Someone writes:*

>"using the many techniques we all know (hopefully) to improve fdng
>effectiveness. IME, very often this naturally lends itself to a greater
>intake at each feed and thus longer intervals between feeds."

I don't question that this works.  I do question the wisdom of doing it.  Do
you want greater intake at each feed and longer intervals between feeds?
Why?  For the parents' convenience?  To match a cultural ideal which is
misguided and based on formula-fed children?  Is it physiologically
better/healthier for the baby to eat large meals at big intervals, or small
meals at frequent intervals?

In a specific case, with a specific mother, if she is likely to give up
breastfeeding if she can't get the baby to eat less often, then perhaps this
is an appropriate strategy to save the breastfeeding.  But as a general
rule, if the baby is nursing fine for a short time and then wants to stop,
and then nurse again soon, well, that's the NORMAL/NATURAL pattern for our
species, given the composition of our milk.

Imagine the same situation for an adult -- if you ate a HUGE meal once a
day, then you wouldn't have to bother with cooking, eating, and cleaning up
3 times a day.  Or imagine if you could really glut yourself every Sunday
and then not have to eat again til the following Sunday.  Wouldn't that be
more convenient?  This isn't possible, given human physiology.  And research
has shown that it is healthier to eat 4-6 smaller meals a day, rather than 2
or 3 big meals.

If the human example upsets you, think of it in terms of your pet dog.  Yes,
it's possible to feed a dog only once a day, but they get really hungry and
fussy if you do that, and it strains their metabolism and physiological
processes.  The vets all tell you that it is much better to feed them 1/2
their daily ration in the morning and 1/2 in the evening.  That way they
don't gulp their food quite so fast, and have more stable blood sugar levels
and energy levels and temperaments.  It would be much more convenient if you
only fed them once a day, or even once a week!  But you can't push the
physiology that far without serious health consequences.

Same with babies.  I don't think the solution is to try to make the babies
fit our schedules, or to perpetuate the myth that all babies are fine on a
2-3-4 hour schedule as long as they 'feed effectively' when they do feed.
Let's educate parents that the normal/natural/physiological feeding
frequency is very often for a few minutes each time.

And if the baby is feeding ineffectively -- not latched on properly, not
coordinating suck/swallow, not getting any/enough milk -- then obviously
those problems need to be addressed, regardless of how often the baby is
feeding.  A baby feeding ineffectively won't get enough to eat no matter how
often they are fed.  Effective feeding for the sake of effective feeding,
yes, but not for the goal of getting the baby to eat less often.

* I always use the phrase "someone writes" to specifically indicate that I'm
addressing the issue, not the writer

Kathy Dettwyler

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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