Hi all !!! I am just responding to the letter on hindmilk/foremilk and the false info on inadequate nutrients in hindmilk vs foremilk. I would like to quote a few sentences from "Clinics in Perinatology"--March, 1995, Neonatal/Perinatal Nutrition. "No differences were observed between fractions for the content of nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, or potassium. Small but significant differences were observed in copper and zinc concentrations, each declined by approximately 5% to 6% from foremilk to hindmilk. It would be unusual for that small a difference in copper and zinc concentrations to have a significant biologic effect." About fat content...."Fat and protein comprised 42% and 12% of calories in foremilk and 55% and 9% of calories in hindmilk, respectively." "The use of hindmilk, therefore, can be recommended for LBW infants whose rate of weight gain is low (<15 g/kg/d." The only disadvantage of the hindmilk was explained to me by Dr. Larry Gardner that the high fat content may not be tolerated well by some premies because of the lack of or low lipase levels. Lets be careful when we share information and try to cite references or clinicals if possible. I would hate for something like this to be read by some NICU people and they in turn go back and discourage use of hindmilk because of wrong info. From someone who really cares about those premies-Pat Bull