> Now, if the human infant and the mother's body are
>in fact "designed" for ad lib nursing along the lines of several times
>an hour, what do you all suppose is the reason the "average" newborn in
>our culture does not do so?  Is it proximity to mother/the breast?

I think it begins with labor medications.
I think it continues with very little/no skin-to-skin contact.
I think it continues beyond that with very little body-to-body contact --
being put down in crib, infant carrier, on floor, etc.  I don't think Dad's
or anyone else's arms has the same sensory-deprivation effect of being laid
down on an unmoving, silent, not-warm surface.

If you spend any time watching mother-child interactions in cultures where
babies are in constant contact with their mothers, you notice that mothers
continue to go about their daily lives with the baby attached.  They don't
spend 24 hours a day gazing at their baby, talking to their baby,
interacting socially with their baby.  The moms have wood to chop, water to
haul, crops to grow, cows to milk, sweeping to do, grain to pound, meals to
cook, clothes to wash, etc.  They often get little or no "maternity leave"
-- in Moslem countries such as Mali they get 8 days, until the baby is
named, then it's back to work as usual.  Babies are constantly being
jostled, moved, turned, jiggled, etc.  They seldom sleep in long stretches
unless mother is doing something nice and rhythmic like pounding millet,
while baby is tied on the back.

 Do
>babies in "constant contact" cultures exhibit other, even more subtle,
>hunger cues?

Mothers in Mali nurse babies at the first peep or indication of interest.
They also do "pre-emptive nursing" -- offering the breast when the baby is
perfectly content, because they know they need to go to the river for water
(for example).

In terms of observing and interpreting subtle baby cues, I'll give one
example from Mali.  Malian babies wear no diapers, yet mothers are never
defecated upon, and experienced mothers are never urinated upon.  Why?
Because the baby gives very clear signs (to the Malian mother) that s/he is
getting ready to defecate, and is moved off mother's lap and held out to the
side, or down between her ankles.  Babies are reported not to poop *ever*
when tied to mother's back.  An experienced mother will also be able to
recognize when her baby is going to urinate, and will quickly hold baby out
to side so the urine goes into the dirt.  When on mother's back, baby can
urinate, but it quickly evaporates from mother's skirt in the dry heat.  I
was never able to tell what the signs of impending excretion were, while the
Malian women found it extremely hard to believe that American women could
*not* know when their babies were going to urinate and defecate.


Does the expectation seem to lead to the behavior?

I think so.  I think babies are very adaptable, and that it is easy to push
*some* babies into a 2-3-4 hour schedule, especially if they are also being
pushed into a 2-3-4 hour sleep schedule between times, instead of constantly
moving being wake and sleep states according to mother's body movements.
And once you get in the habit of "long time since last feed -- baby really
hungry -- gets big feed -- has really full tummy again -- can wait a long
time til next feed" then that pattern is repeated.  Whereas if you start out
with a "short time since last feed -- baby only a little hungry -- gets
short feed -- has just enough in tummy -- wants to feed again soon" pattern,
and baby is kept in close contact with mother's body, and never gets any
subtle or not so subtle signals that it is nursing too often, then it stays
in the more physiological pattern of nursing often for short durations.

Imagine starting a new diet where you eat six small meals a day (actually
what most nutritionists recommend).  You are never starved, you never pig out.

Contrast that to not eating all night, then skipping breakfast, then pigging
out at lunch, then waiting til 8 pm to eat and pigging out at dinner.  You
are starved before each meal, and you eat more than you probably should, but
then you aren't hungry again for a long time.  Not a healthy way to eat, yet
quite typical of many Americans.

And never discount the fact that many mothers who claim to be nursing on
demand are waiting until full-blown hunger cries *and* giving many signals
that they don't want baby to nurse again because it is "too soon" -- such as
walking, rocking, etc. first before offering the breast when baby gives
signs of being unhappy.
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University