In a message dated 10/17/01 7:52:01 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< However, if you are presented with a fat, happy baby
with soft but infrequent stools, its difficult for me to find trouble. Why
make the assumption that this is abnormal and signals some as yet
undiscovered problem when it occurs as above?The idea that "therapy" of
whatever type results in more frequent stooling doesn't do much to convince
me either. If someone takes a laxative, they stool more frequently, does that
mean that they should?>>
Lynn,
I have to say that I am rarely presented with a fat happy baby who only has a
as a "symptom" soft but infrequent stools. When this does happen, it is b/c
the mother has nursed other babies and feels in her own mind that this is not
normal. Typically her ped has told her it is normal, but she is not
convinced. It just doesn't seem right o her. As a matter of fact, this was
the case (as I have written before) with my third and, by far easiest baby.
He had no symptoms of anything wrong--he nursed well and often, was happy,
content, gaining, etc, etc. No colic, no rash, no vomiting, etc. But I did
not believe it was normal. I gave him a homeopathic remedy and removed soy
from my diet. Neither of my other children had allergies or infrequent
stooling. He began to stool normally on the first day and has done so ever
since. I reintroduced soy slowly after one year and now he eats it as well.
Maybe my son would have never exhibited other obvious symptoms either, but
what might been the consequences of continuing to assualt his body with an
allergen? With holistic medicine there is no attempt to exact a particular
outcome. The attempt is to restore balance and allow the body to behave as it
would when in balance. So, if it had been normal for him to skip days or
weeks, he would have continued to do so. There is no relationship in any way
between using homeopathy, integrated PT, CST, etc and giving a laxative or
enema. There is no attempt to suppress symptoms at all in these modalities.
<<Also, since we are always touting using the breastfed baby as the "norm",
the
fact that this occurs rather frequently within the exclusively brfed
population should suggest normalcy. If the infrequent stooling pattern
suggest an allergy/sensitivity then why would the introd. of solids foods
result in the return to a more conventional stooling pattern, as it does
with these babies?>>
I don't tout bf babies as the norm, at least not those born in the US.
Perhaps it is normal for babies who are born drugged and traumatized, fed too
infrequently (and often fed AIM), separated from their mothers, and whose
mothers consume the Standard American Diet to stool infrequently, but how
would this apply to the biological norm?
I don't know the answer to the part of your question about solids, esp as
I do not believe that food allergies are the only cause of infrequent
stooling. Actually, I am not saying I know a lot of answers here at all, but
I do find it utterly bizarre that the lactation community is so close-minded
about this topic. We know that it is very common for babies to be very sleepy
and have disorganized suckles due to drugs. We know common doesn't mean
normal. Or, we could say this is normal behaviour for drugged babies. Why
are LC's so unwilling to consider that this may be a similar situation?
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA
***********************************************
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
|
