Thoughts about this??

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

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:29pm

<<>>

I didnt.

<<>>

Ah now we are at the not telling the whole truth are we. I believe I stated that I was using YOUR definition of nursing on demand. That we had a different definition of nursing on demand. Try to tell the whole truth next time.

<<>>

Using YOUR definition of nursing on demand. You were having a hard time so I was trying to help you out by using your definition of nursing on demand. Did you forget that?

<<>>

Like I have said all along.

<<>>

Why wouldnt you? I have kept my statements in truth. You however have continually danced and left key statements out and still wont back up your statements. Interesting.

Here are some post numbers to help refresh your memory.

2841
2912
2954
2984
3051 Should really help you.




Edited 4/17/2007 6:36 pm ET by mbanc17
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:35pm

"Not to mention my children nursed on a schedule."

http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/evidence.html

"It is now commonly accepted that infants, most especially breastfed infants, thrive best when allowed to feed as they indicate their needs."

"As artificial baby milk became all the rage in the twentieth century, both formulations of this milk and schedules to feed babies came into popularity. These schedules often stretched feedings to 3 or 4 hour intervals, and though they apparently worked for bottle fed infants, they did not work so well for breastfed infants."

"Many mothers have returned to demand feeding, finding the most breastfeeding success when following baby's cues rather than the clock. The medical establishment lagged behind, and has followed suit only after its own research was undertaken to prove the wisdom of cue feeding---- for breastfed babies."

More to follow :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:38pm

"Not to mention my children nursed on a schedule."

http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/evidence.html

"Feeding cues and delayed feeds

A baby readying to feed displays cues even before he may awaken (Anderson, GC). At first, baby may wiggle, toss and turn, or be restless in his sleep. If his hand is near his face, he may begin to root towards it, and even attempt to suckle it or anything else near his mouth. If these early cues are ignored, the baby may begin to "squeak" and fuss lightly; and if this is also ignored, he will eventually work up to a full cry to express that he is now overdue for his needed nourishment. An experienced breastfeeding mother with baby nearby usually quickly discerns baby's needs and puts him to breast early in this sequence of cues, avoiding the fretting and crying entirely. For the mother who is scheduling her baby and/or sleeping apart from him, however, it is much different.

A newborn who is left to cry for even a few minutes can become very disorganized and have a more difficult time latching on and suckling correctly (Anderson, GC). This has often been observed by mothers in the hospital; the nurse will rush the baby in, saying "He's really ready to eat, he's been crying for the last 10 minutes!", but then as soon as mom attempts to put him to breast, he falls asleep and does not breastfeed well. As a result, he often does not take as much as he needs, and if this scenario is repeated, mother's milk production will decrease over time. This stands in opposition to the belief that a baby who is made to wait for his feeding based on a clock is going to "signal the breast to produce more milk" by sucking more strongly out of his hunger. Rather, the opposite quite often occurs. Circumventing the natural cues of a baby by attempting to breastfeed earlier or by waiting past those "golden moments" simply doesn't work well. While a good nursery nurse can "make" a baby take a bottle on a schedule by forcing the rigid nipple into his mouth to elicit a sucking reflex, it is virtually impossible for even the best lactation consultant to "make" a baby breastfeed.

Furthermore, crying has been found to be physiologically detrimental to the new infant. Large fluctuations in blood flow occur during extended crying periods, decreasing cerebral oxygenation and causing an increase in cerebral blood volume. As a result, rising blood pressure increases intracranial pressure, putting baby at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. Meanwhile, oxygen-depleted blood flows back into the systemic circulation rather than into the lungs (Anderson, GC). Overall, crying in the newborn resembles the adult valsalva maneuver (straining with stooling) by obstructing venous return in the inferior vena cava, which temporarily reestablishes fetal circulation within the heart of the newborn.

In an attempt to prevent excessive crying and also keep baby on track, some proponents of infant schedules promote the use of pacifiers to delay feedings and/or eliminate non-nutritive sucking at breast. Such interventions are not without risk, however. Barros and Victora, et al, have documented that pacifier use is associated with a shorter duration of breastfeeding, while Victora et al note that mothers who utilize pacifiers for their infants frequently exercise a higher degree of behavioral control while breastfeeding, often leading again to shorter duration of breastfeeding overall. This should be of concern to both parents and health professionals as the duration of breastfeeding in the United States currently falls well below the recommendations of the World Health Organization (Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative) and the Surgeon General."

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:39pm

Ok...what is your point here? Sorry but again my children nursed about every 3/4 hours depending on the age they were. Just how they were. What else would you like me to tell you? In fact I know a few mothers that said their babies nursed on a schedule and it worked very well for them. It allowed them to be able to get out and do things without a carseat or a baby strapped to them. I couldnt imagine being tied to a baby for the first year. Ack.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:43pm
What does this have to do with universal to all children? Let me add that my babies cried when they were hungry. I would go in, change their diaper, bring them to the bedroom, and sit on the bed and nurse them. No problems whatsoever. Both babies latched on well, and ate well. So where is this universal thing?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:45pm

"Where is the universal to all children part?"

What part of biological, programmed, intrinsic, inborn etc. do you not understand LOL?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:49pm

Here's another excerpt for you :)

http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/go/index.php/253/nursing-isnt-just-breastfeeding/

“Nursing” matters

Lest you think this “nursing” your baby sounds sweet but offers intangible rewards, look again at all the benefits of holding your baby and allowing her to suck at will.

• nourishment
• comfort
• easing of pain and discomfort
• protection during illness
• building of bonding and attachment with parents
• social development
• inducing sleep
• building of trust in parents
• visual development
• development of communication skills
• building brain organization toward positive stress handling throughout life
• reduced heart disease risk factors
• lowered risk of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:55pm
Where was that written other than in YOUR post? LOL
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:55pm

<<>>

"I didnt."

Yes. You did.

<>

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Tue, 04-17-2007 - 6:58pm

Good grief. You really have a hard time.

You said:

<<>>

I said...I didnt. Meaning I didnt nurse on demand. This is tiring and your spin is making me dizzy.

Pages