weeks. She should have been giving EACH kid more than FOUR tins every two weeks. She should have used about nine tins -- as opposed to 1 -- every 2 weeks. Feeding your kid something so diluted that it's practically water isn't actually feeding your kid...

sarcasm, bro.

I was keeping on topic with the FML. as the OC said there is no difference and then Mr ranger said it's because they have more money. using a little. deductive reasoning, I made a small joke. but you sure showed me. you're clearly smarter.

That study only looked at what they called "long term" affects of BF on children ages 4-14 who had been BF & FF as infants. Study author states that breastfeeding is still beneficial over formula for infants and toddlers it may be that it just doesn't have the long term results we once thought.

As I mentioned in a long winded fashion above, that's been shown to be about parental income, education, and involvement, all of which correlate with breastfeeding. But correlation does not equal causation!

42, different people doing studies on the same subject can come up with different outcomes. Just because you saw a study that says one thing, doesn't automatically make it 100% accurate.

@56, that should be directed at #27 as well, shouldn't it?

^^ but I think it's different when what #27 said is from the majority of the studies.