Heather wrote:  In the
UK we call NNS comfort sucking, but it has a value to mother, baby and bf.
Comfort is good! ). A baby may suck for food, then for comfort, and go back
to sucking for food.

In reply, Linda Smith wrote:  Non-nutritive suck does little to
stimulate or even maintain a milk supply.

I am wondering if you could explain how you define 'non-nutritive suck'.  In the
UK we have all learned that 'the breast is never empty' and that even where the
baby is only swallowing very occasionally later on during the feed, there is
still a trickle of milk.  Indeed, the analogy I have heard from Mike Woolridge,
is that feeding at the breast is like eating a meal, sometimes the baby wants a
snack, sometimes a four course banquet.  At the end of the banquet the baby is
doing the equivilent of toying with the coffee and mints -- sort of enjoying the
experience and having a bit of food too -- and calorie rich food at that.  How
can you tell -- and how would *I* be able to tell -- when that finishes and
there is no more nutritive component of feeding???
It certainly is the received wisdom in the UK that a feed of 45 minutes would
not IN ITSELF be considered a problem.

If feeds were *consistently* taking 45 minutes, with short breaks between feeds
( I mean a rest between feeds of less than an hour),
and this were a *consistent* pattern over the 24 hour period for some time (i.e.
more than one day), our
first inclination would be to look at attachment and positioning.  I think my
second inclination would be to look again at attachment and positioning.

As a lay breastfeeding supporter, I would say that it is often the case that I
am picking up the pieces from the phrase "He's just using you as a dummy" (dummy
= pacifier).  Our understanding has been that the breast is never empty.

Can you recommend some good literature/research on non-nutritive sucking?  I
think this would be of interest, as it could impact on our UK practice.

Magda Sachs
Breastfeeding Supporter
The Breastfeeding Network, UK