In a message dated 9/10/02 10:46:05 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< I don't know why some exclusive bfed babies begin to slow down their
stooling
at around 5-6 weeks.  It's not just my observation, but well documented in
breastfeeding literature.>>

Yep, you are right that it is well-documented as happening. That doesn't mean
that it should happen.

<<  These kids seem to turn out okay as adults, I have one. >>

Well, so do kids who are fed AIM, according to almost everyone. How do we
determine what is okay? So many of the long-term consequences of AF are not
apparent until you look at populations vs individuals. Besides, in the US, we
accept chronic disease as a normal part of aging, rather than a consequence
of poor choices or environmental pollution, etc. Why are we assuming there
are no consequences to infrequent stooling (IMO--the correct term is chronic
constipation) in infants?

I recently read a study that showed that babies born at low birthweight are
much more prone to heart disease in later life, especially if they are forced
to grow very quickly in infancy. Apparently, the babies adapt to a life in
the womb of nutrient deprivation and cannot manage to grow quickly w/o
disastrous outcomes, as they are so often forced to do from birth (raises a
lot of questions about forcing fast growth on preemies, doesn't it?).
Exploring these kinds of connections is one of the focuses of Michel Odent's
work and of Functional Medicine. My point is that there is so much we have
not even asked ourselves about the consequences of poor maternal nutrition,
both during pregnancy and while bf'ing. And, even good nutrition may have
negative consequences for some kids whose genetic predisposition isn't
matched to the maternal diet.

" And, I've known hundreds of happy, thriving babies that have what many
preceive as "abnormal stooling patterns" because they have no regular
patterns and sometimes go many days in between.  I don't think there is much
evidence based research (if any) to form a range of normal on stooling no
matter what our age. "

I think that when we accept only the evidence of allopathic medicine , we
miss the opportunity to really understand human health. The experience and
observations of holistic practioners has far more to offer, IMO. As LC's, we
often talk about gut health (gut permeability allowing for food allergies,
the loss of healthy flora by using AIM, etc), but we don't want to ask the
obvious question--what's going on in the gut when all of that waste material
just sits there? Sorry, but there is nowhere in my head where that can seem
healthy to me.

<< I personally think we have to look beyond just the
stooling at the bigger picture and sometimes the bigger picture is very much
in the range of normal. >

I could make the same argument for AF babies. People do everyday. I think
that for some kids, whatever is causing the infrequent stooling resolves and
there are no long-term ill effects, but I do not believe this is true for
all. As I have written about before, if we use non-invasive, health-support
ing therapies and the baby suddenly begins to stool frequently, then  why
would we assume what was happening before was okay?  In almost all cases
where a baby has been seen by a homeopath or CST or Pt or chiropractor or the
mom modifies her diet (or a combination), stooling begins again.  That is
enough experiential evidence for me that the body was out of balance and that
when balance was restored, so was gut integrity.

Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [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