>Subject:
>
>I have a question I've been wondering about for a while, and the
>thread on one breast/both breasts per feeding has prompted me to
>finally ask.  Why are we still discussing foremilk and hindmilk?
>Peter Hartmann's research has shown that there isn't really much
>change in the fat content of milk during a feeding.  In other words
>the foremilk/hindmilk theory is just a myth.

Dorothy,
I am very familiar with Peter's work, as we live in the same city and I
have heard him speak on many occasions. He has shown that there is in fact
a change in fat content as the feed proceeds, but that the fat content is
*directly related to how empty the breast is*, not necessarily the stage of
the feed. The reason he doesn't usually like talk of foremilk/hindmilk is
because it doesn't always relate to the time during the feed, ie the first
milk a baby gets at an individual feed may be quite high in fat *if* that
breast has been fed from recently and is relatively empty. He has shown in
individual mothers that the milk at the start of one feed may be higher in
fat than at the end of another, especially where the baby is feeding at
irregular intervals during the 24 hour period.

He also maintains that babies cannot get too much foremilk and not enough
hindmilk, overall, because if the baby did not drain the breast well at one
feeding, then it starts with a higher fat milk at the start of the next
from that breast. So baby gets his constant amount of fat per day, but
maybe a higher *volume* of milk overall (in oversupply situations). This is
why 'oversupply colicky' babies invariably put on lots of weight.

This is my understanding of his research anyway. I hope this is not too
confusing!

Joy Anderson IBCLC, NMAA Breastfeeding Counsellor,
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]