>a baby's intake *does not*
>increase correlated to body weight.

I remember first hearing this from Peter Hartmann, and thinking, with others there, "Oh, that can't be right."  Then we thought further:  When we nurse through that first year, we don't get hungrier and hungrier, we don't get thirstier and thirstier, our shirts don't get tighter and tighter, we aren't able to pump more and more...  Everything about our *own* physiology indicates that things have stabilized.  So why would we think our babies are taking more and more milk from us, except for that cultural assumption that they must?  

On the other hand, the baby stops pooping at night, he poops less often during the day, his super-fast growth slows... all those point to a combination of increased efficiency and decreased per-kg need.  And then, at the point where he might really need to drive the supply up, he starts adding solids instead.  

The idea of a basically static level really does make sense, of course with a little leeway in either direction for hungry days, sleepy days, and so on.

Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY  USA
www.wiessinger.baka.com

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

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