statistic on % of women who are physically unable to breastfeed? - Page 2

[tex.mom]

Originally Posted by gcgirl

There are other reasons too, like breast augmentation/reduction surgery (I wonder if the surgeons tell women ahead of time that this is a potential side effect).

I always think about this. My cousin had major reduction at age 20 (she is 5'2" and had some seriously gigantic breasts) and the nipples had to come completely OFF in the process and then back on. So she is not "hooked up." She was told it would be physcially impossible, but it was barely worth her mention at the time, though I think it sank in over 10 years later when she had children.

But, I actually went in myself for an augmentation consultation once (what was I thinking??) and was *assured* it would NOT interfere if I did become pregnant again. Thanks for that. At least I didn't do through with it.

[gcgirl]

Originally Posted by tex.mom

But, I actually went in myself for an augmentation consultation once (what was I thinking??) and was *assured* it would NOT interfere if I did become pregnant again. Thanks for that. At least I didn't do through with it.

I know a girl who had augmentation at 18. I seriously doubt the question ever crossed her mind, and now it's too late. I know that probably wouldn't have occurred to me to ask at that age. Well, augmentation wouldn't have occurred to me either, but that's neither here nor there.

[spughy]

I think the question is actually impossible to answer with any degree of accuracy because, as PP's have pointed out, there are *situational* variables, and breastfeeding is a partnership, not something one undertakes completely on one's own. There's gotta be buy-in on the other end, so to speak.

I am pretty sure I COULD, under more ideal circumstances, produce adequate milk to sustain a child. But I had a massive post-partum hemmorhage, a sleepy baby, and a pile of IV's in my left arm for days after the delivery, making nursing DD on that side very difficult. My left boob never produced much, but eventually with iron supplements, weight gain and domperidone, I did produce enough milk for DD - but I had to supplement at the beginning, in some part just to get DD strong enough to nurse for more than a minute, since she lost almost a lb in the 3 or 4 days I was in hospital (when I was vehemently protesting even the thought of formula).

Anyway. I just don't think statistics are all that helpful, because there are just SO many variables. I too think that we should not try to downplay low-supply issues (or ANY issues!). We kind of operate from an assumption that women *don't* want to breastfeed and any mention of possible problems will send them running for the hills; that may be true in some instances, in which case those women will find any excuse possible to quit no matter what. But for women who really DO want to breastfeed, arming them before birth with the problems that may occur, how to recognize them, and what to do about them - along with the idea that ANY breastfeeding is GOOD even if they have to supplement - is more useful than telling them that their problems are imaginary because everyone can breastfeed.

[heatherweh]

Originally Posted by ErinsJuneBug

I just wanted to add that every mother CAN breastfeed. I could never produce enough to fully supply for DD (due to tubular breasts, i think) but i STILL breastfed...and continue to now almost 3 years later.

I hate hearing that mothers cant breastfeed - maybe they cant produce enough milk but they can still give their baby SOMETHING.

I have to agree here. Another PP said that there are so many reason's women can't, but most of those are not reason's one can't, just things that make it harder. DS had tongue-tie (we had it clipped), I had vasospasm, we went through jaundice, failure to thrive, and a hospital stay, then "milk jaundice", pediatricians told us to supplement with formula at a few different times within those first few weeks, poor latch, mastitis, my milk supply was late to come in, and so on and so on. I kept nursing, kept pumping, kept nursing, all the time, through the pain and the cracked nipples and the doctors telling me to quit and family telling me to quit- guess what? Still nursing a very healthy, happy boy at 22 mos. So some of those reasons could have been included in a study of "not being able to nurse" if I wanted to play it that way, but thankfully I didn't.

[FREEmom1120]

I don't agree. It's dismissive of the fact that we are emotional creatures as well as physical ones. Everybody has their breaking point.

[ramama]

I personally know of three mothers who couldn't BF, and that is definitely more than 5% of the women I know. One said that her milk never came in (didn't question further). Another had a child with a cleft lip (not really relevant since she produced milk but DS couldn't nurse). The third woman was in a near-fatal car accident which crushed and destroyed 3/4 of her mammary glands and she nursed as long as she could but had to supplement.

IMHO, I think that the promotion of BFing as the biological norm causes mothers to assume that what is natural is therefore easy. Perceived failure to do something that is "normal" may lead women not to seek help, or not even to know where to go for help (the lactation consultant at the hospital where I gave birth was useless). I love seeing pregnant women at LLL meetings, where they can get help and support before the fact.

FFing terms are still used in mainstream BFing discussions (emptying the breast, frequency of feedings, "how much the baby is getting) and a lot of well-meaning family members and medical practitioners (well, probably not so well-meaning doctors, they should know better) want to see fat and happy babies. The pressure to supplement can be intense. And supplementation of a healthy supply only leads to a decreased supply. It's like the chicken and the egg. Which comes first, supplementation or low supply? It can be hard to determine.

I also think that there is a big difference between small babies and those who fail to thrive. Some babies are just small and it has nothing to do with BFing. DD2 was a normal weight at birth, and now at 2 1/2 years she is still 23 lbs. I avoided taking her to the doctor for nearly her entire life because I was afraid of being told to supplement. There is nothing wrong with her, she is healthy, intelligent, active, just small.

[siobhang]

Originally Posted by tex.mom

I always think about this. My cousin had major reduction at age 20 (she is 5'2" and had some seriously gigantic breasts) and the nipples had to come completely OFF in the process and then back on. So she is not "hooked up." She was told it would be physcially impossible, but it was barely worth her mention at the time, though I think it sank in over 10 years later when she had children.

In my experience, breast reduction surgeons either tell you "yes you can" or "no, impossible".

The reality is "it depends".

It is totally possible to breastfeed after reduction - I did - but most women will need to supplement. The real question is how much supplement is needed. There is really no way to know ahead of time unfortunately - there are far too many factors, like type of surgery, length of time between surgery and pregnancy, inherent lactation capacity, the baby's ability, other complications, etc.

I had full supply after my breast reduction surgery and I am not alone (I even was able to tandem nurse my two boys). However, my experience is kind of unusual. Anecdotal evidence shows approximately 30% of women have full (or near full taking fenugreek or dpd, etc) supplies, with the remainder needing to supplement a little or a lot.

And while, technically, yes, all you need is one nipple to breastfeed, supplementing can be really hard going for some moms, especially with multiple children or other complications. Sane mom is more important than breastmilk, if in the unfortunate situation to have to choose between the two.

My attitude is that every ounce of breastmilk is gold - no one should feel like a failure for not breastfeeding "enough" - breastfeeding is not a marathon where only those crossing the finish line get a medal. Every mom who puts baby to the breast has breastfed, and every baby who gets breastmilk has been breastfed.

www.bfar.org is a great resource for women who want to investigate breastfeeding after reduction.

[mommabird]

Originally Posted by siobhang

And while, technically, yes, all you need is one nipple to breastfeed, supplementing can be really hard going for some moms, especially with multiple children or other complications. Sane mom is more important than breastmilk, if in the unfortunate situation to have to choose between the two.

My attitude is that every ounce of breastmilk is gold - no one should feel like a failure for not breastfeeding "enough" - breastfeeding is not a marathon where only those crossing the finish line get a medal. Every mom who puts baby to the breast has breastfed, and every baby who gets breastmilk has been breastfed.

That's so well said! Unfortunately breastfeeding has become something of an all or nothing issue.

I also agree that true low supply due to physical issues in the mother is more common than people think. I mean think about it, with so much pressure to breastfeed would you want to admit "defectiveness?"

To play devil's advocate for a minute - and I want to make it clear that women who BFAR no matter what reason they had surgery are amazing - should women who have had breast surgery be counted in a study like this? Shouldn't a study on true low supply include only women who were born unable to produce a full supply, without the influence of other factors like surgery, medication, problems in the baby, etc.?

[katheek77]

Ah, but medical intervention goes both ways.

For example, PCOS makes it more difficult to establish a full milk supply. BUT, without medical intervention, a lot of women with PCOS may not have become pregnant in the first place...so, do you count those women in the study?

I have Type II tubular breasts. I just was not able to produce a full milk supply for DD. And I tried everything except domperidone (I have an irregular heartbeat, and didn't want to mess with that..personal comfort level). There was a very small study done about women with tubular breasts and breastfeeding...One of thirty-four was able to produce enough milk in the first week for their babies and 85% were producing less than half of what their babies needed...however, with interventions (pumping after every feeding w/a hospital grade pump, galactalogues, lactation consultations, etc), at the end of the fifth week, about about 39% produced all their babies needed and 6% were producing 51-99%...so, do you count those women?

I think it's just a very complex issue that would be tough to measure...you'd need to figure out how many women bf w/o issues, how many can produce a percentage of the milk but not a full supply, how many can get a full supply WITH interventions, how many have a full supply, but have a baby who doesn't nurse (for whatever reason)...I think it would be very interesting, but very difficult, to do a study like this...

[tireesix]

[QUOTE=katheek77;11224824

For example, PCOS makes it more difficult to establish a full milk supply. BUT, without medical intervention, a lot of women with PCOS may not have become pregnant in the first place...so, do you count those women in the study?

[/QUOTE]

From what I have reead, about a third of PCOS sufferers have low supply, a third normal and a third oversupply (according to some LLL stuff I was reading).

I suffer from major oversupply and that nearly stopped me breastfeeding the second time around. The pain, was unbelievable and not a single thing I tried remedied the oversupply. Over a year after DD2 was born, I would be in terrific pain even after less than 24 hours not breastfeeding (and at that point I was in hospital with morphine drip, paracetomol and every other bloody pain killer they would give me, I had an ankle op which hurt like hell but nothing like my boobs).


So anyway, around 5-10% of women are said to suffer from PCOS (although it might be slightly more these days) so I take of a tthird and add that to the 5-2% who physically can't breastfeed and then of course you have those that have issues due to surgery and then not only that, but the birth can impact upon breastfeeding as well affecting when milk comes in etc, so you add it all together and it becomes quite a large number.

I think thsat a lot of the problems can be over come with maybe medication and supplementation but most of all, they need support and explaining why it hasn't worked so well for them.

I found this to be an interesting book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Impact-Birth...0867678&sr=8-1

Anyway, thats my take on stuff.

[robertandenith]

Originally Posted by MarcyC

I would like to see a statistic on how much is spent each year on lactation aids - LactAids, SNS's, herbal teas (several companies make them), motherlove products, herbal supplements, etc. I think it would be interesting to get those facts!

I totally agree! : What irks me the most is that the medical field don't want to believe in herbs, so they will not even try to recommend herbs to produce milk. So formula is then recommended

[robertandenith]

Originally Posted by katheek77

For example, PCOS makes it more difficult to establish a full milk supply. BUT, without medical intervention, a lot of women with PCOS may not have become pregnant in the first place

sorry ot here but wanted to ask you, a woman with PCOS can establish a full milk supply through herbs? I am VERY interested to know, as I am trying to guide a future momma of twins that went through in-vitro fert. I wonder how much milk she will be able to produce on her own... but I am already doing a breastfeeding package with some RRL herbs in it

[kriket]

Originally Posted by katheek77

for example, PCOS makes it more difficult to establish a full milk supply. BUT, without medical intervention, a lot of women with PCOS may not have become pregnant in the first place

This comment made me sad, I was angry at first but now I'm sad. Maybe it's because we're not IRL but this sounds really cold, almost like PCOSers shouldn't have kids because their bodies can't do it 'naturally'

[Da WIC Lady]

I do recall a few studies related to maternal obesity and the inability to sustain exclusive breastfeeding. I don't have the links anymore because my laptop died. I believe it had something to do with the high levels of estrogen stored in fat cells inhibiting milk production when the fat was burned and that the hormonal balance due to being overweight made it difficult for many women to produce enough milk. I qualify as obese, but I've never had a problem breastfeeding my babies. I was also bound and determined to breastfeed no mater what and the thought never crossed my mind that I was supposed to have problems due to weight or having had a c-section or a large baby or being on WIC or any other reason that studies or people say negatively impact the success of breastfeeding. Though I think that sometimes lack of support or even just psyching ourselves out contributes more to the success or failure to exclusively breastfeed than any physiological barrier.

[leila1213]

Originally Posted by tireesix

I found this to be an interesting book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Impact-Birth...0867678&sr=8-1

I love the picture on the cover! *sniff*

[MaryJaneLouise]

Originally Posted by kriket

This comment made me sad, I was angry at first but now I'm sad. Maybe it's because we're not IRL but this sounds really cold, almost like PCOSers shouldn't have kids because their bodies can't do it 'naturally'

I'm sure that's not what that poster meant.

[katheek77]

Originally Posted by kriket

This comment made me sad, I was angry at first but now I'm sad. Maybe it's because we're not IRL but this sounds really cold, almost like PCOSers shouldn't have kids because their bodies can't do it 'naturally'

No no no...I wasn't saying that at all. The person above me had asked if women who couldn't breastfeed b/c of some medical intervention (surgery, contraindicatory medication, etc) should be included in the statistics, and I was saying that medical intervention/assistance goes both ways...that, ok...a third of mothers with PCOS have supply issues...but they're mothers thanks to medical assistance...so, if you're excluding women who can't breastfeed b/c of medical intervention, do you *include* women who CAN breastfeed b/c of medical intervention or do you just not count *anyone* who had assistance, whether positive or negative.

I wasn't trying to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.