Hi all !!!

I am just responding to the letter on hindmilk/foremilk and the false info on
inadequate nutrients in hindmilk vs foremilk.  I would like to quote a few
sentences from "Clinics in Perinatology"--March, 1995, Neonatal/Perinatal
Nutrition.  "No differences were observed between fractions for the content
of nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, or potassium.  Small but
significant differences were observed in copper and zinc concentrations, each
declined by approximately 5% to 6% from foremilk to hindmilk.  It would be
unusual for that small a difference in copper and zinc concentrations  to
have a significant biologic effect."  About fat content...."Fat and protein
comprised 42% and 12% of calories in foremilk and 55% and 9% of calories in
hindmilk, respectively."  "The use of hindmilk, therefore, can be recommended
for LBW infants whose rate of weight gain is low (<15 g/kg/d."  The only
disadvantage of the hindmilk was explained to me by Dr. Larry Gardner that
the high fat content may not be tolerated well by some premies because of the
lack of or low lipase levels.  Lets be careful when we share information and
try to cite references or clinicals if possible.  I would hate for something
like this to be read by some NICU people and they in turn go back and
discourage use of hindmilk because of wrong info.

From someone who really cares about those premies-Pat Bull