> Perhaps, though, it would be prudent to mention that many babies nurse much
> more frequently, and that that is also acceptable.  I've counseled many
> mothers who are concerned when baby wants to nurse once an hour (or even
> more) for short feedings around the clock.
>
I have an overhead transparency that I use in breastfeeding education. It's an
old one and I don't have the refs, but will contact my collegue (who is not
online) if she knows where we got it from. It shows differences between
infrequent and frequent feeding, compared to total minutes at breast per 24
hours and to total milk yield and infant growth. It won't be a big surprise for
lots of you reading that the more frequent the baby feeds the more milk mom is
making and thus a higher weight gain. What surprised me (first time) was that
babies that feed 10 times in 24 hours actually spend la little less time at the
breast than babies that feed around 7 times in 24 hours. I'll mail the ref as
soon as I find it, but the numbers are:
feedings counts on days 1-14: mean frequency 7.3/24 hours; total minutes at
breast 138 and mean milk yield at day 15 502ml/24 hours, weight gain 346grams.
frequency on day 1-14 9.9/24 hours: total minutes at breast 134 and milk yield
at day 15 725ml/24 hours, weight 561gr.
These figures indicate that frequent short feedings are more effective than
infrequent long feedings and that there is no need to bother for fatty hindmilk.
And I think that figures will be even better with more frequent feedings than
10/24.

Gonneke van Veldhuizen, IBCLC, living in Maaseik, Belgium
http://www.users.skynet.be/eurolac
[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(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html