Comments on: Breast is best http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/breast-is-best/ Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:07:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/breast-is-best/comment-page-1/#comment-800 Anonymous Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:52:53 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=607#comment-800 it wouldn't serve us well to have too many behaviors wired in great detail. autonomic systems and balance and such are useful foundations. but "style" is going to vary by living environment, social role, individual choice, etc. without the ability to rearrange behavior according to obvious social expectation (direct or indirect), a person does not get second and third invitations to dinner. it seems like many of the fictions of society are maintained as truths by virtue of children taking to them "naturally."<br/><br/>nipple confusion doesn't necessary go against this. one of the sites i skimmed said that the kid learning the wrong tongue action and having trouble changing comes from the drastic difference in the use of the tongue. when suckling, the tongue gets more milk. on bottle, it's used to keep from choking on the heavy flow of milk. so take kid from bottle to breast and see if the little sucker is willing to risk its life on a bet that there's been a paradigm shift. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>hibiscus it wouldn’t serve us well to have too many behaviors wired in great detail. autonomic systems and balance and such are useful foundations. but “style” is going to vary by living environment, social role, individual choice, etc. without the ability to rearrange behavior according to obvious social expectation (direct or indirect), a person does not get second and third invitations to dinner. it seems like many of the fictions of society are maintained as truths by virtue of children taking to them “naturally.”

nipple confusion doesn’t necessary go against this. one of the sites i skimmed said that the kid learning the wrong tongue action and having trouble changing comes from the drastic difference in the use of the tongue. when suckling, the tongue gets more milk. on bottle, it’s used to keep from choking on the heavy flow of milk. so take kid from bottle to breast and see if the little sucker is willing to risk its life on a bet that there’s been a paradigm shift. 

Posted by hibiscus

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/breast-is-best/comment-page-1/#comment-799 Anonymous Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:36:19 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=607#comment-799 On the subject of what's "instinctive", one thing I was going to write about but didn't was a phenomenon called "nipple confusion", apparently quite a problem these days. When a baby sucks a breast, it has to perform a particular action - it pulls a good portion of the breast tissue into its mouth and forms a funnel with its tongue, which it then uses to massage the milk out of the nipple. By comparison, a bottle nipple works simply by gravity - all baby has to do is keep its mouth open, and milk pours in. So bottle fed babies sometimes suffer from "nipple confusion" - that is, they are no longer able to breastfeed properly because they're used to the bottle. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> On the subject of what’s “instinctive”, one thing I was going to write about but didn’t was a phenomenon called “nipple confusion”, apparently quite a problem these days. When a baby sucks a breast, it has to perform a particular action – it pulls a good portion of the breast tissue into its mouth and forms a funnel with its tongue, which it then uses to massage the milk out of the nipple. By comparison, a bottle nipple works simply by gravity – all baby has to do is keep its mouth open, and milk pours in. So bottle fed babies sometimes suffer from “nipple confusion” – that is, they are no longer able to breastfeed properly because they’re used to the bottle. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/breast-is-best/comment-page-1/#comment-798 Anonymous Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:12:35 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=607#comment-798 At Boston Medical Center, the maternity department is completely formula-free. All mothers who deliver there have sessions with lactation counselors before they are discharged. Breast feeding *does* have a lot of benefits, but it's apparently not as "instinctive" an act as it sounds. Many women have trouble learning how to feed, when to feed, what to do about the pain, etc. I think a lot of hospitals find it easier just to throw formula at an already overwhelmed mother than to counsel her. And the overwhelmed mother, particularly if she is poor, is probably more likely to accept the formula than use up mental energy listening to a lactation counselor. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>DearDarlingDidi At Boston Medical Center, the maternity department is completely formula-free. All mothers who deliver there have sessions with lactation counselors before they are discharged. Breast feeding *does* have a lot of benefits, but it’s apparently not as “instinctive” an act as it sounds. Many women have trouble learning how to feed, when to feed, what to do about the pain, etc. I think a lot of hospitals find it easier just to throw formula at an already overwhelmed mother than to counsel her. And the overwhelmed mother, particularly if she is poor, is probably more likely to accept the formula than use up mental energy listening to a lactation counselor. 

Posted by DearDarlingDidi

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/breast-is-best/comment-page-1/#comment-797 Anonymous Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:40:54 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=607#comment-797 Sorry if I was unclear. Yeah, even for malnourished mothers breastfeeding is better. But I wanted to point out that dioxins are not the only negative. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://scrofulous.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">aram harrow</a> Sorry if I was unclear. Yeah, even for malnourished mothers breastfeeding is better. But I wanted to point out that dioxins are not the only negative. 

Posted by aram harrow

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/breast-is-best/comment-page-1/#comment-796 Anonymous Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:04:42 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=607#comment-796 In terms of infant health, it's pretty clear that breastfeeding, even for malnourished mothers, can provide adequate nourishment to the infant. It certainly IS harder on the mother, but in a dire situation malnourishment will have a much, much greater impact on the child than it will on the mother.<br/><br/>You're right that the harms to children from formula are far smaller in rich countries, but they're nevertheless demonstrable and they exist. It's at least appropriate for a responsible health institution to recommend and advocate the, by far, healthier course of action. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> In terms of infant health, it’s pretty clear that breastfeeding, even for malnourished mothers, can provide adequate nourishment to the infant. It certainly IS harder on the mother, but in a dire situation malnourishment will have a much, much greater impact on the child than it will on the mother.

You’re right that the harms to children from formula are far smaller in rich countries, but they’re nevertheless demonstrable and they exist. It’s at least appropriate for a responsible health institution to recommend and advocate the, by far, healthier course of action. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/04/breast-is-best/comment-page-1/#comment-795 Anonymous Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:40:14 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=607#comment-795 Other negatives of breastfeeding are: it takes resources from the mother (which can be a problem if she doesn't get enough to eat) and it can transmit HIV from the mother.<br/><br/>On both counts, formula is often worse. Certainly it costs more than an equivalent number of calories for the mother, so in terms of overall family nutrition/budget-management, breast-feeding is better. And while an HIV-positive mother in a rich country (i.e. well-nourished, with safe water, and quick access to hospitals in case the baby gets diarrhea) should feed her child formula, astonishingly in places where this isn't true, <b>breast milk containing HIV is better than formula</b> . Explained <a HREF="http://www.aed.org/ghpnpubs/publications/19-frequentlyaskedquestions_hiv_eng.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</a> , but also I think the WHO advocated this at some point.<br/><br/>I love the idea of a Nestle formula ad that says "in some cases, may be better for your baby than breastmilk with HIV." And to be fair to the Mayo clinic, the harms to children from formula are far smaller in rich countries. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://scrofulous.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">aram harrow</a> Other negatives of breastfeeding are: it takes resources from the mother (which can be a problem if she doesn’t get enough to eat) and it can transmit HIV from the mother.

On both counts, formula is often worse. Certainly it costs more than an equivalent number of calories for the mother, so in terms of overall family nutrition/budget-management, breast-feeding is better. And while an HIV-positive mother in a rich country (i.e. well-nourished, with safe water, and quick access to hospitals in case the baby gets diarrhea) should feed her child formula, astonishingly in places where this isn’t true, breast milk containing HIV is better than formula . Explained here , but also I think the WHO advocated this at some point.

I love the idea of a Nestle formula ad that says “in some cases, may be better for your baby than breastmilk with HIV.” And to be fair to the Mayo clinic, the harms to children from formula are far smaller in rich countries. 

Posted by aram harrow

]]>