Jack Newman has presented his comments very well. That is an important point, that the change between foremilk and hindmilk is gradual. Indeed, I probably should have worded my last sentence as "the change between predominently foremilk to predominently hindmilk ...." With multiple letdowns in multiple feeds through the day, the "foremilk" late in the day may even have more fat that the "hindmilk" at the first, high-volume feed. If a baby is fed frequently, on demand, drinks well, and is not restricted to finishing a feed according to the clock, we probably don't need to know the foremilk/hindmilk bit as the normal breastfeeding process is taking care of it very nicely. Like a lot of knowledge, where it becomes useful is when things are not going well.
One situation which disturbs me, and I'm sure many of you, is occasionally hearing a Mum or a health professional refer to the hindmilk as "the good milk". (Implication: the foremilk is "bad" milk - ugh!!!) I use these occasions as educational opportunities on what the foremilk does - the broader picture, not too detailed, about the place of the breastmilk sugars in infant development, and the higher water content in quenching thirst. I explain that both the foremilk and the hindmilk are *good* milk, and both (and the graduations between them) have their place, and that the fluctuations though a feed and through the day are physiologically geared to the baby. Fluctuations in content of artificial feeds are, instead, due to human error and not in the baby's interests.
Sorry, I just came in on this discussion and so haven't seen what preceded Jack's comment.
Happy holidays to all.
Virginia
in rainy Brisbane (after a long dry spell)
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
