Thoughts about this??

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-23-2003
Thoughts about this??
3946
Tue, 03-27-2007 - 11:53am

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 11:44am
For those of us who didn't wish to co-sleep with their children, transitional objects played a key role.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 11:46am
So - I think it's okay not to satisfy one's babies' biological need/desire to suck some times.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 11:55am

If you could be a little more specific wrt to what you want me to prove, I'd be happy to oblidge. Are you referring to the 1st question, the 2nd question, or both questions (see below)?

1. Do you need me show you proof as to where I have this knowledge that I can't for the life of me figure out why you have such an issue with a child's natural, biological, instinctual need to suck as well as to nurse for comfort?

2. Or do you need me to show you proof as to where I have this knowledge wrt "a child's natural, biological, instinctual need to suck as well as to nurse for comfort" and "That it's simply built in to their biology. They are programmed that way. These needs are intrinsic to them. They are universal to every child?"

TIA :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 12:02pm

Yeah. If my kid comes to me and says they are hungry, they don't have to "earn" a meal. They want a hug? don't have to earn it either.

But a cupcake? Maybe. And cupcakes are junk food. Not like any breastmilk that may be gotten.

Fio

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 12:14pm

"Not to mention that I find it very hard to believe her theory that these biological urges are the same for every child as she has claimed."

So you DO disagree then.

IOW, you believe that children DON'T have a natural, biological, instinctual need to suck as well as to nurse for comfort?

That it's NOT simply built in to their biology?

That they are NOT programmed that way?

That these needs are NOT intrinsic to them?

That they are NOT universal to every child?

Thanks for answering the question btw. Although it was quite obvious regardless :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 12:41pm

"For those of us who didn't wish to co-sleep with their children, transitional objects played a key role. My DH and I had plenty of reason and motivation to get them attached to those things."

Yes. I can see that.

Clearly there are plenty of parents who have reason and motivation to get their children attached to blankies, stuffed animals, transitional objects, mother subsitutes, etc.

In our case, due to the use of child-led weaning, co-sleeping, etc. there was really no need, reason, or motivation to get our children attached to such objects or substitutes.

To each his own :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 12:47pm

"So - I think it's okay not to satisfy one's babies' biological need/desire to suck some times. Or to use a paci instead of a breast to do so."

Great.

Very interesting side topic btw!

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-15-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 12:59pm

Are we talking about infants? Or older children? At one my oldest was weaned he accepted his blankie and a pink kitty to fufill his sucking need, he did not want a pacifier so he began to learn how to comfort himself, without the need to suck on a bottle, breast, thumb, fingers, pacifier whatever.

that is what i mean.

My opinion is not going to change, i stand by my views.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 1:29pm

There is a lot of interesting information in the points on this page.

I will quote just one number though, since that deals with antibody levels that get more concentrated as the child weans. You can click the link to read the rest.

"17. Human milk concentrates its antibody level as your child slowly weans. Weaning begins the moment something other than human milk is added to your baby's diet. Whether bottles of artificial milk or solids, as your child nurses less the level of human milk consumed drops. Yet the level of antibodies rises. This is to help protect both your breasts & your weaning child from infection."

http://www.canadianparents.com/CPO/SchoolAged/HealthWellness/2004/07/29/591808.html

This "online book", "Nutrition during lactation" is fully referenced and also very interesting.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=135

"Lysozyme is a protein in human milk that affords protection in two different ways: it breaks down susceptible bacteria by cleaving peptidoglycans from their cell walls (Chipman and Sharon, 1969), and it acts in concert with other..."

this continues on page 136:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=136

"...components in human milk to kill microbial pathogens. ****High concentrations of this protein are found in human milk throughout lactation**** (Butte et al., 1984b; Goldman et al., 1982, 1983a,b), whereas concentrations in cow's milk are very much lower. Like many other host resistance factors in human milk, lysozyme is relatively resistant to proteolysis and to denaturation resulting from the high acidity within the stomach."

****emphasis mine.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=137

"In addition to the soluble immunologic agents mentioned above, human milk contains living white blood cells (leukocytes) (Crago et al., 1979; Smith and Goldman, 1968). Neutrophils and macrophages account for approximately 90% of the white blood cells in human milk; the remaining white blood cells are lymphocytes. The neutrophils have phagocytic activity and intracellular killing power similar to those of neutrophils in human blood (Ho and Lawton, 1978; Robinson et al., 1978; Smith and Goldman, 1968; Tsuda et al., 1984) and the bactericidal power of these cells appears to be spared in malnourished women (Bhaskaram and Reddy, 1981). However, the neutrophils in milk are less motile than their counterparts in blood. Moreover, unlike blood neutrophils, they do not appear to increase many of their functions in response to bacteria or serum-derived chemotactic agents (Thorpe et al., 1986).

The morphology of human milk macrophages suggests that they are activated; indeed, that is born out by the fact that they are more motile than their precursors in blood are (Özkaragöz et al., 1988). The macrophages in human milk are involved in antigen processing and presentation to T lymphocytes and thus may serve in the recognition of foreign materials. Furthermore, these macrophages display class II major histocompatibility antigens (Leyva-Cobián and Clemente, 1984), which suggests that they may participate in the process of immunogenesis in the infant.

Thymic-dependent lymphocytes (T cells) account for the majority of lymphocytes in milk; the relative proportions of the major subpopulations of these cells may be similar to those in blood (Keller et al., 1986). Although their cytotoxic capacities are poor, they can generate certain lymphokines when stimulated in vitro (Keller et al., 1981; Kohl et al., 1980; Lawton et al., 1979)."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=138

"Human milk lacks inflammatory mediators or their initiating systems (Goldman et al., 1986), but it contains a host of anti-inflammatory agents including agents that double as direct protective agents, antioxidants, enzymes that degrade inflammatory mediators, antienzymes, cytoprotective agents, and modulators of leukocyte activation (Goldman et al., 1986, 1990). Some of these agents are also components of the antimicrobial system in human milk, whereas others that have antioxidant activity, such as α-tocopherol and β-carotene, are also nutrients."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=167

"However, a lower incidence of gastrointestinal infections in breastfed infants in the United States (Myers et al., 1984) and lower perinatal mortality from infectious disease among breastfed, compared with formula-fed, infants in England (Carpenter et al., 1983) suggest that the protective effects of breastfeeding are important in industrialized as well as in developing countries. Moreover, since breastfed infants may remain asymptomatic even after exposure to enteropathogens (microorganisms that infect the intestinal tract) contaminating the nipples and areola of the nursing mother (Mata and Urrutia, 1971; Wyatt and Mata, 1969), the protection afforded by breastfeeding is attributable to factors in the milk in addition to an avoidance of pathogens."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=168

"Because human milk contains a host of direct-acting antimicrobial factors, anti-inflammatory agents, and substances that may hasten the maturation of the infant's immune system, there is reason to believe that development of chronic diseases having an infectious or immunologic basis may be influenced by the method of infant feeding. Recent investigations suggest that breastfeeding..."

continued on page 169...

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=169

"...exerts long-term protective effects against three such diseases: type I diabetes mellitus (Borch-Johnsen et al., 1984; Mayer et al., 1988), lymphoma (Davis et al., 1988), and ****Crohn's disease**** (Koletzko et al., 1989). Potential risk factors were identified for 114 cases of Crohn's disease and 180 controls (unaffected siblings) within 107 families. The children with this disease were less likely to have been breastfed (relative risk of 3.6 for formula-fed infants.) Even though each of these studies was retrospective and depended on long-term recall, the finding that breastfeeding may reduce the risks of developing serious disorders in later life warrants further investigation."

****emphasis mine again

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=173

"The association between breastfeeding and mortality after 1 year of age has been inconsistent. For example, while Cantrelle and Leridon (1971) found no protection during the second and third years of life, Briend et al. (1988), in a careful prospective study in rural Bangladesh, observed that breastfeeding provided persistent and strong protection against mortality throughout the age span studied (up to the infants' third birthday). It does appear that even in primitive conditions excess mortality is not inevitable among those weaned..."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1577&page=174

"...after the first birthday, but the situations in which protection is not conferred by breastfeeding are not understood."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 1:31pm

"Are we talking about infants? Or older children?"

Take your pick.

IOW, How does offering a blankie fill a child's sucking needs at any age?

Pages