I am surprised to read that Chloe Fisher believes that more than 10 breast
feeds a day is a danger sign. This certainly does not apply to developing
countries. I have access to preliminary data from a WHO Multi-center study
of breastfeeding and fertility from a few years ago and in four countries
the average number of breast feeds per 24 hours was at or above 10 at 2
weeks postpartum (Chile, China, Guatemala and India). In Guatemala and
India it was nearly 10 at 26 weeks postpartum. This would mean that about
half the women in these studies in these countries "have a problem".
Doubtful. I rather suspect that this is a sign that babies of
undernourished mothers need to breast feed more often if there is less fat
in the mothers' milk, which in turn is associated with lower maternal
nutritional status. This conclusion follows from a good paper published
recently by Perez-Escamilla, et al (Am J Clin Nutr 61:528-34, 1995), data
from the same wonderful study published in Lancet, in July, 1994 showing
for the first time, experimentally, that providing solids to babies at four
months offers no benefit to infant growth, even with the solids are sterile
and of high nutritional quality, compared to exclusive breastfeeding for
six months.
In developed countries busy women seem to be able to produce as much milk
despite breastfeeding less often, though this may lead to an earlier return
of menstruation. A higher frequency of breastfeeding, though perhaps
seemingly "unnecessary," certainly need not be pathological, though perhaps
there is no harm in asking a couple more questions in a non-dramatic way.
For our own children, very frequent breastfeeding occurred at times of
insecurity or illness and sometimes "randomly" perhaps when their bodies
wanted to spurt in growth.
Ted Greiner, PhD
Senior Lecturer in International Nutrition
Uppsala University
75185 Uppsala
Sweden
phone +46 - 18 511598
fax +46 - 18 515380
e-mail [log in to unmask]
|