Showing posts with label breastfeeding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breastfeeding. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Nursing a Toddler

A couple of months ago I was all set to wean Joseph. We were down to nursing only in the morning, and he didn't seem overly interested. I figured if I just woke up with him it'd be all over. Then he started waking at 5:30am, so I aborted that in favor of side-lying nursing (and an extra 45-60min of rest).

It had been on my mind a lot recently, whether to wean or push on. I liked the idea of nursing through flu season (he's getting immunological benefits among others) but was also interested in having my body back. Recently, though, I've felt like we're really needing more connection time. He's definitely entering the "terrible two's", complete with whining, crying, whining, tantrums, whining... did I mention whining? He's also started having night terrors at night (poor baby) and wakes up from naps quite grouchy and out of sorts most days.

After talking to my LLL group today, I decided to initiate more nursing sessions again, instead of weaning. I offered after his nap today, and he was SO happy! He latched on and nursed away. Since it was light out (unlike our morning session), and I was awake and happy (unlike our morning session), we could actually see each others' faces and spend time bonding. He was smiling and giggling, and so was I. It was the most connected I've felt to him in a long time. It's such a special way of bonding that we just don't get other ways right now, as his speech is limited and he spends more and more time away from me doing his own thing.

It made me really happy with the choice to stick it out.

I love how life ebbs and flows, and nursing your baby or toddler can ebb and flow, too. It's such a great tool to have in the parenting tool kit.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Weaning Gradually and With Love

I've been meaning to write on this topic for a while. Periodically it comes up that Joseph is still nursing. We are certainly in the "weaning" phase now, but I hate to describe it that way lest it comes off as me forcing it.

The term "child led weaning" actually relates to the idea that you let kids start eating solid foods at their own rate, using large pieces of food rather than purees. I never really got the reason that they called it "weaning" but it's become clear to me over the last couple of months that with the first bite of solid food a child has, the weaning process begins.

Weaning is not a linear thing. Sickness, teething, emotional and physical changes - they all contribute to the amount of nursing that you will do if you nurse "on demand" like we do. La Leche League advocates "weaning gradually and with love", and I think that's a great way to do it. We went through a period when Joseph was about 14 months old where I lost 5 pounds because he'd picked up so much. Oh, the good old days. Ha!

But in the last month or two, we've really been cutting back. First we dropped the morning and afternoon sessions that didn't coincide with naps and bedtimes. Then I tried skipping the bedtime session and he didn't miss it. Next was the naptime session. Right now, we're down to nursing in the morning when he wakes up (it buys me an entire hour at 5am) and periodically in the morning or afternoon if he's feeling a little anxious (usually during play group).

I have mixed feelings about it, but mostly I'm ready to be done. I didn't really have an end goal in mind at first, but then as we hit a year I figured it'd make sense to nurse to 2 years so that he could get the immune system benefits through the winter. I don't think we're going to do that at this point, though. I have no plan to force him to stop nursing, but I have a feeling that if I just woke up with him and gave him a cup of milk he'd drop the morning session without issue as well.

We have started to enjoy other means of being close - lots of book reading, cuddles, and kisses. I'm not worried about being able to connect with him. In fact, it'll be neat to be able to connect in ways he never let me before, as he preferred nursing to those other activities with me!

The point of this post is that there is no "right" time to wean. Following the cue of your child, and (also important) your own wishes, you'll find the time that's right for you and your child.

Friday, August 6, 2010

World Breastfeeding Week, Part 3

And, to round things out, a simply WONDERFUL article I found on facebook that explains a few of the non-obvious benefits of breastfeeding from an anthropological point of view.

Did you know that anthropological views are my favorite when it comes to babies? They are.

What is a normal, term human infant supposed to do?

First of all, a human baby is supposed to be born vaginally. Yes, I know that doesn't always happen, but we're just going to talk ideal, normal for now. We are supposed to be born vaginally because we need good bacteria. Human babies are sterile, without bacteria, at birth. It's no accident that we are born near the anus, an area that has lots of bacteria, most of which are good and necessary for normal gut health and development of the immune system. And the bacteria that are there are mom's bacteria, bacteria that she can provide antibodies against if the bacteria there aren't nice.

Then the baby is born and is supposed to go to mom. Right to her chest. The chest, right in between the breasts is the natural habitat of the newborn baby. (Fun factoid: our cardiac output, how much blood we circulate in a given minute, is distributed to places that are important. Lots goes to the kidney every minute, like 10% or so, and 20% goes to your brain. In a new mom, 23% goes to her chest- more than her brain. The body thinks that place is important!)

That chest area gives heat. The baby has been using mom's body for temperature regulation for ages. Why would they stop? With all that blood flow, it's going to be warm. The baby can use mom to get warm. When I was in my residency, we would put a cold baby "under the warmer" which meant a heater thingy next to mom. Now, as I have matured, if a baby is "under the warmer," the kid is under mom. I wouldn't like that. I like the kids on top of mom, snuggled.

Now we have a brand new baby on the warmer. That child is not hungry. Bringing a hungry baby into the world is a bad plan. And really, if they were hungry, can you please explain to me why my kids sucked the life force out of me in those last few weeks of pregnancy? They better have been getting food, or well, that would have been annoying and painful for nothing.

Every species has instinctual behaviors that allow the little ones to grow up to be big ones and keep the species going. Our kids are born into the world needing protection. Protection from disease and from predators. Yes, predators. Our kids don't know they've been born into a loving family in the 21st century- for all they know it's the 2nd century and they are in a cave surrounded by tigers. Our instinctive behaviors as baby humans need to help us stay protected. Babies get both disease protection and tiger protection from being on mom's chest. Presumably, we gave the baby some good bacteria when they arrived through the birth canal. That's the first step in disease protection. The next step is getting colostrum.

A newborn baby on mom's chest will pick their head up, lick their hands, maybe nuzzle mom, lick their hands and start to slide towards the breast. The kids have a preference for contrasts between light and dark, and for circles over other shapes. Think about that...there's a dark circle not too far away.

Mom's sweat smells like amniotic fluid, and that smell is on the child's hands (because there's been no bath yet!) and the baby uses that taste on their hand to follow mom's smell. The secretions coming from the glands on the areola (that dark circle) smell familiar too and help the baby get to the breast to get the colostrum which is going to feed the good bacteria and keep them protected from infection. The kids can attach by themselves. Watch for yourself! And if you just need colostrum to feed bacteria and not yourself, well, there doesn't have to be much. And there isn't because the kids aren't hungry and because Breastmilk is not food!

We're talking normal babies. Breastfeeding is normal. It's what babies are hardwired to do. 2009 or 209, the kids would all do the same thing: try to find the breast. Breastfeeding isn't special sauce, a leg up or a magic potion. It's not "best. " It's normal. Just normal. Designed for the needs of a vulnerable human infant. And nothing else designed to replace it is normal.

Colostrum also activates things in the baby's gut that then goes on to make the thymus grow. The thymus is part of the immune system. Growing your thymus is important. Breastmilk= big thymus, good immune system. Colostrum also has a bunch of something called Secretory Immunoglobulin A (SIgA). SIgA is made in the first few days of life and is infection protection specifically from mom. Cells in mom's gut watch what's coming through and if there's an infectious cell, a special cell in mom's gut called a plasma cell heads to the breast and helps the breast make SIgA in the milk to protect the baby. If mom and baby are together, like on mom's chest, then the baby is protected from what the two of them may be exposed to. Babies should be with mom.

And the tigers. What about them? Define "tiger" however you want. But if you are baby with no skills in self-protection, staying with mom, having a grasp reflex, and a startle reflex that helps you grab onto your mom, especially if she's hairy, makes sense. Babies know the difference between a bassinette and a human chest. When infants are separated from their mothers, they have a "despair- withdrawal" response. The despair part comes when they alone, separated. The kids are vocally expressing their desire not to be tiger food. When they are picked up, they stop crying. They are protected, warm and safe. If that despair cry is not answered, they withdraw. They get cold, have massive amounts of stress hormones released, drop their heart rate and get quiet. That's not a good baby. That's one who, well, is beyond despair. Normal babies want to be held, all the time.

And when do tigers hunt? At night. It makes no sense at all for our kids to sleep at night. They may be eaten. There's nothing really all that great about kids sleeping through the night. They should wake up and find their body guard. Daytime, well, not so many threats. They sleep better during the day. (Think about our response to our tigers-- sleep problems are a huge part of stress, depression, anxiety).

And sleep... My guess is everybody sleeps with their kids- whether they choose to or not and whether they admit to it or not. It's silly of us as healthcare providers to say "don't sleep with your baby" because we all do it. Sometimes accidentally. Sometimes intentionally. The kids are snuggly, it feels right and you are tired. So, normal babies breastfeed, stay at the breast, want to be held and sleep better when they are with their parents. Seems normal to me. But there is a difference between a normal baby and one that isn't. Safe sleep means that we are sober, in bed and not a couch or a recliner, breastfeeding, not smoking...being normal. If the circumstances are not normal, then sleeping with the baby is not safe.

That chest -to -chest contact is also brain development. Our kids had as many brain cells as they were ever going to have at 28 weeks of gestation. It's a jungle of waiting -to-be- connected cells. What we do as humans is create too much and then get rid of what we aren't using. We have like 8 nipples, a tail and webbed hands in the womb. If all goes well, we don't have those at birth. Create too much- get rid of what you aren't using. So, as you are snuggling, your child is hooking up happy brain cells and hopefully getting rid of the "eeeek" brain cells. Breastfeeding, skin-to-skin, is brain wiring. Not food.

Why go on and on about this? Because more and more mothers are choosing to breastfeed. But most women don't believe that the body that created that beautiful baby is capable of feeding that same child and we are supplementing more and more with infant formulas designed to be food. Why don't we trust our bodies post-partum? I don't know. But I hear over and over that the formula is because "I am just not satisfying him." Of course you are. Babies don't need to "eat" all the time- they need to be with you all the time- that's the ultimate satisfaction.

A baby at the breast is getting their immune system developed, activating their thymus, staying warm, feeling safe from predators, having normal sleep patterns and wiring their brain, and (oh by the way) getting some food in the process. They are not "hungry" --they are obeying instinct. The instinct that allows us to survive and make more of us.

Dr. Thomas

Thursday, August 5, 2010

World Breastfeeding Week, Part 2

For my 2nd article, I present a New York Times piece from this week. I love me some good scientific studies that are presented in lay-person terms! I'm not a PhD dropout for nothin'! If you don't want to read it, at least skim down to the last paragraph - it's funny!

Breast Milk Sugars Give Infants a Protective Coat

A large part of human milk cannot be digested by babies and seems to have a purpose quite different from infant nutrition — that of influencing the composition of the bacteria in the infant’s gut.

The details of this three-way relationship between mother, child and gut microbes are being worked out by three researchers at the University of California, Davis — Bruce German, Carlito Lebrilla and David Mills. They and colleagues have found that a particular strain of bacterium, a subspecies of Bifidobacterium longum, possesses a special suite of genes that enable it to thrive on the indigestible component of milk.

This subspecies is commonly found in the feces of breast-fed infants. It coats the lining of the infant’s intestine, protecting it from noxious bacteria.

Infants presumably acquire the special strain of bifido from their mothers, but strangely, it has not yet been detected in adults. “We’re all wondering where it hides out,” Dr. Mills said.

The indigestible substance that favors the bifido bacterium is a slew of complex sugars derived from lactose, the principal component of milk. The complex sugars consist of a lactose molecule on to which chains of other sugar units have been added. The human genome does not contain the necessary genes to break down the complex sugars, but the bifido subspecies does, the researchers say in a review of their progress in today’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The complex sugars were long thought to have no biological significance, even though they constitute up to 21 percent of milk. Besides promoting growth of the bifido strain, they also serve as decoys for noxious bacteria that might attack the infant’s intestines. The sugars are very similar to those found on the surface of human cells, and are constructed in the breast by the same enzymes. Many toxic bacteria and viruses bind to human cells by docking with the surface sugars. But they will bind to the complex sugars in milk instead. “We think mothers have evolved to let this stuff flush through the infant,” Dr. Mills said.

Dr. German sees milk as “an astonishing product of evolution,” one which has been vigorously shaped by natural selection because it is so critical to the survival of both mother and child. “Everything in milk costs the mother — she is literally dissolving her own tissues to make it,” he said. From the infant’s perspective, it is born into a world full of hostile microbes, with an untrained immune system and lacking the caustic stomach acid which in adults kills most bacteria. Any element in milk that protects the infant will be heavily favored by natural selection.

“We were astonished that milk had so much material that the infant couldn’t digest,” Dr. German said. “Finding that it selectively stimulates the growth of specific bacteria, which are in turn protective of the infant, let us see the genius of the strategy — mothers are recruiting another life-form to baby-sit their baby.”

Dr. German and his colleagues are trying to “deconstruct” milk, on the theory that the fluid has been shaped by 200 million years of mammalian evolution and holds a wealth of information about how best to feed and defend the human body. Though milk itself is designed for infants, its lessons may apply to adults.

The complex sugars, for instance, are evidently a way of influencing the gut microflora, so they might in principle be used to help premature babies, or those born by caesarean, who do not immediately acquire the bifido strain. It has long been thought there was no source of the sugars other than human milk, but they have recently been detected in whey, a waste byproduct of cheesemaking. The three researchers plan to test the complex sugars for benefit in premature infants and in the elderly.

The proteins in milk also have special roles. One, called Alpha-lactalbumin, can attack tumor cells and those infected by viruses by restoring their lost ability to commit cell suicide. The protein, which accumulates when an infant is weaned, is also the signal for the breast to remodel itself back to normal state.

Such findings have made the three researchers keenly aware that every component of milk probably has a special role. “It’s all there for a purpose, though we’re still figuring out what that purpose is,” Dr. Mills said. “So for God’s sake, please breast-feed.”

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

World Breastfeeding Week, Part 1



Breastfeeding week is upon us! Even though I don't talk about it much here anymore, I'm still a total lactivist. I attended my La Leche League meeting this morning, like I do a couple of times per month, and I really enjoy the camaraderie and support I get from the women there.

I've run across a few great articles about breastfeeding, and I'd like to share them with you over the next few days. I'll start with my *most favorite* of all time, an article by Diane Weissinger, MS, IBCLC.

Watch Your Language!
By Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC
(Reprinted from the Journal of Human Lactation, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996)

"The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete, and inferior. These are difficult words, but they have an appropriate place in our vocabulary."

The lactation consultant says, "You have the best chance to provide your baby with the best possible start in life, through the special bond of breastfeeding. The wonderful advantages to you and your baby will last a lifetime." And then the mother bottlefeeds. Why?

In part because that sales pitch could just as easily have come from a commercial baby milk pamphlet. When our phrasing and that of the baby milk industry are interchangeable, one of us is going about it wrong...and it probably isn't the multinationals. Here is some of the language that I think subverts our good intentions every time we use it.

Best possible, ideal, optimal, perfect. Are you the best possible parent? Is your home life ideal? Do you provide optimal meals? Of course not. Those are admirable goals, not minimum standards. Let's rephrase. Is your parenting inadequate? Is your home life subnormal? Do you provide deficient meals? Now it hurts. You may not expect to be far above normal, but you certainly don't want to be below normal.

When we (and the artificial milk manufacturers) say that breastfeeding is the best possible way to feed babies because it provides their ideal food, perfectly balanced for optimal infant nutrition, the logical response is, "So what?" Our own experience tells us that optimal is not necessary. Normal is fine, and implied in this language is the absolute normalcy--and thus safety and adequacy--of artificial feeding. The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete, and inferior. Those are difficult words, but they have an appropriate place in our vocabulary.

Advantages. When we talk about the advantages of breastfeeding--the "lower rates" of cancer, the "reduced risk" of allergies, the "enhanced" bonding, the "stronger" immune system--we reinforce bottlefeeding yet again as the accepted, acceptable norm.

Health comparisons use a biological, not cultural, norm, whether the deviation is harmful or helpful. Smokers have higher rates of illness; increasing prenatal folic acid may reduce fetal defects. Because breastfeeding is the biological norm, breastfed babies are not "healthier;" artificially-fed babies are ill more often and more seriously. Breastfed babies do not "smell better;" artificial feeding results in an abnormal and unpleasant odor that reflects problems in an infant's gut. We cannot expect to create a breastfeeding culture if we do not insist on a breastfeeding model of health in both our language and our literature.

We must not let inverted phrasing by the media and by our peers go unchallenged. When we fail to describe the hazards of artificial feeding, we deprive mothers of crucial decision-making information. The mother having difficulty with breastfeeding may not seek help just to achieve a "special bonus;" but she may clamor for help if she knows how much she and her baby stand to lose. She is less likely to use artificial milk just "to get him used to a bottle" if she knows that the contents of that bottle cause harm.

Nowhere is the comfortable illusion of bottlefed normalcy more carefully preserved than in discussions of cognitive development. When I ask groups of health professionals if they are familiar with the study on parental smoking and IQ (1), someone always tells me that the children of smoking mothers had "lower IQs." When I ask about the study of premature infants fed either human milk or artificial milk (2), someone always knows that the breastmilk-fed babies were "smarter." I have never seen either study presented any other way by the media--or even by the authors themselves. Even health professionals are shocked when I rephrase the results using breastfeeding as the norm: the artificially-fed children, like children of smokers, had lower IQs.

Inverting reality becomes even more misleading when we use percentages, because the numbers change depending on what we choose as our standard. If B is 3/4 of A, then a is 4/3 of B. Choose A as the standard, and B is 25% less. Choose B as the standard, and A is 33 1/3% more. Thus, if an item costing 100 units is put on sale for "25% less,"the price becomes 75. When the sale is over, and the item is marked back up, it must be marked up 33 1/3% to get the price up to 100. Those same figures appear in a recent study (3), which found a "25% decrease" in breast cancer rates among women who were breastfed as infants. Restated using breastfed health as the norm, there was a 33-1/3% increase in breast cancer rates among women who were artificially fed. Imagine the different impact those two statements would have on the public.

Special. "Breastfeeding is a special relationship." "Set up a special nursing corner." In or family, special meals take extra time. Special occasions mean extra work. Special is nice, but it is complicated, it is not an ongoing part of life, and it is not something we want to do very often. For most women, nursing must fit easily into a busy life--and, of course, it does. "Special" is weaning advice, not breastfeeding advice.

Breastfeeding is best; artificial milk is second best. Not according to the World Health Organization. Its hierarchy is: 1) breastfeeding; 2) the mother's own milk expressed and given to her child some other way; 3) the milk of another human mother; and 4) artificial milk feeds (4). We need to keep this clear in our own minds and make it clear to others. "The next best thing to mother herself" comes from a breast, not from a can. The free sample perched so enticingly on the shelf at the doctor's office is only the fourth best solution to breastfeeding problems.

There is a need for standard formula in some situations. Only because we do not have human milk banks. The person who needs additional blood does not turn to a fourth-rate substitute; there are blood banks that provide human blood for human beings. He does not need to have a special illness to qualify. All he needs is a personal shortage of blood. Yet only those infants who cannot tolerate fourth best are privileged enough to receive third best. I wonder what will happen when a relatively inexpensive commercial blood is designed that carries a substantially higher health risk than donor blood. Who will be considered unimportant enough to receive it? When we find ourselves using artificial milk with a client, let's remind her and her health care providers that banked human milk ought to be available. Milk banks are more likely to become part of our culture if they first become part of our language.

We do not want to make bottlefeeding mothers feel guilty. Guilt is a concept that many women embrace automatically, even when they know that circumstances are truly beyond their control. (My mother has been known to apologize for the weather.)

Women's (nearly) automatic assumption of guilt is evident in their responses to this scenario: Suppose you have taken a class in aerodynamics. You have also seen pilots fly planes. Now, imagine that you are the passenger in a two-seat plane. The pilot has a heart attack, and it is up to you to fly the plane. You crash. Do you feel guilty?

The males I asked responded, "No. Knowing about aerodynamics doesn't mean you can fly an airplane." "No, because I would have done my best." "No. I might feel really bad about the plane and pilot, but I wouldn't feel guilty." "No. Planes are complicated to fly, even if you've seen someone do it."

What did the females say? "I wouldn't feel guilty about the plane, but I might about the pilot because there was a slight chance that I could have managed to land that plane." "Yes, because I'm very hard on myself about my mistakes. Feeling bad and feeling guilty are all mixed up for me." "Yes, I mean, of course. I know I shouldn't, but I probably would." "Did I kill someone else? If I didn't kill anyone else, then I don't feel guilty." Note the phrases "my mistakes," "I know I shouldn't," and "Did I kill anyone?" for an event over which these women would have had no control!

The mother who opts not to breastfeed, or who does not do so as long as she planned, is doing the best she can with the resources at hand. Shemay have had the standard "breast is best" spiel (the course in aerodynamics) and she may have seen a few mothers nursing at the mall (like watching the pilot on the plane's overhead screen). That is clearly not enough information or training. But she may still feel guilty. She's female.

Most of us have seen well-informed mothers struggle unsuccessfully to establish breastfeeding, and turn to bottlefeeding with a sense of acceptance because they know they did their best. And we have seen less well-informed mothers later rage against a system that did not give them the resources they later discovered they needed. Help a mother who says she feels guilty to analyze her feelings, and you may uncover a very different emotion. Someone long ago handed these mothers the word "guilt." It is the wrong word.

Try this on: You have been crippled in a serious accident. Your physicians and physical therapists explain that learning to walk again would involve months of extremely painful and difficult work with no guarantee of success. They help you adjust to life in a wheelchair, and support you through the difficulties that result. Twenty years later, when your legs have withered beyond all hope, you meet someone whose accident matched your own. "It was difficult," she says. "It was three months of sheer hell. But I've been walking every since." Would you feel guilty?

Women to whom I posed this scenario told me they would feel angry, betrayed, cheated. They would wish they could do it over with better information. They would feel regret for opportunities lost. Some of the women said they would feel guilty for not having sought out more opinions, for not having persevered in the absence of information and support. But gender-engendered guilt aside, we do not feel guilty about having been deprived of a pleasure. The mother who does not breastfeed impairs her own health, increases the difficulty and expense of infant and child rearing, an dismisses one of life's most delightful relationships. She has lost something basic to her own well-being. What image of the satisfactions of breastfeeding do we convey when we use the word "guilt"?

Let's rephrase, using the words women themselves gave me: "We don't want to make bottlefeeding mothers feel angry. We don't want to make them feel betrayed. We don't want to make them feel cheated." Peel back the layered implications of "we don't want to make them feel guilty," and you will find a system trying to cover its own tracks. It is not trying to protect her. It is trying to protect itself. Let's level with mothers, support them when breastfeeding doesn't work, and help them move beyond this inaccurate and ineffective word.

Pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages. Breastfeeding is a straight-forward health issue, not one of two equivlent choices. "One disadvantage of not smoking is that you are more likely to find secondhand smoke annoying. One advantage of smoking is that it can contribute to weight loss." The real issue is differential morbidity and mortality. The rest--whether we are talking about tobacco or commercial baby milks--is just smoke.

One maternity center uses a "balanced" approach on an "infant feeding preference card" (5) that lists odorless stools and a return of the uterus to its normal size on the five lines of breastfeeding advantages. (Does this mean the bottlefeeding mother's uterus never returns to normal?) Leaking breasts and an inability to see how much the baby is getting are included on the four lines of disadvantages. A formula-feeding advantage is that some mothers find it "less inhibiting and embarrassing." The maternity facility reported good acceptance by the pediatric medical staff and no marked change in the rates of breastfeeding or bottlefeeding. That is not surprising. The information is not substantially different from the "balanced" lists that the artificial milk salesmen have peddled for years. It is probably an even better sales pitch because it now carries very clear hospital endorsement. "Fully informed," the mother now feels confident making a life-long health decision based on relative diaper smells and the amount of skin that shows during feedings.

Why do the commercial baby milk companies offer pro and con lists that acknowledge some of their product's shortcomings? Because any "balanced" approach that is presented in a heavily biased culture automatically supports the bias. If A and B are nearly equivalent, and if more than 90% of mothers ultimately choose B, as mothers in the United States do (according to an unpublished 1992 Mothers' Survey by Ross Laboratories that indicated fewer than 10% of U.S. mothers nursing at a year), it makes sense to follow the majority. If there were an important difference, surely the health profession would make a point of not staying out of the decision-making process.

It is the parents' choice to make. True. But deliberately stepping out of the process implies that the "balanced" list was accurate. In a recent issue of Parenting magazine, a pediatrician comments, "When I first visit a new mother in the hospital, I ask, 'Are you breastfeeding or bottlefeeding?' If she says she is going to bottlefeed, I nod and move on to my next questions. Supporting new parents means supporting them in whatever choices they make; you don't march in postpartum and tell someone she's making a terrible mistake, depriving herself and her child." (6)

Yet if a woman announced to her doctor, midway through a routine physical examination, that she took up smoking a few days earlier, the physician would make sure she understood the hazards, reasoning that now was the easiest time for her to change her mind. It is hypocritical and irresponsible to take a clear position on smoking and "let parents decide" about breastfeeding without first making sure of their information base. Life choices are always the individual's to make. That does not mean his or her information sources should be mute, nor that the parents who opt for bottlefeeding should be denied information that might prompt a different decision with a subsequent child.

Breastfeeding. Most other mammals never even see their own milk, and I doubt that any other mammalian mother deliberately "feeds" her young by basing her nursing intervals on what she infers the baby's hunger level to be. Nursing quiets her young and no doubt feels good. We are the only mammal that consciously uses nursing to transfer calories...and we're the only mammal that has chronic trouble making that transfer.

Women may say they "breastfed" for three months, but they usually say they "nursed" for three years. Easy, long-term breastfeeding involves forgetting about the "breast" and the "feeding" (and the duration, and the interval, and the transmission of the right nutrients in the right amounts, and the difference between nutritive and non-nutritive suckling needs, all of which form the focus of artificial milk pamphlets) and focusing instead on the relationship. Let's all tell mothers that we hope they won't "breastfeed"--that the real joys and satisfactions of the experience begin when they stop "breastfeeding" and start mothering at the breast.

All of us within the profession want breastfeeding to be our biological reference point. We want it to be the cultural norm; we want human milk to be made available to all human babies, regardless of other circumstances. A vital first step toward achieving those goals is within immediate reach of every one of us. All we have to do is...watch our language.

References

  1. Olds D. L., Henderson, C. R. Tatelbaum, R.: Intellectual impairment in children of women who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy. Pediatrics 1994; 93:221-27.
  2. Lucas, A., Morley, R., Cole, T.J., Lister, G., Leeson-Payne, C.: Breast milk and subsequent intelligence quotient in children born preterm. Lancet 1992; 339 (8788): 261-64.
  3. Fruedenheim, J.L., Graham, S., Laughlin, R., Vena, J.E., Bandera, E., et al: Exposure to breastmilk in infancy and the risk of breast cancer. Epidemiology 1994, 5:324-30.
  4. UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO: Facts for Life: A Communication Challenge. New York: UNICEF 1989; p. 20.
  5. Bowles, B.B., Leache, J., Starr, S., Foster, M.: Infant feeding preferences card. J Hum Lact 1993; 9: 256-58.
  6. Klass, P.: Decent exposure. Parenting (May) 1994; 98-104.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Very Crafty Mama

No commentary necessary!

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Lactivism Alert!

Here's a wonderful article on breastfeeding in America. Read it. It's long, but worth it. It's so, so true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-bartick/ipeaceful-revolutioni-mot_b_536659.html

Since this month's publication of my paper "The Burden of Suboptimal Breastfeeding in the United States" in Pediatrics with Arnold Reinhold, I'm often asked by reporters what the US can do better to improve our breastfeeding rates. I've also gotten quite a few comments asking if this research just makes moms feel guilty if they couldn't breastfeed.

The answers to both these queries are intimately related, and are best illustrated by the following Tale of Two Births. As you will see, if you compare what should happen when a woman gives birth, versus what actually happens, you can appreciate how tough it can be for US women to breastfeed, but how much easier it could be if only things were a little different around here.

Birth number 1: Having a baby in the ideal, family-friendly United States:

You give birth with the help of a birth doula. She helps you avoid a c-section or vacuum assisted birth, which is why your hospital hired her. Your baby is wiped off, then put directly onto your chest, skin to skin, with his head between your breasts. The nurse puts a blanket around you both, and then your partner cuts the cord. The nurse evaluates his initial transition to life outside the womb as he rests on your chest. As you lay semi-reclining, happy and exhausted, your baby uses his arms and legs to crawl over to your breast and he starts nursing. You and your partner are left undisturbed for an hour to enjoy your new baby, who has now imprinted the proper breastfeeding behaviors thanks to this initial breastfeeding. You are then transported to your post-partum room with your baby on your chest.

The nurse returns and weighs, measures, and examines your baby right there in your room. You are with him as she gives him his vitamin K shot and antibiotic eye ointment. Your baby is handed back to you, and again placed on your chest skin to skin. He stays in your room with you until you go home. From your prenatal class, you knew in advance to ask most of your visitors wait until you go home, so that you can get some rest, and you turn the ringer off your phone, so that no phone calls will wake you. Before you leave the hospital, your baby's routine heel-stick blood test is done while he is nursing, and you are amazed to see he doesn't cry at all. You are discharged with clear instructions around breastfeeding, and phone numbers to call if you need help. You are not given samples and "gifts" from a formula company.

Two days later, you see your pediatrician, who is a little concerned about the baby's weight, but your baby otherwise looks healthy. He quickly refers you to a licensed International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, and all you pay is your standard co-pay. She does a careful assessment and advises increasing the frequency of nursing for a few days, and that does the trick.

You enjoy three months paid maternity leave, at 80% of your usual pay. Your baby sleeps within arm's reach of you, and because you taught yourself how to breastfeed lying down in the dark, you awake fairly refreshed every morning.

When you return to work, your employer allows you flex time. Your employer has a policy that allows new parents to bring their infants to work, so often you bring your baby with you. As in other companies with such policies, your coworkers enjoy having a baby around, and you feel happy, calm, and productive.

When your baby gets more active, you put him in the daycare near your worksite so you can nurse him during lunch, and you can pump milk in the lactation room at work. You bought a nice pump with your insurance's Durable Medical Equipment allowance. After 6 months, you introduce solids. A few months later, you really don't need to pump any more and you and your baby enjoy breastfeeding for another year. Your baby is so healthy that you've never had to miss a full day of work.

Does that sound like your birth experience, or does this?

Birth number 2: Having a baby in the real United States:

Your give birth to a healthy baby, and you've never heard of a birth doula. The umbilical cord is clamped and cut before anyone can say, "It's a boy!" Immediately, your baby is whisked across the room to the warmer where Apgar scores are assigned, he's given a shot of Vitamin K, and antibiotic eye ointment is slathered in his eyes, clouding his vision. He's placed on a cold scale and weighed and measured. He is examined by his nurse, who takes him to a different room to do her evaluation. He is bathed, washing off his mother's scent. At last, he's professionally swaddled into a nice tight parcel and handed to you to hold, cradled sideways in your arms.

He's not skin to skin, and he can't move his arms and legs to crawl to the breast. Before you know it, an hour has passed since his birth, and since he's missed the window of "alert time" after birth, he slips into a deep sleep without having spontaneously breastfeed. You attempt to interest him in the breast, but he is really too tired to try very hard. Because he's wrapped up and has been given a bath, he can't use his sense of touch and smell to crawl his way over to find your breast. You don't know enough to unwrap him and feed him immediately after birth, because your prenatal class didn't stress the importance of skin to skin contact during the first 3 days of life. That was all discussed in a separate breastfeeding class and you didn't really have time or money to take two classes.

Just as you're getting to know your new bundle of joy, the staff decides to check his temperature and his blood sugar. His glucose level is 45 -- normal for a newborn, but low for an adult. His temperature is a little low, too -- all that time in the bath, the cold scale, the swaddling, and the time away from his mom's body heat has led to hypothermia.

Hypothermia and hypoglycemia can be signs of a serious infection, so immediately he is taken from your arms down to the nursery, where he gets what's known as a sepsis evaluation. Lying under a warmer down the hall from you, he gets his blood drawn, and then is left in his bassinet in the nursery to be observed for a few hours so you can't spend time with him as you recover from giving birth. He gets a 2 ounce bottle of formula, most of which he vomits, since the stomach of a five-hour-old baby is no bigger than a teaspoon, the perfect size to digest the colostrum your breast secretes for him in the first few days.

Finally, your baby's brought back to you, swaddled in a nice package. He's more alert, but never imprinted breastfeeding very well, and he's very stressed from all the day's events. He might be full from the formula he's given, and doesn't breastfeed well. He tries later in the day. The nurses try to help you, but it feels like they all give you different advice, much of it conflicting. Little do you know, their advice is based on their personal experiences rather than any scientific evidence because they haven't had much training in breastfeeding. You don't know what to believe. Finally, your baby goes to the nursery for the night "so you can sleep," and he is brought in for you to feed him. He doesn't like it in the nursery, so he cries, and you don't get much sleep either.

You have some pain when he latches on, and you're told that's normal. You're so excited about his birth that you talk to everyone by phone, and lots of people come to visit. They pass him around. Maybe someone wants to give him a bottle, and you figure, ok, why not. He's chewing on his fist, but no one ever told you that means he's hungry, so you give him a hospital-issued pacifier to suck on instead of his hand. You don't know that giving formula and pacifiers in the hospital will undermine your efforts to breastfeed. It's surprising the nursing staff doesn't inform you of this, and you didn't learn it in your prenatal class. You're too embarrassed to feed him with everyone there. Finally, your guests leave, but by this time, your baby's frantic, and nursing doesn't go well as a result.

Overnight, as he stays in the nursery, he gets weighed, and he's lost more weight than he should have. The doctor says it's because your milk isn't in yet, and recommends more bottles. He still sucks happily on a pacifier and sleeps in the nursery despite his alarming weight loss, and no one suggests that you nurse him more often, room in with him, get rid of the pacifier, or see a lactation consultant, all of which would help put him back on track with breastfeeding.

An hour before you're due to go home, the lactation consultant comes in briefly to check on you, but because her department is so understaffed, she couldn't see you earlier when you needed it most, and she has little time to spend addressing your problems. On your way out, a nurse hands you a marketing bag from a brand-name formula company, complete with free samples of formula and information on breastfeeding that makes it sound a little hard and scary. She tells you if you have any questions, to just call your pediatrician.

The first night at home, things don't go well. It's the middle of the night, and your baby won't stop crying when you try to breastfeed. You wonder if you should just give up. You reach for that ready-made bottle and his crying mercifully stops. The problem is solved, at least for now.

You are really motivated to breastfeed, so in the morning, you try to find a lactation consultant. You talk to someone you find in the yellow pages called a "lactation counselor" who is willing to help, but your insurance won't pay. You find someone else called a "lactation consultant." You have no idea what the difference is between a "lactation counselor" and a "lactation consultant." Since these professionals aren't licensed in any state, you have no way of knowing if they know what they are doing.

You meet with the lactation consultant, but have to pay out of pocket. She helps you. Afterwards, you have to file a claim with your insurance company and hope they reimburse you, all while caring for your newborn. The lactation consultant recommends pumping with a double electric pump to help you build up your milk supply, which is now threatened because of all the formula the baby got, and because his breastfeeding technique is not really good enough yet to extract milk well, since he didn't learn properly right from the beginning. Your insurance won't allow the breast pump to come out of your Durable Medical Equipment allowance, and you try to pay for it with your Flexible Spending benefit card, but it's denied. You pay $250 out of pocket. Good thing you had a gift card to pay for all that!

You go to your pediatrician for follow up. Since your pediatrician got very little training on breastfeeding, he doesn't know how to help you, but is concerned that your baby has lost too much weight, and advises giving some formula. You don't know what to do because the lactation consultant's advice was different.

Ugh!!! This is really hard, you think. Eventually, things miraculously end up working out, just because you persevere through thick and thin, and your partner and family and friends are very supportive. By about 4 weeks, your baby is now exclusively breastfeeding, and gaining well. And you are enjoying what time is left of your unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. But, you have only two more weeks before you go back to work. You can't afford any more time off.

You start pumping to build up a stash of frozen milk for your return to work. You arrange with your employer a place to pump -- how lucky you are that it won't be a bathroom! You go back to work, and before long you discover your milk supply is dwindling and now your baby wants to nurse all night long. You are exhausted.

You call the lactation consultant who tells you that it's common to see a drop in milk supply when moms go back to work. She explains that pumps aren't as efficient at removing milk as your own baby is, so your milk supply may drop, and your baby makes up for it by nursing more when you are with him -- it just so happens that that's at night. "It's called reverse cycle feeding," she tells you. You wonder why you never heard about this before, in any of your follow-up visits with your pediatrician or OB.

You want to see the lactation consultant again, but your insurance will only reimburse you for visits during the newborn period. Well, you think, at least my insurance paid for something -- my friend's insurance doesn't reimburse anything for lactation help.

You nearly fall asleep at the wheel driving to work. "This is crazy," you think. "My baby needs me to be alive, more than he needs me to be breastfeeding." Finally, you give up. You just can't do this anymore. You are very sad and disappointed.

You become a statistic: one of the 41% of US mothers who wean before 3 months. You feel guilty as hell, especially when all you ever hear is how great breastfeeding is, and now how that new study shows it could save the US economy $13 billion/year, and how everyone says it saves lives and how it will make you healthier too. You just wish all these people would just shut the heck up.

So, now that you've heard the difference between what your experience could have been like, and what it was actually like, you tell me:

Do you feel guilty for not breastfeeding? Or do you feel angry because it didn't have to be this way?

And if you answered "angry," then take that anger, and write to your hospital -- tell them you want them to become a Baby-Friendly hospital, so that no one else will have to go through what you did just to feed your child. Write to your state and federal legislators -- tell them to support laws that make breastfeeding easier, like licensing of lactation consultants, and the requirement that insurance companies reimburse for lactation care and services. And write to your US representatives and senators, and tell them you want tax-credits for onsite childcare, and that you don't want the US to continue being the world's only developed country without paid maternity leave.

Yes, I'm a researcher and a physician, but I'm also a mother. Since I live in the United States, you can probably guess what my birth experience was like. Maybe you've heard me on the news saying that moms shouldn't feel guilty. I've been there. So take that guilt and turn it inside out, and do something positive so that other moms don't have to go through what you did. We all deserve better.

A Peaceful Revolution is a blog about innovative ideas to strengthen America's families through public policies, business practices, and cultural change. Done in collaboration with MomsRising.org, read a new post here each week. Submission inquiries to Nanette@MomsRising.org.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Get Shredded

Auntie Debbie convinced me to do 30 day shred with her long distance. I convinced a few of my mom group friends, and now I'm letting you know, dear reader, in case you want in on the action.

I started yesterday, weighed myself today and I'm going to have T.J. help me take my measurements tonight for comparison in 30 days. In an ironic twist of fate, my weight is less than it's been in several years. That's usually not the time that I start exercising!

On that note, I may breastfeed forever, because I eat like a horse but I'm still losing weight. I thought that was a bunch of hooey for a long time, but it turns out that it just takes a while! It took me about 9-10 months to get to my pre-pregnancy weight, and I'm pretty much at my "goal" weight now, though I'm sure that's because all my muscle turned to fat over the last few years of slacking off. Yet another reason to nurse one year and beyond!

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

You can't take it with you

My nipple, that is. Joseph has begun pulling away to go to sleep at night, but sometimes he isn't done nursing. Somehow he thinks that my breast will just go-go gadget while he rolls over onto his belly. Not happening, my little nursling. Not happening.

Amazingly, this is not as painful as it sounds. This is actually mostly a "sleep success" post, as he's beginning to go to sleep "on his own" periodically. By that I mean, while T.J. or I lie next to him patting his back to sooth him.

The end of the beginning, perhaps? Time will tell.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

101 Reasons to Breastfeed

A friend pointed me to this, and I thought it was great (even though I only got through like 20 or so before Joseph wanted to play with the computer).

If you need a few reasons, here are 101!

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Diagnosis

Joseph and I have been sick for about 10 days now. He's definitely getting better, but I was getting worse. This morning I woke with (another) raging headache and my teeth were killing me! I wasn't sure whether to call the doctor or the dentist, but it turned out that I have a sinus infection. Apparently your sinuses can push on your gums when they stuff up.

So now I'm on antibiotics in case it's bacterial (I think since I've had the cold 10 days they felt it must be). The doctor said that babies don't get sinus infections, so Joseph shouldn't be suffering.

Antibiotics can cause thrush (yeast infection in the breast) which can then transfer to the baby's mouth and it's just a big awful mess of passing infection back and forth. The way we're trying to prevent that from happening is by taking probiotics. Apparently they put good flora back in your gut.

Oh, and for breastfeeding moms, there is a great book that tells about the safety of many medications call Breastfeeding and Medication by Dr. Hale. Your local LLL leader should have a copy and be able to look up any meds you have questions about. Mine were great today while I was trying to figure this all out, especially after talking to a pharmacist who told me that I should stop breastfeeding while I took them (for 14 days). Um, right. I did tell the doc that I was breastfeeding but he seemed to be more of a specialist in diabetes from the info in his room, so I didn't really trust him, either! I called my leaders, and learned that it was an "L2" drug. "L1" being the most tested and safe. So that's pretty good. Very little should get to Joseph, and no adverse affects have been recorded in breastfeeding children.

Anyway, now I should be on the mend! And hopefully the probiotics will ward off any thrush. I'm so happy I have my LLL leaders to help me.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

A couple of great breastfeeding articles

These articles are from a wonderful blog started by another mother I know and respect well - check them out!

Breastfeeding does NOT cause cavities! - Great info about night feeding

10 Tips to Breastfeeding for a Year - Getting the support you need is #1!

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Goodbye, Mini Milk Stash

I just poured all of my frozen breast milk down the drain. It wasn't a big supply at all, but as all mothers who've pumped know, it represented a lot of effort and dedication.

Last week, I tried giving Joseph some baby cereal. It called for 4 tablespoons of breastmilk, so I thawed out an ounce and a half to use. Joseph took one bite of the cereal and refused to eat any more. I tasted it too see how gross rice cereal is, and It was awful! I mean, really gross. I was not sure it was the milk or the cereal, so I took a sip of the milk to be sure, and literally almost threw up. I have the dreaded soapy milk syndrome.

The milk itself is not spoiled or bad, it just tastes terrible. It's due to an enzyme called Lipase, which is present in all breastmilk. However, a lucky few of us produce too much Lipase, which eats the fats in the breastmilk and makes it taste like soap/vomit when it's been stored (refrigerated or frozen) for an extended period of time. It's not too strange if you think about it - soap itself is commonly made from animal fat.

So anyway, it has tipped us off to why Joseph never took to the bottle! Poor baby! Though he got plenty of tries with fresh milk as well, so it's not entirely the fault of my soapy breastmilk.

I can combat the Lipase by scalding any milk I pump before storing... but I generally only pump a few times a month if I'm going out that day, so I probably won't bother trying to create a frozen supply.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Cool Breastfeeding Campaign

Apparently Spain has a campaign to promote breastfeeding to families there. Here is a cool commercial (translation below the video). It's called "Nada como Mama, Nada como mamar" - [Nothing like mama, nothing like sucking]. Cute!

Texas also has a breastfeeding campaign going - they have lots of cute stuff, including

signs for businesses:

little "business cards" to hand to mothers:

And advertising:

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

New Breastfeeding Feat!

I have conquered the "nurse in sling" phenomenon that had so far eluded me. I used the Ergo, but I'm not splitting hairs! I think he just needed to get a little older and steadier.

I managed to nurse and grocery shop at the same time today! And nobody even knew. ;) I admit, it did slow me down quite a bit - we're not used to nursing while walking - but I think this could make life even easier! Perhaps we'll be pros by the time we hit the Minnesota State Fair next week!

In other news, I made my own taco seasoning today! This is not difficult stuff - everyone should do it! We're getting ripped off with those tiny packets.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Plugged Up

The last few days I've been working through my first plugged duct (nursing). It's just like it sounds - there are lots of ducts in a woman's breast where the milk flows through, and sometimes they get plugged up. The spot gets hard, painful, and turns red. After lots of good advice (thanks everyone!) it appears that I was able to get it cleared up pretty quickly. I am just glad it didn't turn into mastitis (a breast infection)!

Here's what worked for me:
1. Hot compress (I used the hot sock I made for labor)
2. Massage the area
3. Nurse lots - On the bright side since I pumped the other side I got a record (for me) 4 ounces at once!

Hope this helps someone else! It never got too painful for me, I think maybe I caught it early since we were just talking about it at my LLL meeting last week!

Friday, May 29, 2009

Finding our groove


The last couple of days has been really great! Joseph and I have managed to do lots of stuff - tons of laundry, cleaning the kitchen and living room, organizing the 2nd bathroom, getting our oil changed, and even a get-together with my local mom's group!

On the (more fun) baby-front, Joseph is enjoying the pull-up game now. He can hold his head steady when we pull him up from a lying down position by his hands, and when we lower him back down! When he's awake he's like a little meerkat on my shoulder. I swear, he looks just like that! Haha. He loves hanging out with daddy at night and in the mornings before work. I'm basically just food if T.J. is around! Just the way I like it.

Joseph talks up a storm, too. He's such a chatter box. Probably more evidence of his extraordinary intelligence. ;)

This is the second time this week he's fallen asleep for the night by 6:30pm. It's a real bummer for T.J., since he regularly gets home between 8 and 9pm. I'm hoping that it's short-lived and he'll shift his sleep back a bit. We'll see. He will fall asleep for the night any time between 6:30 and 10:30 it seems. He will consistently sleep through until morning now, only waking to eat. Periodically I'll change his diaper, but not usually. I have some really thick "nighttime" diapers that I use (Bububebe, Cricketts, and Happy Hempy's) are my favorite. I don't think I ever got that bone-numbing tiredness that some mom's experience (which I attribute 100% to Joseph co-sleeping), but I feel pretty awesome lately. It takes no effort at all to roll over and feed him at night.

Co-sleeping + breastfeeding = most sleep possible for Mama.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Green Feeding

Someone passed this great article on to me about breastfeeding:

http://www.llli.org/Release/GoGreen

Breastfeeding not only provides babies with optimum nutrition, but also helps reduce landfill waste, preserves valued energy, and helps prevent deforestation. Human milk remains the ultimate natural renewable resource and perhaps the most overlooked way of helping to create a healthier planet.

Human milk requires no resources for packaging, shipping, or disposal. The production and disposal of artificial baby milk products add to environmental problems by consuming energy and producing waste. The 550 million tins of formula sold in the United States alone, placed end to end, would circle the earth one and a half times. Each year in the United States, the production of artificial baby milk produces 86,000 tons of tin and 1,230 tons of paper labels which add substantially to the landfill waste.

Breastfeeding preserves valued energy. No energy is wasted producing human milk the way it is wasted when producing artificial baby milk. Precious fuel is used to transport the ingredients of formula and baby milk products. Energy is used for sterilizing bottles and refrigerating them.

The environment also pays a price for growing soybeans or raising cattle to produce artificial baby milk. Clearing land for pasture results in deforestation, which then results in land depletion and soil erosion. Growing soy requires fertilization and irrigation.

While breastfeeding is a wondrous act of nurturing between a mother and child, it also has an enormous impact on the global ecosystem. Breastfeeding not only grows a healthy mother and child but also grows a healthier planet.

Although we live in a polluted world, scientists agree that human milk is still the very best food to nourish our babies. This is further reinforced by reports in recent years of processing errors in the production of infant formula and the contamination of plastic baby bottles with bisphenol-A.

Human milk is not only the very best food for our babies, but it may even protect babies from some of the effects of pollution and contamination.

To find out more about why human milk is "green," that is, the healthiest and most ecologically sound way to nurture babies, or for breastfeeding information and support, contact La Leche League International at www.llli.org or call 847-519-7730. Since 1956, La Leche League International has been providing breastfeeding assistance through mother-to-mother support, education, and information.

Other great quotes:

"There can be no food more locally produced, more sustainable or more
environmentally friendly than a mother's breastmilk, the only food required by
an infant for the first 6 months of life. It is a naturally renewable resource,
which requires no packaging or transport, results in no wastage and is free."
http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=586


"Breastfeeding is a very environmentally friendly thing to do."

"Breastmilk... the original RAW food."

"Breastfeeding leaves no carbon footprint."

Monday, March 16, 2009

Wow - Look What I Did!

Wow - Look what I did!!! That is approximately 1.5oz of pure liquid gold. I am so proud of myself and my body, and amazed at what it can do for Joseph.


I am beyond thrilled that breastfeeding is going so well for us - it's something I really want to do and I feel lucky that it's working out. I attribute it to all the ice cream and chocolate I ate during pregnancy. Haha!

And if you think it's gross - I don't want to hear it. It's pretty much the coolest thing I've ever done after growing a baby, so keep it to yourself.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Saw the cutest thing yesterday

While I was waiting to see the midwife at the doctor's office, there was a woman there with two small children. I'd guess that one was 3.5 years old and the other was around 2 years old. I'm terrible with that sort of thing, but they both could speak (sort of - I don't know if #2 was easily understood as it was a different language) and had haircuts. Yes, I judge age based on whether hair needs cutting. I suck. So that's my best guess.

They were adorable and having a grand old time, but then the little one started getting tired and a bit cranky. So mom picked him up for some comfort and nursing! I think it's the first time I've ever seen extended breastfeeding in action, and it was great. I hope I didn't make her uncomfortable because I think I got caught looking at her once or twice. I'm sure it sounds weird, but I always want to look when women are nursing, like I'll be able to glean skills or something from them! Maybe the women give me a pass since I'm visibly pregnant. I hope so!

Anyway, it made me want to go look up all the benefits of extended breastfeeding and share them with you! First, I want to note that the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeing at least until the age of two. So though most Americans would consider nursing past a year "extended" it really isn't. But for our purposes, most information on extended breastfeeding is after 12 months. Second, I'm in no way implying that breastfeeding is the only way to feed your child (duh). However, it's pretty clear from the research that it's the best way if you are able to swing it, so we'll be putting forth a lot of effort in our household to make it work for as long as it works for our family!

Here are the benefits of breastfeeding past one year from Kellymom.com, a great breastfeeding resource:

Nursing toddlers benefit NUTRITIONALLY

  • Although there has been little research done on children who breastfeed beyond the age of two, the available information indicates that breastfeeding continues to be a valuable source of nutrition and disease protection for as long as breastfeeding continues.
  • "Human milk expressed by mothers who have been lactating for >1 year has significantly increased fat and energy contents, compared with milk expressed by women who have been lactating for shorter periods. During prolonged lactation, the fat energy contribution of breast milk to the infant diet might be significant."
    -- Mandel 2005
  • "Breast milk continues to provide substantial amounts of key nutrients well beyond the first year of life, especially protein, fat, and most vitamins."
    -- Dewey 2001
  • In the second year (12-23 months), 448 mL of breastmilk provides:
    • 29% of energy requirements
    • 43% of protein requirements
    • 36% of calcium requirements
    • 75% of vitamin A requirements
    • 76% of folate requirements
    • 94% of vitamin B12 requirements
    • 60% of vitamin C requirements
    -- Dewey 2001
  • Studies done in rural Bangladesh have shown that breastmilk continues to be an important source of vitamin A in the second and third year of life.
    -- Persson 1998
  • It's not uncommon for weaning to be recommended for toddlers who are eating few solids. However, this recommendation is not supported by research. According to Sally Kneidel in "Nursing Beyond One Year" (New Beginnings, Vol. 6 No. 4, July-August 1990, pp. 99-103.):

    Some doctors may feel that nursing will interfere with a child's appetite for other foods. Yet there has been no documentation that nursing children are more likely than weaned children to refuse supplementary foods. In fact, most researchers in Third World countries, where a malnourished toddler's appetite may be of critical importance, recommend continued nursing for even the severely malnourished (Briend et al, 1988; Rhode, 1988; Shattock and Stephens, 1975; Whitehead, 1985). Most suggest helping the malnourished older nursing child not by weaning but by supplementing the mother's diet to improve the nutritional quality of her milk (Ahn and MacLean. 1980; Jelliffe and Jelliffe, 1978) and by offering the child more varied and more palatable foods to improve his or her appetite (Rohde, 1988; Tangermann, 1988; Underwood, 1985).

Nursing toddlers are SICK LESS OFTEN
  • The American Academy of Family Physicians notes that children weaned before two years of age are at increased risk of illness (AAFP 2001).
  • Nursing toddlers between the ages of 16 and 30 months have been found to have fewer illnesses and illnesses of shorter duration than their non-nursing peers (Gulick 1986).
  • "Antibodies are abundant in human milk throughout lactation" (Nutrition During Lactation 1991; p. 134). In fact, some of the immune factors in breastmilk increase in concentration during the second year and also during the weaning process. (Goldman 1983, Goldman & Goldblum 1983, Institute of Medicine 1991).
  • Per the World Health Organization, "a modest increase in breastfeeding rates could prevent up to 10% of all deaths of children under five: Breastfeeding plays an essential and sometimes underestimated role in the treatment and prevention of childhood illness." [emphasis added]
Nursing toddlers have FEWER ALLERGIES
  • Many studies have shown that one of the best ways to prevent allergies and asthma is to breastfeed exclusively for at least 6 months and continue breastfeeding long-term after that point.

    Breastfeeding can be helpful for preventing allergy by:
    1. reducing exposure to potential allergens (the later baby is exposed, the less likely that there will be an allergic reaction),
    2. speeding maturation of the protective intestinal barrier in baby's gut,
    3. coating the gut and providing a barrier to potentially allergenic molecules,
    4. providing anti-inflammatory properties that reduce the risk of infections (which can act as allergy triggers).
Nursing toddlers are SMART
  • Extensive research on the relationship between cognitive achievement (IQ scores, grades in school) and breastfeeding has shown the greatest gains for those children breastfed the longest.
Nursing toddlers are WELL ADJUSTED SOCIALLY
  • According to Sally Kneidel in "Nursing Beyond One Year" (New Beginnings, Vol. 6 No. 4, July-August 1990, pp. 99-103.):

    "Research reports on the psychological aspects of nursing are scarce. One study that dealt specifically with babies nursed longer than a year showed a significant link between the duration of nursing and mothers' and teachers' ratings of social adjustment in six- to eight-year-old children (Ferguson et al, 1987). In the words of the researchers, 'There are statistically significant tendencies for conduct disorder scores to decline with increasing duration of breastfeeding.'"
  • According to Elizabeth N. Baldwin, Esq. in "Extended Breastfeeding and the Law":
    "Breastfeeding is a warm and loving way to meet the needs of toddlers and young children. It not only perks them up and energizes them; it also soothes the frustrations, bumps and bruises, and daily stresses of early childhood. In addition, nursing past infancy helps little ones make a gradual transition to childhood."
  • Baldwin continues: "Meeting a child's dependency needs is the key to helping that child achieve independence. And children outgrow these needs according to their own unique timetable." Children who achieve independence at their own pace are more secure in that independence then children forced into independence prematurely.
Nursing a toddler is NORMAL
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that "Breastfeeding should be continued for at least the first year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and child... Increased duration of breastfeeding confers significant health and developmental benefits for the child and the mother... There is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychologic or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer." (AAP 2005)
  • The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends that breastfeeding continue throughout the first year of life and that "Breastfeeding beyond the first year offers considerable benefits to both mother and child, and should continue as long as mutually desired." They also note that "If the child is younger than two years of age, the child is at increased risk of illness if weaned." (AAFP 2001)
  • A US Surgeon General has stated that it is a lucky baby who continues to nurse until age two. (Novello 1990)
  • The World Health Organization emphasizes the importance of nursing up to two years of age or beyond (WHO 1992, WHO 2002).
  • Scientific research by Katherine A. Dettwyler, PhD shows that 2.5 to 7.0 years of nursing is what our children have been designed to expect (Dettwyler 1995).
MOTHERS also benefit from nursing past infancy
  • Extended nursing delays the return of fertility in some women by suppressing ovulation.
  • Breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer. Studies have found a significant inverse association between duration of lactation and breast cancer risk.
  • Breastfeeding reduces the risk of ovarian cancer.
  • Breastfeeding reduces the risk of uterine cancer.
  • Breastfeeding reduces the risk of endometrial cancer.
  • Breastfeeding protects against osteoporosis. During lactation a mother may experience decreases of bone mineral. A nursing mom's bone mineral density may be reduced in the whole body by 1 to 2 percent while she is still nursing. This is gained back, and bone mineral density may actually increase, when the baby is weaned from the breast. This is not dependent on additional calcium supplementation in the mother's diet.
  • Breastfeeding reduces the risk of rheumatoid arthritis.
  • Breastfeeding has been shown to decrease insulin requirements in diabetic women.
  • Breastfeeding moms tend to lose weight easier.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

  © Blogger template 'Isolation' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP