DiamondAir

> From: "Eileen M." <ravensegg@...>
> Yes, under normal circumstances, breast milk is
> designed for babies, and the female human breast is
> designed to deliver that milk. But for many reasons
> some babies do not thrive on breast milk. They may be
> (as my son was) lactose intolerant *and* allergic to
> milk. Their mother may be eating something to which
> they are allergic.


Right, but the mother can stop eating what they are allergic to. Both my
kids are allergic to milk. Well, I haven't had any dairy products in a long
time, and I sure do miss my ice cream :-) but it's really not that big of an
issue. All that means is that *cow's* milk is not beneficial to babies, not
that mother's milk isn't. The only disease I am aware of that necessitates
total weaning is Galactosemia, an extremely rare metabolic disorder that
necessitates that the child be on a special diet for life. In this case, it
isn't so much of a case of mother's milk not being beneficial, but that the
baby has a genetic disease that prevents them from receiving proper
nutrition from many different sources.


> They may be severely hypoglycemic
> (again, as my son was) and the milk simply doesn't
> have enough sugars in it to keep them alive.


According to LLL:

"Symptomatic hypoglycemia in newborns is largely due to delayed or
inadequate feeding and is more likely to occur when mother and baby are
separated after birth. Some newborns are given sugar water on the erroneous
assumption that this will prevent hypoglycemia. Instead, giving glucose
water causes a sudden rise in the blood glucose levels, which in turn
stimulates the secretion of insulin by the pancreas. The high level of
insulin results in an equally sudden drop in glucose levels. It is
interesting to note that the treatment for hypoglycemia in adults is small,
frequent, high-protein meals. That is exactly what the baby gets when he is
allowed to breastfeed on demand from birth.

Immediate and frequent feedings of colostrum, preferably ten to twelve
feedings per day in the first few days, stabilize blood glucose levels.
Undiluted human milk is the best food, particularly for preterm infants. "

"In some hospital settings, newborns are at risk for developing hypoglycemia
even after an uneventful labor and delivery. Babies who are not fed soon
after birth, are left uncovered in a nursery warmer, or are left in a
nursery to cry, are under stress. As a result they use up their stores of
glucose and are at risk for developing hypoglycemia. It is important to put
the baby to the breast immediately after birth, make sure the baby is kept
warm and dry (preferably in the mother's arms), and not allow long
separations when the baby may be left to cry. "

and finally:

"The best way to stabilize blood sugar and prevent hypoglycemia in all
infants is prompt and frequent feedings of colostrum and human milk."

Even if supplements need to be given - glucose, etc. the baby can still
benefit from breastfeeding. The supplements are a small addition to the
millions of beneficial properties of the breastmilk.


> They may
> be too weak to suck. Their mothers may be unable, due
> to stress, nutritional problems etc, to provide
> sufficient breastmilk. They may need a different
> balance of nutrients for a variety of health reasons
> than breast milk can provide. They may be too
> underdeveloped to process breastmilk.

But as per the original statements, all these babies would *benefit* from
breastfeeding. If they're too weak to suck, they can be supplemented with an
eyedropper and breastmilk until they gain their ability to suck -
breastfeeding (left undisturbed) is a relationship of many years, not just
the first few days, weeks, or months. If the mothers are unable to provide
sufficient breastmilk, that's a whole 'nother problem. Obviously the mothers
should be supported to the degree that they can provide breastmilk, but if
not that still doesn't mean that the baby wouldn't benefit from it, just
that the mom can't provide it. In many cases, a donor mother can provide
breastmilk (which can even be pasteurized) - this is less rare than you'd
think. I've both donated my breastmilk (to an adopted baby) and wet nursed a
friend's baby when she was in the hospital. If breastfeeding was more
supported, these alternates would be more common.
As for babies needing a different balance of nutrients than breastmilk
provides, the baby would still benefit from breastfeeding, perhaps enhanced
by the addition of whatever else breastmilk would be "lacking". As
breastmilk contains over 400 ingredients that scientists have yet to
identify, and infant formulas contain about 20, I'd be pretty suspect of
someone claiming that a formula could provide what breastmilk could not
(unless of course in the case of those rare disorders where the baby isn't
able to process some things, or where the baby needs something specific,
like glucose drops). In any case, it's a simple matter to supplement the
baby's diet in addition to providing the breastmilk. As for a baby being
underdeveloped to process breastmilk, research in the last decade has found
that this is rarely the case. The mother's milk actually *changes*
dramatically when a baby is born prematurely and is ideally suited for the
premature infant. Scientists now realize that breastmilk is the best food,
even for preemies.

>
> The majority of babies in the NICU my son was in could
> not use breastmilk for one reason or another.

But this was 11 years ago, right? They have learned a lot about the benefits
of breastmilk for preemies in the time between then and now. Now mothers
with babies in the NICU are encouraged to pump and to put the baby to the
breast. The babies can be fed with eyedroppers or SNS (supplemental nursing
systems) to prevent nipple confusion. Every mom of a NICU baby that I've
known in the last few years has been encouraged strongly to breastfeed as
preemies need breastmilk even more than full-term babies. There is even a
book out now: "Breastfeeding Your Premature Baby".

>And
> most babies will refuse the breast once they are
> initiated on a bottle... the bottle provides faster
> service with less work.

All the more reason that hospitals and new mothers should be aware that
there are alternatives to bottle feeding for babies who need supplementing.
Droppers, cups, tube and finger feeding, and SNS are just some of the
possibilities that will not induce nipple confusion.


> But it is a sweeping generality to say that *all*
> children benefit from breast feeding in infancy. Some
> babies would die or fail to thrive from breast
> feeding, so it is not factually the case that all
> children benefit from breast feeding in infancy.


I'd say other than the genetic disease I mentioned above (in which case the
baby has a host of problems with food, not just breastmilk), *all* babies
would benefit from breastfeeding (even if it is just partial breastfeeding).
Breastmilk benefits babies in a thousand different ways, and the nutritional
aspect is just one of them. The white blood cells and disease protection,
the bonding, the suckling promoting healthy jaw development, the anti-cancer
properties of breastmilk are among the benefits that a baby would get from
breastfeeding, even *if* they were among the very rare cases that also
needed supplementing with some other nutritional additive. Typically,
babies that would die or fail to thrive would do so because of lack of
support and accurate information about breastfeeding. A lot of that has
been dispensed by the medical profession in the last few decades of
dominance by the formula companies (See the book "Milk, Money, and Madness"
for a thorough treatment of that topic).


> Need a lift back onto the soapbox?

No, thanks :-)

One of the reasons that the breastfeeding soapbox is so important is that so
much misinformation has been given about breastfeeding. The World Health
Organization estimates that a *MILLION* babies die every year around the
world from *lack* of breastfeeding, including a whopping 10,000 here in the
(supposedly modern) United States. It is vitally important that mothers
receive accurate information about breastfeeding, and support to do so.
Fortunately, scientists and medical professionals are just starting to
realize how important breastfeeding is and how in almost all circumstances
it is possible and indeed necessary. Maybe someday we will see it supported
properly. I think it is one of the most vital health issues on this planet.

Blue Skies!
-Robin-
Mom to Mackenzie (8/28/96) inventer of new and wonderful things
and Asa (10/5/99) singer of protest songs
http://www.geocities.com/the_clevengers Flying Clevenger Family

Tanya

Exactly what I wanted to say. When I read another persons post that I don't
agree with I usually look it up to make sure my opinion was correct. I found
numerous references to the same thing that you did. The only reference I
found to studies on toxins in breast milk was in Britain, but even so it was
stressed that breast feeding was best.

Tanya
>
> One of the reasons that the breastfeeding soapbox is so important is that
so
> much misinformation has been given about breastfeeding. The World Health
> Organization estimates that a *MILLION* babies die every year around the
> world from *lack* of breastfeeding, including a whopping 10,000 here in
the
> (supposedly modern) United States. It is vitally important that mothers
> receive accurate information about breastfeeding, and support to do so.
> Fortunately, scientists and medical professionals are just starting to
> realize how important breastfeeding is and how in almost all circumstances
> it is possible and indeed necessary. Maybe someday we will see it
supported
> properly. I think it is one of the most vital health issues on this
planet.

[email protected]

I totally agree with you
And thanks for a good presentation of the facts behind your "opinion"

Regina


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Eileen M.

--- DiamondAir <diamondair@...> wrote:
> > From: "Eileen M." <ravensegg@...>
> > Yes, under normal circumstances, breast milk is
> > designed for babies, and the female human breast
> is
> > designed to deliver that milk. But for many
> reasons
> > some babies do not thrive on breast milk. They
> may be
> > (as my son was) lactose intolerant *and* allergic
> to
> > milk. Their mother may be eating something to
> which
> > they are allergic.
>
>
> Right, but the mother can stop eating what they are
> allergic to. Both my
> kids are allergic to milk. Well, I haven't had any
> dairy products in a long
> time, and I sure do miss my ice cream :-) but it's
> really not that big of an
> issue.

My son was allergic to all milk, including breast
milk. I didn't take dairy while breastfeeding either
(and a lot of other things as well... I nursed him for
eighteen months in spite of his colic and problems
with breastmilk, because on balance I felt that the
immunity advantages were more important than other
concerns... his own immune system was dangerously
suppressed and needed the boost from me), and he was
still allergic to it.

All that means is that *cow's* milk is not
> beneficial to babies, not
> that mother's milk isn't. The only disease I am
> aware of that necessitates
> total weaning is Galactosemia, an extremely rare
> metabolic disorder that
> necessitates that the child be on a special diet for
> life.

The fact that you are not aware of them does not mean
that other situations do not exist.

> According to LLL:
>
> "Symptomatic hypoglycemia in newborns is largely due
> to delayed or
> inadequate feeding and is more likely to occur when
> mother and baby are
> separated after birth.

See above. My child was not separated from me, was
immediately breastfed, and nearly died of hypoglycemia
within twenty minutes of birth. Subsequent breast
feeding did not solve the problem... instead, he went
into a comatose state. Being hypoglycemic myself since
my teens I am quite aware of the glucose issues, and
of the benefit of small protein meals... we use them
quite effectively. That was simply not applicable at
the time... my child would have died on a pure
breastfeeding diet, pure and simple.

As per the rest of your arguments; I specifically said
'breastfed' for a reason. Even eleven years ago, in
ancient times, we were quite aware of the benefits of
colostrum etc. Feeding breastmilk via eyedropper etc.
is *not* breastfeeding. It is bottlefeeding (or
eyedropperfeeding) with breastmilk. For most children
there are benefits to be gained by the actual
breastfeeding process independent of the benefits of
the milk itself... but some children do *not* benefit
from that process, and that was an important part of
my example.

Generalities just do not apply universally. There are
exceptions to every rule, and rigid application of any
rule to all situations will be doomed to failure.
Generalities are useful in a *general* way, and are
necessary if we are to learn things by experience
(usually the most effective way to learn)... but they
are a 'rule of thumb' deal, not Universal Reality.

Eileen

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Annette Yunker

> According to LLL:
>
> "Symptomatic hypoglycemia in newborns is largely due
> to delayed or
> inadequate feeding and is more likely to occur when
> mother and baby are
> separated after birth.

See above. My child was not separated from me, was
immediately breastfed, and nearly died of hypoglycemia
within twenty minutes of birth. Subsequent breast
feeding did not solve the problem... instead, he went
into a comatose state. Being hypoglycemic myself since
my teens I am quite aware of the glucose issues, and
of the benefit of small protein meals... we use them
quite effectively.

Eileen,

My three children and I are hypoglycemic (largely due to hyperinsulinemia). We became severely ill, run-down, hyperacidic, et on frequent protein snacks, as these are acid-producing either in and of themselves or as a by-product of digestion. We now take green barley juice which neutralizes the blood sugar instantaneously, provides chlorophyll, 92 vitamins and minerals and live enzymes. When taken before bed it also alkalizes the bloodstream. We have benefited greatly from this. My oldest daughter and I will drink it (comes in a powder) with plain water, but the other 2 have a small amount of juice mixed in.

My girls and I have severe mood swings with the plunging blood sugar - I have followed with interest the spanking thread. I have always maintained that when "normal" interaction with children does not have the "normal" or customary result, there is usually something else going on, and the customary measures will not work in these situations. Those who do not have extraordinary children often do not understand why the routine measures they take with great success will not work for everybody else.

Annette


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Eileen M.

My thanks to you on several counts for this post!

--- Annette Yunker <amyunker@...> wrote:
>
> My three children and I are hypoglycemic (largely
> due to hyperinsulinemia). We became severely ill,
> run-down, hyperacidic, et on frequent protein
> snacks, as these are acid-producing either in and of
> themselves or as a by-product of digestion.

I have had this problem, as well, and felt really torn
between a rock and a hard place about it... on the one
hand, even a diet moderate in complex carbs causes
weight gain and glucose problems, but I am also having
a lot of acidity-linked problems. I was not aware
that the green barley juice would alleviate the
problem. What brands do you use, and how much?

I have always maintained that
> when "normal" interaction with children does not
> have the "normal" or customary result, there is
> usually something else going on, and the customary
> measures will not work in these situations. Those
> who do not have extraordinary children often do not
> understand why the routine measures they take with
> great success will not work for everybody else.

I think that this is true. I think it is hard for
people with 'normal' kids to understand that tactics
have to be changed for a child whose reactions to
normal stimuli are counter-intuitive. Finding a way
to convey love to a baby or child who hates to be
cuddled or touched at all is a challenge most people
would have trouble even imagining. These sorts of
differences can have a global effect on family
interactions difficult to comprehend from the outside;
most friends we know with 'special' kids find
themselves the target of well meaning 'advice' that
borders on abuse with fair regularity.

Thanks for your thoughts on these issues!

Eileen

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/9/01 10:37:59, diamondair@... writes:

<< The only disease I am aware of that necessitates
total weaning is Galactosemia, an extremely rare metabolic disorder that
necessitates that the child be on a special diet for life. >>

Babies can still nurse with galactosemia depending on the severity. Kimme

Lynda

This is an observation, not a flame. This thread is exactly how "wars"
start on lists.

No one said that breast feeding wasn't best, simply that it is not always
best. The thread started out about making all encompassing general
statements, ie. I and others stated that there are always excepts. Folks
then got on their soapboxes or high horses or whatever and have gone into
battle waving the LLL flag to defend the merits of breast feeding. No one
is disputing that breast feeding in an ideal world is best.

But (now ain't there always a "but" <g>), there are no absolutes except that
life is terminal. 100% of the women in the world cannot successfully
breastfeed whether they have a proper diet and all the support in the world
or not. 100% of the babies born do not thrive on breastmilk. There are
exceptions to every rule including breastfeeding. No one was denegrading
breastfeeding.

I mean, look at what has been printed in rabid defense of breastfeeding,
"estimates that," "usually," "most women can," "in almost all circumstances"
and the list goes one. The examples given, including LLL quotes were
qualified. That was the point.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tanya" <tanyab2@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Breastfeeding and Generalities


> Exactly what I wanted to say. When I read another persons post that I
don't
> agree with I usually look it up to make sure my opinion was correct. I
found
> numerous references to the same thing that you did. The only reference I
> found to studies on toxins in breast milk was in Britain, but even so it
was
> stressed that breast feeding was best.
>
> Tanya
> >
> > One of the reasons that the breastfeeding soapbox is so important is
that
> so
> > much misinformation has been given about breastfeeding. The World Health
> > Organization estimates that a *MILLION* babies die every year around the
> > world from *lack* of breastfeeding, including a whopping 10,000 here in
> the
> > (supposedly modern) United States. It is vitally important that mothers
> > receive accurate information about breastfeeding, and support to do so.
> > Fortunately, scientists and medical professionals are just starting to
> > realize how important breastfeeding is and how in almost all
circumstances
> > it is possible and indeed necessary. Maybe someday we will see it
> supported
> > properly. I think it is one of the most vital health issues on this
> planet.
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>