The top breastfeeding tips for new mothers
New mothers are encouraged to focus on what works for them and their baby, rather than adhering to external expectations or societal pressures.
Seeking support is crucial if breastfeeding becomes physically or mentally challenging, or painful, as pain often indicates an issue with the baby's latch.
Preparing in advance with essential items such as nipple cream and breast pads can help ease the initial stages of breastfeeding.
Professional guidance from midwives or breastfeeding consultants can significantly improve the experience and address difficulties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is the huge rise in autism diagnoses really good news? We're not so sure
Prof Gina Rippon dismisses too easily the genuine concerns about overdiagnosis of conditions such as autism and the medicalisation of normal behaviour (Why the antagonism over the rise in autism diagnoses? It's actually good news, 21 July). She correctly observes that there has been an astonishingly large increase in diagnosis rates since 1998. She also notes correctly that, before the 1980s, autism was diagnosed infrequently because of its 'overly narrow' definition. However, in arguing that many children consequently missed out on the help they needed, she draws the wrong conclusion. She fails to mention that other diagnoses were available for such children, including social anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disability, among others. Children needing help were frequently diagnosed with one of these, and with sufficient reliability to enable help to be offered within available resources. Moreover, it is well known that the diagnosis of autism by itself does not indicate any specific kind of intervention. Rippon also welcomes the soaring rates of diagnosis, assuming it somehow explains the behaviour of those given it. However, autism is just a descriptive diagnosis. The diagnostic criteria comprise a large cluster of behaviours, such that two people with the diagnosis may display no behaviours in common. The common underlying psychological or neurological abnormality, if one exists at all, is simply not known. I recall during my clinical career in child and adolescent mental health services (Camhs) being asked by parents of a boy with an autism diagnosis: 'We know he has autism, but why does he behave the way he does?' The only available explanation would be an individual assessment of the child concerned and the settings that trigger any behavioural difficulties. Rippon ends by claiming the high rates of autism diagnoses are simply a reflection of human diversity. However, in doing so, she inadvertently reflects what those concerned about overdiagnosis are actually saying. It's precisely because we welcome human diversity that we wonder why such high levels of diagnosis are necessary to understand Richard HassallKnaresborough, North Yorkshire As there are so many references to a 'bad old past' in Gina Rippon's article, I thought it might be helpful if I commented on some of the misapprehensions she expresses. I worked as an academic child psychiatrist from the 1960s to the 1990s, including as a psychiatrist to a school for autistic children. First, the rise in diagnoses has been even greater than Rippon suggests. In the first edition of my textbook, published in 1986, I give the prevalence as three to four per 10,000 children. It is now at least 100, a 30-fold rise. Second, the rise is either entirely or almost entirely due to a redefinition of the condition. So-called Asperger syndrome has been abolished as a diagnosis and merged into 'autistic spectrum disorder'. Third, I do not recognise the supposed difficulty in diagnosing girls with this condition. Certainly, I had no hesitation in doing so when it was indicated. Whether the redefinition of autism is good news or bad news, I, like many others, would find it difficult to say. Alongside the change in definition has come a welcome reduction in stigmatisation and greater willingness to attend relevant services. On the other hand, child mental health services are overwhelmed and many parents are frustrated by their incapacity to obtain what they, quite unrealistically, see as life-changing help. Rather than seeking a definitive diagnosis, many would be better served by encouragement to see their problematic children as 'different' and needing an upbringing tailored to their particular strengths and GrahamEmeritus professor of child psychiatry, University College London Gina Rippon presents the astonishing rise in autism diagnoses as evidence that more members of marginalised groups are benefiting from being diagnosed. It is true that growing numbers of people are suffering mental distress, and the evidence links this with increased poverty and inequality. It is also true that access to services and welfare typically still requires a psychiatric diagnosis. But it is entirely unjustified to describe autism as an incurable, neurodevelopmental brain disorder, except in the case of a small number of individuals who will require lifelong support and may never live independently. The extension of autism diagnoses to potentially include billionaires like Elon Musk, along with celebrities and others with successful careers, is unsupported by evidence. In fact, despite Rippon's claim of 'stunning advances', no neural or genetic factor robust enough to aid diagnosis or predict treatment response has ever been found. Additionally, there are significant disadvantages to framing diagnostic labels as identities to be celebrated. The experiences described by many people now claiming to be autistic are better explained as consequences of the rootlessness and individualism that characterise everyday life today, the effects of what sociologists call 'victimhood cultures', the invidious influence of social media, and the contribution of abuse and other adverse experiences to distress of all forms. We do not need yet another way to individualise and commodify the grossly uneven impacts of these social pressures. Instead, we need to fundamentally transform our profoundly unequal society, dismantling the myths that make inequality appear John CrombyHonorary professor of mental health and psychology, University of Nottingham Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Covid vaccines ‘saved far fewer lives than first thought'
Covid vaccines saved far fewer lives than first thought, a major new analysis has concluded, with researchers criticising 'aggressive mandates'. In 2024, the World Health Organisation (WHO) claimed that jabs prevented the deaths of 14.4 million globally in the first year alone, with some estimates putting the figure closer to 20 million. However, new modelling by Stanford University and Italian researchers suggests that while the vaccine did undoubtedly save lives, the true figure is 'substantially more conservative' and closer to 2.5 million worldwide over the course of the entire pandemic. The team estimated that nine of 10 prevented deaths were in the over-60s, with jabs saving just 299 youngsters aged under 20, and 1,808 people aged between 20 and 30 globally. Overall 5,400 people needed to be vaccinated to save one life but in the under-30s this figure rose to 100,000 jabs, the paper suggests. Researchers criticised 'aggressive mandates and the zealotry to vaccinate everyone at all cost', adding that the findings had implications for how future vaccine rollouts are handled. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and the first author, said: 'I think early estimates were based on many parameters having values that are incompatible with our current understanding. 'In principle, targeting the populations who would get the vast majority of the benefit and letting alone those with questionable risk-benefit and cost-benefit makes a lot of sense. 'Aggressive mandates and the zealotry to vaccinate everyone at all cost were probably a bad idea.' Since 2021, more than 13 billion Covid-19 vaccine doses have been administered. But there have been mounting concerns that vaccines could be harmful for some people, particularly the young, and that the risk was not worth the benefit for a population at little risk from Covid. More than 17,500 Britons have applied to the Government's vaccine damage payment scheme believing they or loved ones were injured by the jab. In June, manufacturers added warnings for myocarditis and pericarditis to Covid-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines' prescribing information. For the new study, experts used worldwide population data, alongside vaccine effectiveness and infection fatality rates, to estimate how many people died from a Covid infection before or after the periods of vaccination. The team believes earlier modelling may have used overly pessimistic infection fatality rates and overly optimistic vaccine effectiveness, while failing to consider how quickly protection waned. Based on fewer assumptions Earlier studies may also have underestimated how many people had already been unknowingly infected by the time they had the vaccine. Dr Angelo Maria Pezzullo, researcher in general and applied hygiene at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, in Milan, said: 'Before ours, several studies tried to estimate lives saved by vaccines with different models and in different periods or parts of the world, but this one is the most comprehensive because it is based on worldwide data. it also covers the omicron period. 'It also calculates the number of years of life that was saved, and it is based on fewer assumptions about the pandemic trend.' The team calculated that around 14.8 million life-years were saved, one life-year saved per 900 vaccine doses administered. Researchers concluded that although vaccines had a 'substantial benefit' on global mortality, it was 'mostly limited' to older people. The over-70s made up nearly 70 per cent of the lives saved, while the 60 to 70s accounted for a further 20 per cent. In contrast, under-20s made up just 0.01 per cent of lives saved and 20 to 30s were 0.07 per cent. Professor Stefania Boccia, of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, added: 'These estimates are substantially more conservative than previous calculations that focused mainly on the first year of vaccination, but clearly demonstrate an important overall benefit from Covid-19 vaccination over the period 2020-2024. 'Most of the benefits, in terms of lives and life-years saved, have been secured for a portion of the global population who is typically more fragile, the elderly.' Sir David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who fought against vaccine mandates, said: 'Frankly it's a good cautionary tale that if we have another pandemic we should be far more clinical about the risk-benefit ratio. 'We knew pretty quickly who the most susceptible groups were and we should have focused very strictly on them, rather than placing people who were at little risk in hazard's way. 'The level of aggression of trying to force people to become vaccinated and shutting down people who were raising concerns, the reasons for those concerns are all validated in this report.'
Medical News Today
4 hours ago
- Medical News Today
Are 7,000 steps a day enough to see health benefits?
A lot of people focus on getting 10,000 steps a day for its purported health benefits. A new study says that walking for only 7,000 steps a day can help reduce a person's risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, cancer, depression, and all-cause mortality. Scientists also discovered that walking around 4,000 steps a day still offers more health benefits than people with very low activity and about 2,000 steps a the last few years, there has been an emphasis placed on accumulating 10,000 steps a day to stay healthy. Many people use fitness trackers such as Fitbits, Garmin smartwatches, or Apple Watches, or smartphone apps like Google Fit or Apple Health to track their daily steps. Past research has linked walking at least 10,000 steps a day to a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, obesity, and mental health issues. Now, a new study recently published in the journal The Lancet Public Health says that walking for only 7,000 steps a day can help reduce a person's risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, cancer, depression, and all-cause mortality. Scientists also discovered that walking around 4,000 steps a day still offers more health benefits than people with very low activity and about 2,000 steps a focus on daily steps? For this study, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2014 to 2025 from 35 cohorts from PubMed and EBSCO CINAHL — including more than 16,000 adult participants — to look for correlations between step counts and eight specific outcomes: all-cause mortalitycancercardiovascular diseasecognitive outcomesfallsmental health outcomesphysical functiontype 2 diabetes'While we already know physical activity benefits health, public guidelines focus on total minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity per week, usually 150 to 300 minutes,' Melody Ding, PhD, professor in the Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health at The University of Sydney in Australia, and corresponding author of this study, explained to Medical News Today. 'However, many people track their activity by steps, a simple and accessible metric, but the popular 10,000-steps-a-day goal isn't actually based on solid evidence. Our review sought to clarify how many steps per day are linked to meaningful health benefits,' she said. Walking 7,000 steps per day lowers 7 types of health risksUpon analysis, researchers found that study participants who walked about 7,000 steps each day were associated with a lowered risk for: all-cause mortality by 47%cancer by 6%cardiovascular disease by 25% dementia by 38%depression by 22%falls by 28%type 2 diabetes by 14%'This study is important because step-counting devices are becoming so widely available that the general public wants to know what they should aim for,' Ding said. 'We know physical activity is beneficial for health, but it is generally harder for the general public to track how many minutes of activities they do every day (because the activities can be of short bouts and be incidental), therefore, it is critical for us to provide such needed evidence. The finding is important for informing future health guidelines and physical activity promotion strategies, setting goals and targets for individuals, etc..' she 4,000 vs. 2,000 steps per dayAdditionally, Ding and her team found that study participants who only achieved a modest step count of about 4,000 steps per day still had better health outcomes than participants who had very low activity at about 2,000 steps a day. 'Increasing step counts from 2,000 to 4,000 or 5,000 is still associated [with] health benefits, even if one doesn't achieve 7,000,' Ding explained. 'It is important, particularly for motivating those who are extremely inactive.' 'Any increase in daily steps, even modest ones like 4,000 steps, delivers health benefits compared to very low activity levels. When possible, targeting around 7,000 steps per day can substantially reduce risks for many chronic diseases and adverse health outcomes.'— Melody Ding, PhD'Higher step counts beyond 7,000 may add extra benefits, but the improvement rate slows,' Ding added. 'Still, if you're already very active and consistently hitting 10,000+ steps, keep it up — there's no need to cut back.' A more achievable daily step goal MNT spoke with Nissi Suppogu, MD, a board certified cardiologist and medical director of the Women's Heart Center at MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute at Long Beach Medical Center in Long Beach, CA, about this commented that this study is looking at overall steps — not necessarily steps during exercise, but steps throughout the day — making it an even easier target to achieve. 'Understanding the role of physical activity in health outcomes plays an important role in motivating patients to do something entirely on their own,' she explained. 'We need to continue to empower the patients with knowledge and evidence about physical activity. Physical activity, or steps in this case, is something they can do at home, in their yard, on their street, in the office, by a park or path. They don't have to make time or pay to go to a gym. There are no excuses. All you need to do is just get up and move!' The new daily walking goal'Understanding that a modest 2,000 steps a day affects their health and every additional step to getting to 7,000 steps daily yields significant benefits for several health outcomes. That knowledge can affect their attitude, as 7,000 steps seems more achievable than 10,000 steps daily — a magic number for health benefits when really it has no significant clinical evidence to support this pervasive claim.' — Nissi Suppogu, MDActivity does not have to be overly strenuous to be beneficialMNT also spoke with Kanwar Kelley, MD, JD, a triple board certified in otolaryngology head and neck surgery (ENT), obesity medicine and lifestyle medicine, and co-founder and CEO of Side Health in Orinda, CA, about this research.'This study confirms what we have been recommending, that physical activity is important for overall longevity and health,' Kelley said. 'It also confirms that the activity does not have to be overly strenuous. We can observe benefits and decrease risk from participating in activities that do not require specialized equipment or a gym membership.' 'The more we can reinforce the message, the better,' he continued. 'Conducting this type of research enables everyone, from individuals to medical practitioners and lawmakers, to develop treatment plans and programs centered on these lifestyle interventions.''Researching a variety of activities will allow individuals to choose from different physical activities and remove barriers to participation. When research shows the significant benefits of physical activity on longevity, it raises overall awareness of just how important it is to our overall health span,' Kelley added. 'This study provides evidence that there is a dose-dependent relationship with physical activity (walking in this case). There were some differences in how much different populations would benefit from the prescribed 7,000 steps. Identifying specific step ranges can help create customized care plans tailored to a person's age, health, and physical fitness. However, there is a benefit from any increase in physical activity and it should continue to be recommended for all populations.' — Kanwar Kelley, MD, JD
