Lesley McBurney writes:

>We recently had a visit from Chloe Fisher here in Australia.  While she was
>here, she left a list of situations which indicate that the mother has a
>problem that needs to be investigated.
>
>The interesting one was "a baby that feeds very frequently (more than 10
>times in 24 hours)".

Lesley, I've also gone around and around about this with a variety of LLL
people, from local leaders to people at headquarters in Chicago.  The
problem is that there are many babies who are latched on properly, suck
efficiently and correctly, and are healthy and happy and like to nurse very
very often.  At the same time, some babies who like to nurse very very often
are really babies who would be happier nursing less, but they must nurse
often in order to get enough to eat because they are either 1) not latched
on properly or 2) not sucking properly, or 3) both.  So when a baby is
nursing very very often, maybe it *is* a good idea to check it out and see
if the baby is latched on and sucking well.  If he or she is, then just tell
the mom, your baby likes to nurse very often and that's fine.  If he or she
is *not* latched on properly or not sucking properly, then the LC can work
with the mom and baby on that, and once the baby is nursing more efficiently
then the frequency may drop off.  You don't want to give people the
impression that frequent nursing is "abnormal" or a problem (that drives me
nuts), but at the same time you want to rule out latch/suck problems as the
cause.  It is true that the !Kung nurse an average of 4 times an hour for a
few minutes at a time.  This has also been reported among the Gainj people
of Papua New Guinea.  And it isn't just with tiny babies, it continues for
several years.  Among the Gainj there was no diminution in nursing frequency
as the children got older and started eating solids.  It is physiologically
incorrect to say that ALL children can get enough to eat, and ALL moms'
breasts can get enough stimulation to produce enough milk to support good
growth/health in the baby, when nursing only every 2-3-4 hours (or any
schedule).  Humans are designed to nurse very frequently around the clock.
But some babies can be put on a schedule like the above ones, and the baby
will get enough to eat and the mother will continue to produce well even
with infrequent stimulation, and in some cases the mothers will not want to
keep nursing unless they can get the baby on a schedule.



Robyn and Anne write about a slogan of  "Jesus Christ was a breastfed baby!"


I've also thought about this, and about "Jesus Christ was fed on demand" or
"Jesus Christ was breastfed for many years"


> How often does the average toddler nurse?


There's no such animal as an "average toddler" in terms of nursing
frequency!  As I wrote earlier, in some populations children continue to
nurse multiple times per hour up through their third year and beyond.  When
Alex was 3, he nursed every evening to go to sleep and every morning first
thing when he woke up.  Now, at 4, he nurses only to go to sleep.
>

Elizabeth Peyton writes:

>What you need to breastfeed (in theory) is a pituitary, a breast
>(prepared approrpiately in adolescence and a pregnancy) and a baby.


I was once asked by an older student if it was possible to get pregnant and
have a child if you had had your pituitary removed.  I said I had no idea,
but the pituitary was very important in hormone regulation and it sounded
like it could be true.  So, why do you ask?  I asked her.  She said, well, I
had my pituitary removed (she didn't tell me why and I didn't ask) and the
doctors told me I could never get pregnant and have children, so I never
bothered to use birth control, and now my child is 10 years old!  I didn't
ask her if she breastfed, but told her that obviously she'd answered her own
question -- it is possible to get pregnant and have a child without a
pituitary.  Or is it possible that a) she didn't know what it was the
doctors had removed from her brain, b) the doctors didn't know what it was
they removed from her brain, or c) her pituitary regenerated itself?  Of
course, this was the same student who asked me if the gene for sickle-cell
was on the same chromosome as the gene for "race", so maybe she wasn't too
bright!


Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology
Texas A&M University
e-mail to [log in to unmask]
(409) 845-5256
(409) 778-4513