IS BABY FEEDING OK?

Cheryl S. wrote:

I'm saying, there can't be some cut-off where, until you reach it,
your body continues to make perfectly complete breastmilk, but once
you hit "severely lacking", then it might not be sufficient. It
seems to me there must be some range in quality between the milk of
a woman who eats a "perfect" diet, and a woman in a famine-stricken
area.

Oh, I see what you're saying now. OK. Sure, I completely agree.
Unfortunately I can't really think of a way to effectively test it.

I also gave an example (that was snipped) of how the amount
of DHA in breastmilk varies among women in different countries,

I saw what you were saying with that, I just didn't connect the whole thing
together. Consider my brain cooked from the ridiculous summer heat : )

--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net

In article ,
"Cheryl S." wrote:

I've wondered about this. The nutrients in breastmilk have to come from
somewhere. Your body can't make something out of nothing, to put into
your milk. So I'm confused between where you said "So your body will
make sure that the breastmilk it manufactures is complete, then
whatever's left over is what you live on." and "However, if the mother
is severely lacking in a nutrient, there may not be enough of that
nutrient for it to be sufficiently represented in milk."

From what I understand from the WHO information on exclusive bfing, the lack
of a nutrient that would lead to its underrepresentation in the milk would
only occur in cases of severe malnutrition/famine -- ie, not in the first
world. While *some* first world mothers have diets that are deficient in one
or two nutrients, the deficit isn't so enormous that the baby would miss out.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

Basically, FF babies get bombarded with a whole lot of iron, between formula
and cereal, in the hope that enough of it gets absorbed.



Actually, this isn't strictly true either. There is enough iron in the formula
itself to cover the needs of the formula fed baby for as long as he's on
regular baby formula.
The reason iron fortified cereals are the norm is that, until fairly recently,
(about 15-20years ago) babies were routinely weaned from formula at 6 months at
put on cows milk, which contains no iron at all. (And, until about 25-30 years
ago, most babies were still being fed formula made from evaporated milk, which
also contained no iron, meaning that the babies were getting no iron from the
get-go unless they got it in their cereal.)


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

"Chookie" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stephanie and Tim" wrote:

Well I meant to give ME the iron supplements and then breastfeed under
the
thought that the milk would have the right iron in it. I act like a
filter
so to speak. I have not actually had the baby yet, but am notoriously
deficient.

Keep taking those iron pills, then. Unfortunately those of us who tend to
anaemia seem to bleed more during both menstruation and while giving
birth.
That's why it's important to keep your iron up. I should also warn you
that
if your iron pill gives you even slight constipation, stop taking it a
week
before the baby arrives. One of my more unpleasant moments late in labour
was
realising that the, ahem, discomfort it caused was making me resist the
pushing. I had to ask for an enema. Eww!



THANKS for that advice. I will take it.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990