>>
>>Why do mothers in these cultures seem to have perfectly fine milk supplies
>>even
>>though they don't nurse until the milk comes in?  Given all the emphasis on
>>"early and often" and the stuff I've read on prolactin receptors it seems as
>>though there ought to be more problems.  I, on the other hand, continually
>>run
>>into women with inadequate milk supplies despite early, often and adequate
>>milk
>>removal . . .
>>
>>
>Becky,
>
>Maybe the lack of medical intervention in these societies has something to do
>with it.  I'm not saying that there is no place for technology for OB/PEDS
>but if it ain't broke don't fix it.  We, as an industrialized nation, jump in
>too quickly and procede too aggressively sometimes.  Just some thoughts.
>
>Diane Karnbach, LLL Leader
>Va Beach, VA

Hi -- I was the original poster of the question of what happens to the
colostrum if the baby doesn't nurse right away.  I haven't gotten any
answers to that yet.  Anyone????

On this other question of why bf seems to proceed well in this cases without
early stimulation, I have two theories (more like ill-formed ideas):

1) It is the constant contact between mother and infant that brings in the
milk, not the baby's initial attempts to suck.  In places where first
feedings are delayed, mothers and babies are constantly together, even if
baby isn't put to breast right away.  Maybe when we have early and often
nursing in the U.S. and that seems to help the milk come in what is really
important is the fact that mom and baby are together often (ostensibly for
early and often nursing).  When mom and baby are apart (baby in nursery, or
only brought in infrequently for feedings) it is the separation that reduces
milk supply, not the lack of stimulation per se, as absence of baby tells
mother's brain that baby is dead.  Remember we talked about this a little
before?

2) Has anyone looked at the personal feeding history of women who seem to be
unable to produce much milk?  Might there be a correlation between being
breastfed and being able to breastfeed, so that what you are seeing is
problems in women who were bottle-fed?  I'm thinking here about the rat
studies discussed a few days ago showing that hormones in the milk affected
the timing of sexual maturity in the rats (someone suggested that was one
reason for earlier menarche in humans -- not being breastfed).  Rats and
humans are very different, of course, so it may not apply with respect to
menarche (then again it may).  But what about the idea that breastfeeding
contains substances that help the development of breast tissue.  If you were
bottle-fed then you might be at slightly higher risk for inadequate breast
tissue development.  Obviously in most cases it doesn't happen, as many many
bottle-fed women go on to successfully nurse their own children.  Just
wondering about those few cases.  Sounds like a research project for one of
you lactation consultants -- when you are working with problem cases of
delayed milk production or insufficient milk production that doesn't respond
to any of the typical solutions, ask the mother how she herself was fed as
an infant, and then just keep track.  Ask how long she was breastfed, not
just if, as it may be a time-related phenomonon.  Anyone up for this?  Or do
you think I'm wacko??

Kathy Dettwyler
e-mail  [log in to unmask]