Magda wrote:
>
> Since the errors in actually weighing babies
>are legion (and documented) and there are no charts generally available
>which acurately chart the growth patterns of breastfed babies and since,
>also, research has shown that the ability of health professionals who
>actually weigh babies (study done here in UK) to correctly identify
>different types of growth patterns is not particuarly accurate......what the
>heck does weighing show us?  How would we *know* that the weight gain is
>'OK'???????


Yeah...it comes back to weight being only part of the picture, and with all
the potential for innaccuracy, a not-very-reliable part of the picture at
that.

I think (see previous post) that in the absence of community support and
understanding of bf, that a basic idea of what to expect with bf is helpful
and protective....so mothers know that 6 feeds a day every 4 hours is
unusual, and that it is a normal pattern to feed often...so some basic
numbers are inevitable. With the proviso that we know there is a price to
pay for counting (risk of professionalising and medicalising and even
pathologising of bf), and we know that any numbers are based on
impressions, as well as our knowledge of what is 'usually normal'.

If a mother tells me she is only feeding her young baby 4 times a day, I am
concerned - even if the only thing I know about her bf is that one number.
I am even more concerned if I learn the baby has not gained at all for two
weeks.  That extreme is enough to make me want to  discuss more, and to
share concerns with the mother. If another mother tells me her baby is
'never off the breast and always feeds for an hour and a half at a time',
and isn't gaining,  that too makes me concerned - and again the only thing
I know are those two numbers. Of course, mothers who contact me to talk
this sort of thing over are already concerned.

They are pointers to more discussion, and I do think we need them. So I
can't think we should chuck away the numbers totally, even though our
knowledge of what they 'should' be is actually very poor, and even though
there may be no 'should be' about them.

Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc Newcastle upon Tyne UK

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