Concerned about not circ'ing son - Page 3

[Quirky]

Perhaps this discussion is best moved to the breastfeeding board, but there is a distinct difference between foremilk and hindmilk. Advice to finish the first breast first before moving to the second breast (i.e., no arbitrary time limits of 10 minutes per side) is sound advice. There are legitimate situations where women should use only one side to nurse for a certain timeframe, such as oversupply, to help regulate their supply. Also, babies who get a lot of foremilk and not a lot of hindmilk can get very gassy and uncomfortable because of all the lactose in foremilk, not to mention they don't get filled up on fatty hindmilk, and so are hungrier more often.

[Paul B.]

Un-believable!

Oh dear, I am aghast, this crap really is still circulating as an urban myth!

Originally Posted by Quirky

Perhaps this discussion is best moved to the breastfeeding board,

I don't know that I really want to expend the energy to deal with this but ...

but there is a distinct difference between foremilk and hindmilk.

Correct - you can measure such a phenomenon but ...

Advice to finish the first breast first before moving to the second breast (i.e., no arbitrary time limits of 10 minutes per side) is sound advice.

To some extent (in fact, only the "no arbitrary time limits" part) but ...

There are legitimate situations where women should use only one side to nurse for a certain timeframe, such as oversupply, to help regulate their supply.

Not a very sensible approach, since in doing so you are just asking for engorgement and blocked ducts = "mastitis". It may "work" - technically - which is the very problem we are having with women being told this - I have to say it - crap! "Mastitis" is really effective in cutting down milk supply.

Also, babies who get a lot of foremilk and not a lot of hindmilk can get very gassy and uncomfortable because of all the lactose in foremilk, not to mention they don't get filled up on fatty hindmilk, and so are hungrier more often.

Umm, no. This is the fallacy in the argument. The only way you would be able to regulate whether an infant gets more "foremilk" or "hindmilk", is to pump the part you don't want and throw it away (or a rather more clever method I often advise). Just because someone does a "study" and makes an observation - no doubt quite correct in itself - does not mean that you can use this to manipulate the function of the breast.

I mean, it should be dead obvious. If you leave one breast full at a feed, ignoring (which you should not) the problem of engorgement, will it not build up more of the "politically incorrect" foremilk for the next feed, so you defeat your own argument?

It's a fascinating situation - as if we are trying to emulate the formula manufacturers by making breastfeeding more "technical" to suit the "technophiles". Give me a break!

[Quirky]

OK, Paul, prove you know what you're talking about. References? Experience? What exactly are you basing your sweeping pronouncements on? I'm willing to grant you seem to know your stuff on circumcision -- but you haven't yet established your credibility as a breastfeeding expert.

I've been studying breastfeeding for 5 years now and I can tell you from my experience and the experience of many, many women over on the breastfeeding boards, breastfeeding books, LLL, etc. that you're off base on the issue of nursing on one side/foremilk imbalance/oversupply. Many women have been able to regulate their supply just fine by nursing on one side for a certain number of hours with no problems whatsoever with mastitis, and their babies have been much happier.

You may want to read through some of the links here by IBCLCs:

http://www.kellymom.com/bf/supply/fast-letdown.html

And I'd be really interested to know why you think you know better than Jack Newman:

http://www.kellymom.com/newman/02colic_in_bf_baby.html

Perhaps you'd like to post some sources? Better yet, post over on the BF board so as not to derail this conversation further.

[Paul B.]

Sigh!

Yep, fine, I'll let you have your way regarding over-supply. It's not such a big issue in my (or more commonly, my wife's) practice, so we may not really have considered all the options. Most of our experience - and I trust this will not shock you - is in regard to so-called "mastitis" (blocked ducts) and perceived or real under-supply.

And that is why I get heated about this fore-milk/ hind-milk nonsense when it is foisted on unsuspecting parents (mothers) who really do not need their situation to be made unnecessarily complicated with fallacious theories.

I don't need references, it is simply what I explained - clearly - in the penultimate paragraph (or two) of my previous submission. Either you "get it" or you don't - if it isn't dead obvious then my apologies, I cannot for the present make it any easier to understand.

[Quirky]

Well, I'm always interested in learning more about something I might not know about, but I'm not interested in being patronized, and I do take issue with your over-generalized statements where they are obviously incorrect. But if you're not interested in having a discussion and demonstrating that you have experience and information to back your overly broad statements up, then fine.

I know plenty about undersupply, too, not to mention mastitis, having struggled with both myself with my first child because of a hospitalization and a plethora of bad breastfeeding advice from medical professionals. So certainly I would not recommend nursing only on one side to women who have had the experiences (and physiological breast capacity) that I have.

However, there is almost no such thing as a "one size fits all" nursing recommendation, and for you to ignore the problem of oversupply/overactive letdown, which is very real for a substantial number of women and also causes the failure of breastfeeding relationships, then perhaps your experience or education is not as comprehensive as you apparently assume.

[Paul B.]

Avoiding the point

Originally Posted by Quirky

However, there is almost no such thing as a "one size fits all" nursing recommendation, and for you to ignore the problem of oversupply/overactive letdown, which is very real for a substantial number of women and also causes the failure of breastfeeding relationships, then perhaps your experience or education is not as comprehensive as you apparently assume.

Or perhaps the reality is that we deal with it our own way according to our own experience, which might just happen to differ from yours. Maybe your size does not fit us.

The fact is, that

1. You have picked on an aspect that I was not emphasising - I will defend myself to a point, but I'm not going to be led astray on it.
2. I was making a clear point regarding a common urban myth. In a process eerily resembling some of the popular pro-circumcision arguments, people have taken an observation from one (or more) study which I have no reason to dispute, and used bad logic to turn it into an argument for a certain practice or recommendation, which then becomes their "hobby-horse" for reasons of which I suspect self-aggrandisement - wishing to be seen as an "expert" - is significant.

Whether or not my apparent expertise may be enhanced by pointing it out, I do not greatly care, but as it happens, the logic is wrong, just as it is for many of the pro-circumcision arguments based on "studies". Therein is the parallel.

[LavenderMae]

What if you have breastfed on one breast per feeding for two different reasons with two different infants on instinct, and it did remedy the issues we were having? I know other women personally that have done the same with success. I take my experiences and common sense added with anything I can find on said subject and then decide what's what.
I think with breastfeeding one size does not fit all and there's room for more than one theory/solution. But calling something that has corrected breastfeeding issues that many of us have had an urban legend and akin to pro-circ rhetoric is rude and dismissive.

[LavenderMae]

Back on topic. Happymammaof3, I have two intact boys and one girl and the boys were/are much easier to clean. You'll see just how easy it is soon, if you haven't already. Update us when you can.

[Quirky]

ITA, Sheacoby. The fact is, there is no reason to circumcise. None. Definitely, categorically, a one-size-fits-all prescription -- don't cut off the foreskin, absent a compelling medical reason such as frostbite, cancer, or gangrene.

Breastfeeding is a completely different ball of wax. Different moms, different babies, different situations call for different adaptations. To state that all bf moms should do xyz in all situations is to be blind to reality. What is appropriate for one breastfeeding dyad may be completely inappropriate for another. That's not urban mythologizing, that's the reality of breastfeeding.

[Paddington]

Seriously, take breastfeeding to the breastfeeding forum please. :

I have two intact boys and both are perfect, never had any special things to do or special instructions. Congrats mama!

[Paul B.]

I don't think we are getting there somehow

Originally Posted by Sheacoby

What if you have breastfed on one breast per feeding for two different reasons with two different infants on instinct, and it did remedy the issues we were having? I know other women personally that have done the same with success.

I suspect you are not quite following what I have been saying. I do not doubt that feeding on one breast per feeding may well be useful for certain problems.

I was merely saying that it does not seem a good idea to recommend to anyone with a dubious supply, or as a routine practice because that seems to be the problem we are having with local hospital midwives/ "lactation consultants" (though I think I have spoken to the official lactation consultant at some stage and found him most sensible and not responsible for this story). And I am concerned that it could provoke engorgement and blocked ducts.

But calling something that has corrected breastfeeding issues that many of us have had an urban legend and akin to pro-circ rhetoric is rude and dismissive.

Again if you have a "colic"/ "wind" problem and feeding on one breast per feeding appears to settle it, well and good.

The urban myth that I was addressing, is

1. that you can alter the composition of the breastmilk, by choosing whether to feed on one or both breasts per feed, and
2. that there might be some "benefit" to the nutrition of the child by doing so.

This is the pair of concepts to which I am objecting, because it simply does not make sense, and I am inviting people to think it out and understand why.

And part of the reason that I am concerned, is that it is introducing a (quite erroneous) pseudo-technical aspect (Gnosticism) to breast feeding, inventing "special methods" to make it "better". It certainly concerns me that people (can be made to) feel that this is somehow necessary and - this is where it reminds me of circumcision.

Originally Posted by Paddington

Seriously, take breastfeeding to the breastfeeding forum please.

Yes, well I may just do that, but having started here, wish to clarify the point.