At 07:17 AM 1/4/04, you wrote:
>Pat asks <<Given the couple of posts this week (below) I hope that you will
>reconsider writing off the theory as "legend", at least in public
>declaration. We all
>choose to accept what fits with our system of reason and I have seen enough
>through my experience to support this theory.>>
>
>Pat, I would LOVE to believe this theory too. I'm willing to re-think the
>"legend" comment I made, and hope that immunologists and lactation
>scientists like Dr. Goldman, Dr. Hartmann and others will chew on this idea
>and make some comments in print.
Linda, thank you for your Lactnet post regarding "legend."  You may have
noticed that my post was sent to you privately but I do appreciate your
replying to Lactnet.

I, too, hope that some serious researcher repeats the study--more than just
chewing on the concept within what is already "known."  The former study
did include the changing nutritional composition of human milk throughout
the nursing period.  For example they correlated a concentrated growth in
height to increased calcium content of the mother's milk.  There were other
such correlations.

To me, that explains why a 6 or 8 month old baby doesn't have to drink
gallons of milk to get adequate nutrition.  The changing nutritional
quality is programmed by baby all along.

Want to know another observation that LCs say is impossible?  I have had
several clients whose infants have had no colostrum intake because of
suckling challenges.  Mom is pumping and bottle feeding--white milk.  As
soon as she begins to put baby to breast her pumped milk turns yellow to
orange and retains that color for a few days, then turns back to white.  I
believe that it is colostrum that baby "says" she needs because she missed
it earlier.

In fact one mother was just pumping one breast and feeding with the
other.  The one where she was feeding had very yellow milk and the pumped
one remained white.

I have seen this so many times that I am firmly convinced that it is, in
fact, colostrum mixed with the milk for as long as baby needs it.  I see it
with my Latina clients who do not feed baby until the "milk" is in.

I also believe that this phenomenon is the reason that sailic acid remains
high in premature infants up to 6 months while only to 3 months for term
infants.  I think that if a woman is only pumping with no oral contact with
the nipple this extension may not happen. I also think that this would
explain why premature infants in countries where they are fed at the breast
from the beginning do not have to have "milk fortifier."  Putting that
little one to breast even if suckling was not effecient would make milk
suited to her needs and Mom's pumped milk would be adequate.

That shouldn't be too hard to test.  A mother whose premature baby is not
feeding at the breast would have her milk tested for composition then she
would put baby's mouth on the breast several times a day and have her milk
retested for composition.

I would love to sit down with some enthusiastic researcher and discuss my
theories and my observations.

Is the Dr Goldman the one who works with Jack on induction?

Thanks for listening to my ponderings.

Pat
Mailto:[log in to unmask]

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html