LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Susan Burger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:09:34 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
Dear all:

I repeat what may have been missed in my post.  What appears to be oversupply 
sometimes is NOT oversupply.  udy Fram also added the scenario of the faker to my 
mention of the "start and stop" breasts where moms have smaller storage capacity but 
larger ducts.  Both of these are examples of women who have a forceful milk ejection 
reflex who actually are not in oversupply.  This view that any baby that is fussy and 
gulping is getting too much is what leads to seeing many babies come into my group after 
trying to correct what was never an oversupply to end up failing to thrive. So, I would 
absolutely NOT want a label of "oversupply syndrome".  

More appropriate is to assess milk transfer and HOW THE BABY feeds.  If the baby needs 
a second breast and mom is taught how to read those cues, it works far better than any 
rule. If there is an initial oversupply, and it is tamped down, and mom knows how to read 
that baby's cues, then the mom can switch breasts when it becomes appropriate rather 
than continuing on some rigid schedule.  Some mothers do need an initial plan --- but 
working with them over time provides an opportunity to guide them into reading the 
baby's feeding cues and giving her support for the more difficult challenge of reading the 
cues of a baby that is fussier than average.

I still have not seen any convincing evidence on "lactose overload".  So if there are 
articles that go beyond "theorizing" this as a cause, then please post the actual 
references so I may read them.  What Cathy Genna posted was about 4 or 6 articles that 
show that VOLUME is more important for growth than FAT content.  Nancy Wight has 
debunked the notion that premaure infants who have had inadequate time in utero need 
more fat to compensate for lack of uterine time -- they need more minerals.

Moreover, crematocrits have the highest degree of "Undependability" of any indicator that 
I can think of.  Minute to minute, breast to breast, feed to feed you cannot predict from a 
single or even multiple measurements of creamtocrit what the fat content will be.  So, if 
research shows that fat content is so extremely variable how can we ever possibly 
Predict a pattern of eating for an infant to "optimize the fat".  Unless you do a 24 hour 
creamatocrit which would require pumping out all the milk ---- I defy anyone to say they 
have a full picture of the fat content of the milk.  And I would not recommend pumping 
out all the milk for a fussy baby that is already having challenges at the breast.  That can 
sometimes lead to a complete and total nursing strike. I really think that the creamtocrit 
is one tool that is only appropriate for research purposes.  

Finally, much of the research on EFA deserves a highly critical eye due to the fact that the 
vast majority of that research is funded by those who want all of us to be supplemented 
from cradle to grave with DHA.  No deficiency in DHA has ever been demonstrated --- 
just normal variations among populations with different diets.  Tinkering with DHA alone 
without looking at the very important fact that fatty acids need to be in balance and that 
balance is best achieved via food may actually backfire if we create imbalances in other 
fatty acids.  My sil was involved in a trial of DHA for older women and had to withdraw 
due to side effects.  She is but one of potentially many who were "excluded" from the 
results of some of the industry trials.  Really one of the most sickening sleight of hand 
extrapolations from almost no evidence that I have ever seen was a video on DHA for 
pregnant mothers.

In fact, I think the term SYNDROME itself is sloppy.  It is a term that we use until we 
identify the various different disorders that are occurring that are similar, but not the 
same.  SIDS is not a diagnosis --- it is lack of a diagnosis --- we don't know why the baby 
died.  When we know what happened it is "suffocation" or some other cause.  Ditto for 
"colic".  I have never heard a more useless term.  It is merely a baby that is crying a lot 
and we don't know why.  PCOS also is challenging.Eventually I hope we will find out which 
part of PCOS is the part we need to pay attention to for milk supply since so many 
women with PCOS actually have a perfectly fine supply and sometimes an oversupply.

Best, Susan Burger

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome

ATOM RSS1 RSS2