Glenn Evans wrote:
>
> I may have no case studies. But I have worked in a hospital in L&D and postpartum for 21 years. I have been cupfeeding infants for longer
than that, startin
>
> If I can't prove the long-term aspiration effects of breast vs. bottle vs. cup, neither can you.
The research that does exist relates to long term effects of silent
aspiration in adolescent, chronic silent aspirators who presented with
varying histories of cardiorespiratory problems. One issue raised was
what came first, "the chicken or the egg" - chronic silent aspiration or
chronic CP issues. Other studies suggests that EBM is "clear fluid"
which if so reduces risk and that natural immune factors are present.
However if you leave a bottle of EBM in a 98.5 environment, does it not
colonize? And regardless of rate and breadth of this phenomena,
pulmonologists rarely even allow distilled water when the risk of
pernicious silent aspiration is present and what liquid could be more
"clear"? So what you are advocating is, Well let's try it and see what
happens. I wonder what would have happened had Einstein or Oppenheimer
said, "Gee, Let's just split this atom and see what happens?"
(Apologizes for negative tone.)
>
> I think most of the literature related to aspiration, that you are reading, has to come from babies who were bottlefed formula, since that
is how the majority (Opps!)
Recheck your resources, you'll find that to be inaccurate. Studies that
I have seen did not break down formula -v- EBM.
> Recent research in breastfeeding has taught us more and more about what babies are able to do. We've seen that younger and younger
premature babies can breas
Opps! What happened here?
> You mentioned in one of your posts the studies on the necrosis "discovered" on autopsy. Does this mean the infants demised for other
reasons than the aspirati
You need to adjust your word wrap, most of your message is being
deleted. The necrotic tissue was from pernicious silent aspiration.
> A thought that has crossed my mind several times since you started
> asking questions. Could it be that the newer born an infant is, the easier it
> is to learn to cup feed, because he still hasn't really mobilized all his
> feeding responses, and so more readily adapts to whatever system is
> being used? I have seen very voracious breastfeeders who had no use
> for a cup, and didn't want to learn without good reason. Infant motor ability has been fully documented and restudied to
infinity. Flexor physiology is suckle physiology. When infants suckle
the nipple is drawn fully to the oropharynx. The oral phase is rendered
moot with the exception of expressing the milk. Cup feeding engages the
oral cavity for processing the milk to be swallowed. The undulation of
the tongue required to safely process liquid to the pharynx is not
developed pre 4 mo., it is after ATNR and extensor development is this
seen. Milk is not lapped when drawn from a cup. I have seen numerous
posts from LLL members who state the same. It is drawn in by negative
pressure created by tongue pumping such as a piston draws air and gas.
Liquid bolus is not controlled in the transition between oral phase to
pharyngeal phase of swallow (ever seen a video swallow on an infant?, I
assure that this last statement to be true - me and a few researchers
Alternatively, I
> have seen infants unable to latch, with a disorganized bottle suck, who
> took to cups instantly.
Does not prove a thing when it comes to safe swallow.
> I have to ask. How many babies have you SEEN breast/bottle
13 years exp. feeding swallowing, 80 hours CE numerous video studies I
can't count.
> cupfeeding?
None.
> This is not meant as a put-down. But once you have seen
> a newborn cupfeeding, you can no longer say they aren't capable of
> doing that at less than 4 months.
Read my posts again, I don't believe I said *aren't capable* If I did,
I retract it.
> I am glad you are asking questions and willing to learn from our collective
> expertise of both BF literature and experience. But why are you so
> combative in your questions?
My apologies if I appear as dogmatic or *negative*.
It seems as if you feel a threat, either
> personal or professional, from the fact that babies can cupfeed. The
> scientific method is to form a theory, then design experiments that
> prove it. There are a lot of experiments that yield results different than the
> ones expected.
I feel stongly about posing a risk to those I manage when a small
segment adamantly insist cup feeding works when they miss one all
important health risk - aspiration.
> Often because of variables included or not. But
> sometimes the basic premise is wrong.
Back atcha!
> A cartoon in my mind's eye: Einstein scratching his head looking at a
> mom cupfeeding her newborn, and saying :
> "Vell, I see ve vere wronk. Zey ken do zat!"
A man comes upon a thousand dollars. He wants to surprise his wife with
the money, so he goes to the river, splits the money into ten jars and
floats them downstream. Problem is the river divides before it gets to
his house. How many jars does he average if he were to repeat this
process 10 times?
I have not nor will I criticize cup feeding EBM. I am very anxious
(good and bad) to try it. I need what I consider in my professional
opinion some fundamental issues addressed. I am pursuing these ends
within the strengths and the limitations of my profession. I want to
thank all who answered my posts. My e-mail box was never this full.
Not even spam :-)
|
