Ellen Steinberg wrote:
>Joy, I have read the abstracts of some of these studies and I have a
>question - Do you know how milk production was measured in the studies? Was
>it with 24 hour test weights (which would be the same as figuring out how
>much milk the baby is actually consuming)? Or was it some other method that
>measured the mother's capability for milk production without knowing exactly
>how much the baby was consuming for that 24 hour period?
Hi Ellen,
Milk volumes in the Hartmann labs use the method they have developed
and used for many years now where they weigh the mothers (not the
babies - found to be more accurate) plus do volume calculations on
the breast using a computer, video camera and stripes projected
across the breast. They have written it up as a 'computerized breast
measurement' system and it is very accurate.
See: Daly SE, Kent JC, Huynh DQ, Owens RA, Alexander BF, Ng KC,
Hartmann PE 1992, The Determination of Short-Term Breast Volume
Changes and the Rate of Synthesis of Human Milk Using Computerized
Breast Measurement, Exp Physiol 77: 79-87.
In the prolactin study that I quoted from, they did 24 hr production
measurements by maternal test weighing. Short-term rates of milk
synthesis were determined using the computerized breast measurement.
Regression coefficients of these measurement with the maternal test
weights, corrected for evaporative water loss, were 0.83 to 0.96 for
individual mothers, and pooled regression of 0.92.
So I think their results are very reliable. It was interesting that
what they found in regard to volumes taken by babies of different
ages and sizes was similar to other researchers before them (as in
the quote I posted previously). Obviously this has been a well-kept
'secret' from many practitioners in the trenches with mothers!
>
>I guess I find this information a bit confusing. If it is accepted that a
>baby's milk consumption should be 2.5 oz/lb/day (by the way one Lactnetter
>responded to me privately that this infant feeding requirements info is also
>in the Breastfeeding Answer Book), then it stands to reason that a larger
>baby would eat more. For example, it would be unlikely that a 1-month old
>baby that weighed, say, 8 lbs, would still be eating the same amount when he
>reached the weight of 16 lbs at 6 months of age. Can anyone help me figure
>this out?
I think the only way to figure it out is to accept that a larger baby
does not need more food. When you think about it, the velocity of
growth does not change much, so one line of logical thought is that
they only need a constant amount of food to achieve that.
>
>Does anyone know of any research that correlates baby's weight (not age!)
>with milk intake? I would personally be very interested in participating in
>such a study.
Yes, this would be interesting. My understanding, and this may be
incorrect, is that the mathematical formula for milk according to
weight was originally for calculating formula volumes. I have been
curious about this in the past, and I think in many cases the
instructions on formula cans show larger feeds for larger babies, but
they also show less feeds overall - so do they even need to increase
the volume of intake over 24 hours either??
Joy
--
******************************************************************
Joy Anderson B.Sc. Dip.Ed. Grad.Dip.Med.Tech. IBCLC
Australian Breastfeeding Association counsellor
Perth, Western Australia. mailto:[log in to unmask]
******************************************************************
***********************************************
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(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
