SAH doesn't support change,
Find a Conversation
SAH doesn't support change,
| Sat, 08-26-2006 - 4:58pm |
"SAH doesn't support change, it supports going backwards to the 1950's,"
Statement in a post below.
I wholeheartedly disagree. To me, SAH is a choice. How is that going back to the 1950s, when a lot of women didn't have much of a choice.

Pages
Where, and what kind of degrees, are you talking about? Even though many of my former students had almost a year's worth of college credit before entering college, they still take four years to graduate.
If anything, statistics show that students are taking longer to graduate.
If the baby is sated before the last breast is emptied, and you're needing to build a stock pile or increase your supply to offset a possible decrease due to pumping insteading of nursing, then you would want to increase supply. A baby that falls asleep before the breast is emptied isn't necessarily sated, just lulled to sleep, and could wake up at any moment to feed again especially if clusterfeeding during a growth spurt. The point of increasing your supply isn't always because it's low. It can be to prepare for a seperation, for pumping instead of nursing, or to create a stockpile. If you knew as much about breastfeeding as you claim, you'd know that there are reasons for increasing supply besides just having a low supply already.
The nutritional content/inensity of breastmilk does not change with the volume. It changes with how long at a feeding the child is nursing. First comes the colustrum, where most of the antibodies are, then the hind milk, where most of the nutrients are. The baby needs both. The amount of nutrients and antibodes don't decrease with the amount of milk you have. They're always there. Whether or not the baby gets them depends on whether or not he nurses long enough, not how much milk you have. If you knew anything about breastmilk, as you claim, you'd know that having more milk doesn't mean you have less nutrients. THAT is an illogical, fancy rationalization. I'm almost giggling thinking about it. I'll have to tell all of my friends with such great supplies how inferior theri breastmilk is to that of people with lower supplies.
It's not a fancy rationalization just because you don't find it logical. I've got this information from many nurses, LCs, and doctors. It isn't something I pulled out of my ass. Pumping to increase your supply should be done while nursing, so you get colustrum and hind milk. Pumping after nursing is okay if you're needing to empty the breast the rest of the way, but it's not the recommended way. And pumping instead of nursing isn't quite as efficient. Usually, you'd have to pump a lot longer than you'd have to nurse to get the same amount of milk. The strength of the suckling and the motion of the tongue have as much to do with how much milk comes out and whether or not the body sees the demand for more as how long you feed.
Once again... I'm still waiting for you to post some proof otherwise, rather than your disagreeing because it simply doesn't make sense to you. I've been nursing for 14 months now, have been researching it even longer, have spoken to many nurses, LCs, doctors, & other breastfeeding women about it. What are your credentials? And what are your sources, so that I might see which professionals back up your claims that having lots of milk means that milk isn't as nutritious! Haha.
Pages