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:
Marsha Glass <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 28 May 2005 23:43:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
Gonneke, I understand where the logic comes from, both from studies of
behavior in more primitive cultures and from lab studies on milk composition
(hence the inclusion of the word "lab" in my post.)  What I question is
whether that applies across all cultures through all the millennia. For
instance, I can speculate that women in more primitive cultures, who don't
have the varied and rich diet that we do, might have a different composition
of their milk or less supply.  Perhaps it was necessary for babies of those
mothers to nurse so frequently in order to get the fat they needed because
of their mothers (less rich or less abundant?) milk supply, or something
along those lines.  When we talk about the fat content of human milk, does
it follow that babies must feed multiple times *per hour* or could "very
frequently" mean every 2-3 hours after the onset of lactogenesis II compared
to the species who only nurse every 12 hours, let's say?!  I still think
that it's entirely plausible that milk composition can vary depending on the
diet and therefore, that babies' feeding frequency can vary in adaptation to
this.  I have just seen too many babies contentedly going 2-3 hours between
feeds after their mother's milk comes in to think that this is atypical.
Also, Dr. Hartmann's research found that milk is produced faster by the
breast when the baby is not feeding from it than when it is.  He also has
proposed that mothers with a larger storage capacity may have babies who can
go longer between feeds, but that babies may need to eat more often if mom's
capacity is smaller.  Both still receive what they need to thrive, just in
different patterns.  This suggests adaptation.  Neither is right or wrong,
since both babies get what they need.  In short, what works for one culture
(or mother) may not work for another culture (or mother) and for more
reasons than just preference!  And, for the record, I disagree that this is
the *only* thing we can conclude.  I think there is always room for
adaptations within the wider parameters of what is normal for a species.

<<Compared to other mammal milks and relating animal offspring nursing
behaviour with their milk's composition, one can only conclude that humans
belong to the animals that carry their young and nurse very frequent>>

Marsha, who likes to think outside the box... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Marsha Glass RN, BSN, IBCLC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mothers have as powerful an influence over the welfare of future generations
as all other earthly causes combined.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~John S. C. Abbot~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2