Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T19:24:14.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Breast- v. formula-feeding: impacts on the digestive tract and immediate and long-term health effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2010

Isabelle Le Huërou-Luron*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1079, SENAH, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR 1079, SENAH, F-35000 Rennes, France
Sophie Blat
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1079, SENAH, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR 1079, SENAH, F-35000 Rennes, France
Gaëlle Boudry
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1079, SENAH, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR 1079, SENAH, F-35000 Rennes, France
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Isabelle Le Huërou-Luron, fax +33 223485080, email Isabelle.Luron@rennes.inra.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The health benefits of breast-feeding have been recognised for a long time. In particular, breast-feeding is associated with lower incidence of necrotising enterocolitis and diarrhoea during the early period of life and with lower incidence of inflammatory bowel diseases, type 2 diabetes and obesity later in life. The higher nutritional and protective degree of human milk is related to its nutritional composition that changes over the lactation period and to the biological activities of specific components while lower growth rate of breast-fed infants may be attributed to their self-regulation of milk intake at a lower level than formula-fed infants. Many results now suggest that the developmental changes in intestinal and pancreatic function that occur postnatally are modulated by the diet. Indeed, formula-feeding induces intestinal hypertrophy and accelerates maturation of hydrolysis capacities; it increases intestinal permeability and bacterial translocation, but does not induce evident differences in microbiota composition. Whether these changes would be beneficial for enhancing absorptive capacities and for educating the gut-associated immune system remains to be further studied. Moreover, it is evident that formula-feeding increases basal blood glucose and decreases plasma ketone body concentrations, while discrepancies on postprandial glycaemia, insulin and incretin responses in both human studies and experimental studies are inconclusive. Manipulating the composition of formula, by reducing protein content, adding prebiotics, growth factors or secretory IgA can modulate intestinal and pancreatic function development, and thereby may reduce the differential responses between breast-fed and formula-fed neonates. However, the developmental responses of the digestive tract to different feeding strategies must be elucidated in terms of sensitivity to developing diseases, taking into account the major role of the intestinal microbiota.

Information

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2010
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Intestinal and pancreatic functions that can be modulated by formula- v. breast-feeding and have long-term consequences.

Figure 1

Table 1 Prevalence (%) of exclusive breast-feeding in the world in 2000–5*

Figure 2

Table 2 Overview of the proteins in human and bovine milk and their proposed bioactive functions*

Figure 3

Fig. 2 Effect of decreasing the protein content of formula on jejunal and ileal density (g/cm length) (a) and proportion of mucosa of the total wall thickness in jejunum and ileum (b) in piglets. Piglets were either breast-fed (BF) or formula-fed from day 7 to day 28 of life with a standard formula (FF) or a low-protein formula providing the same level of proteins as sows' milk (LP-FF). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. Reducing the protein content of the formula prevented the hypertrophic effect of formula-feeding in the jejunum. * Mean value was significantly different from that of the FF group (P < 0·05).

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Effect of decreasing the protein content of formula on jejunal and ileal permeability (a) and ZO1 mRNA expression (b) in piglets. Piglets were either breast-fed (BF) or formula-fed from day 7 to day 28 of life with a standard formula (FF) or a low-protein formula providing the same level of proteins as sows' milk (LP-FF). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. Reducing the level of protein in the formula did not modify the effect of formula-feeding on intestinal permeability and ZO-1 mRNA expression. * Mean value was significantly different from that at day 7 (P < 0·05).

Figure 5

Fig. 4 Basal glycaemia (a) and area under the postprandial time-course curve (AUC) of glucose response above basal values (b) in breast-fed, formula-fed and low-protein formula-fed piglets. Piglets were either breast-fed (BF) or formula-fed from day 7 to day 28 of life with a standard formula (FF) or a low-protein formula providing the same level of protein as sows' milk (LP-FF). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. Basal glycaemia was lower in BF piglets than in FF piglets and reducing the protein content of the formula restored the glycaemia to the level of the BF piglets. Postprandial glucose AUC was higher in BF compared with formula-fed piglets, whatever the protein content of the formula (FF and LP-FF). * Mean value was significantly different from that of the FF group (P < 0·05).

Figure 6

Fig. 5 Area under the postprandial time-course curve (AUC) of insulin (a), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) (b) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) (c) responses above basal values in breast-fed, formula-fed and low-protein formula-fed piglets. Piglets were either breast-fed (BF) or formula-fed from day 7 to day 28 of life with a standard formula (FF) or a low-protein formula providing the same level of protein as sows' milk (LP-FF). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. The diet did not modify postprandial insulin concentration. FF piglets had higher postprandial GLP-1 and GIP concentrations than BF piglets and lowering the protein content of the formula normalised postprandial GLP-1 and GIP concentrations compared with BF piglets. * Mean value was significantly different from that of the FF group (P < 0·05).