Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Irene Musiol wrote: > Seriously nutrition was not my problem. I don't blame the LLL moms. They > did the best they could with the guidelines they had. > Irene > Not to jump in on a long argument, but I had a long experience with this too. In my case, I couldn't nurse *much* because, I think, of Sjogren's, which was messing up my body fluids big time at the time. Plus there were complications with the baby. Some women really really can't nurse. But everything I read ... and the nurses at the hospital, and the doctors ... pointed to the idea that even if your milk isn't ideal, or " enough " , you should nurse at least what you can. Apparently the studies were showing that just two feedings a day was enough to help the baby's immune system develop. And if breast milk is fed WITH the introduced foods, it seems to help train the immune system. The whole issue of immune factors is separate from " nutrition " . A good supplement is better than a bad supplement, to be sure, but neither will provide the immune factors found in mother's milk. So it's not an " either nurse or use supplements " issue. A woman should do BOTH if she doesn't have enough milk or if there aren't enough nutrients in the milk. And while I do agree (from my experience) that LLL can be simplistic, and makes it sound that " every woman can nurse " which just isn't true, I think the article on WAPF shouldn't come down so hard on that. Women today have too many time constraints and are just looking for an excuse not to nurse. Further, it's just not true that studies don't show an advantage to breastfeeding. Perhaps SOME studies don't show an advantage, but a bunch of others do, esp. over the long haul. I realize the point of the article was probably to say " women should eat better when they are nursing " ... which I'd agree with ... but even a woman eating SAD will produce better milk than Enfamil. And the folks who wouldn't use Enfamil are the same ones that won't eat SAD. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Well, I agree with all that. I really don't think anyone suggested it is an either or issue. I basically nursed as much as I could for the antibodies and such and supplemented with formula. Everyone I know that had milk supply problems did the same. My experience was the same as yours in that the message I heard everywhere was to breastfeed as much as possible. In also did extra pumping for quite a while to try and increase my supply but that didn't work at all. Then at 6 months when my milk supply went to about 4 ounces per day, I stopped nursing. It was just too frustrating for my son to try and nurse and get almost nothing. He wasn't one to stay on the breast if there wasn't anything there and it just became a negative experience. So I just pumped several times a day collected the milk and gave it to him in a bottle. figured that was better than nothing. As far as WAPF, they don't say that studies don't show an advantage to breastfeeding. They say they studies do show advantage to breastfeeding. Only one study did not. Irene At 11:25 AM 8/27/2005, you wrote: >Irene Musiol wrote: > > > Seriously nutrition was not my problem. I don't blame the LLL moms. They > > did the best they could with the guidelines they had. > > Irene > > >Not to jump in on a long argument, but I had a long >experience with this too. In my case, I couldn't nurse *much* >because, I think, of Sjogren's, which was messing up my >body fluids big time at the time. Plus there were complications >with the baby. Some women really really can't nurse. > >But everything I read ... and the nurses >at the hospital, and the doctors ... pointed to the idea that >even if your milk isn't ideal, or " enough " , you should >nurse at least what you can. Apparently the studies >were showing that just two feedings a day was enough >to help the baby's immune system develop. And if breast >milk is fed WITH the introduced foods, it seems to help >train the immune system. > >The whole issue of immune factors is separate from > " nutrition " . A good supplement is better than a bad >supplement, to be sure, but neither will provide the >immune factors found in mother's milk. So it's not an > " either nurse or use supplements " issue. A woman should >do BOTH if she doesn't have enough milk or if >there aren't enough nutrients in the milk. > >And while I do agree (from my experience) that LLL >can be simplistic, and makes it sound that " every woman >can nurse " which just isn't true, I think the article on >WAPF shouldn't come down so hard on that. Women >today have too many time constraints and are just looking >for an excuse not to nurse. Further, it's just not true >that studies don't show an advantage to breastfeeding. >Perhaps SOME studies don't show an advantage, but >a bunch of others do, esp. over the long haul. I realize >the point of the article was probably to say " women should >eat better when they are nursing " ... which I'd agree with ... >but even a woman eating SAD will produce better milk >than Enfamil. And the folks who wouldn't use Enfamil >are the same ones that won't eat SAD. > >-- Heidi > > > > > ><HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " > " <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd>http://www.w3.org/TR/\ xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT >FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > ><B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> ><UL> > <LI><B><A > HREF= " < />http://health.grou\ ps./group/ / " >NATIVE > NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> > <LI><B><A > HREF= " <http://onibasu.com/>http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire > message archive with Onibasu</LI> ></UL></FONT> ><PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A >HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST >OWNER:</A></B> Idol ><B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer > Wanita Sears ></FONT></PRE> ></BODY> ></HTML> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 > >I didn't suggest a " rebuttal. " There is no need for argument. What >you've been saying is there isn't enough material on successful breast >feeding. Well... no one has written any! Obviously, if there is >material to write on traditional methods for inducing breast feeding >or assisting breast feeding, that's the unique angle that calls for >WAPF publication. > > That's a good idea. I think it would be best written by someone who is now nursing and eating NT style. >I don't care whether or not you financially support WAPF, but you have >an awful lot of time to talk about it here. It makes more sense to >try to generate a contribution to a missing area than to berate the >WAPF for the absence of certain articles. If those articles were >written and rejected, that would be a different story. > > I often don't have time for this list, and sometimes I should refrain from commenting as I am not spending ample time reading. I can get into trouble when I read quickly, go water the garden, come in and reply, get called away to something, etc. I don't read every post, either. I am very willing to contribute to a constructive and comprehensive child nutrition focus within the WAPF. Perhaps that is what I will do throughout the remainder of the year, as it is of utmost importance from a nutritional perspective. And this list is much more active in generating real clues about what is best based on science. My main complaint is that I find the policy confusing. I think it should be spelled out without disparaging remarks and emotionally charged writing. That's all. I think, " What would a young mother whose been following WAPF eating think about how best to feed her infant? " The answer is I would have no idea, as it is confusing to me. And from what I have begun to find is that I am not the only one confused. >Your reaction might not be " knee-jerk " in the sense that you've been >ambivalent about the WAPF since the beginning, but I mean on this >specific issue it is knee-jerk to assume that because the WAPF >material is deficient in a certain area, there is some sort of malice >involved. What wouldn't be knee-jerk would be to gain a response from >Sally to a suggestion of certain types of material that could be added >to improve the balance. > Yes, and that is why I followed my mentor Kathy's advice to write chapter leaders and wait for a discussion. She was convinced, btw, that much discussion would be generated. Thankfully, Suze has subbed me back on so that I can see for myself what gets generated. Thank you, Suze. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 >-----Original Message----- >From: >[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna Wagner s, and that is why I followed my mentor Kathy's advice to write >chapter leaders and wait for a discussion. She was convinced, btw, that >much discussion would be generated. Thankfully, Suze has subbed me back >on so that I can see for myself what gets generated. Thank you, Suze. You are welcome :-) I'm glad to see you are not giving up but are willing to do something constructive within the organization to improve its message re the subject of breast feeding, which I agree is an absolutely critical subject. Now, I want to post something to the chapterleaders list that summarizes the concerns posted over here but am feeling crappy/crampy right now so can't put my mind to it. Would anyone care to write a full bullets re the overarching concerns re the WAPF's presentation of infant nutrition that I may post to the chapterleaders list, attn. to Sally? I understand, I think, that the main issue is that it's not clear and emphasized in the WAPF literature that breast milk is best, and that women should try every way they can to improve the quality of their breast milk, before considering formulas? That there seems to be a mixed message in that some folks reading the WAPF lit feel that the emphasis is on formula? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 I did read the posts and that is why I was reacting in that way. I was reacting to your comment that " most babies would probably benefit if their mothers supplemented their milk with something, even most WAPF babies. " I do not see where or how this is true. Because I would consider supplementation giving a substitute for breastmilk and not beginning solids between 4-8 months of age. To me beginning solids is a very different subject that supplementing NT or any other formula. Once you begin supplementation with any formula you are decreasing a mother's milk supply which can be disastrous to the nursing relationship. This can begin an unnecessary chain of events that will cause a mother to loose her milk supply rapidly and cause the need for complete supplementation with formula prior to the minimum recommended 1 year. I have now come to the conclusion that many of us may have had a very different meaning by " supplementation. " Blessings, -----Original Message----- From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol >Why would you ever recommend supplementation for ANY mother if they are >properly producing milk and their infant is thriving? > >I am beginning to highly doubt your education on this area. I really think >you you need to read up on infant nutrition and breastfeeding before you >ever recommend this advice to a nursing mother. I'm trying not to react angrily here, but the only charitable conclusion I'm able to draw at the moment is that you haven't read a single word I've posted on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Suze- > Um, that one sentence declared your stance on no longer supporting the WAPF > with rather clear certaintly. I'm not a mind reader, so couldn't possibly > have known you'd change your mind. Not the point. Organizationally speaking, someone can privately say amongst friends and acquaintances " I'm going to resign, damnit! " and then not actually take the necessary official steps to resign. What you did is somewhat analogous to preemptively firing someone who in the heat of an argument over a beer after work said she was going to resign the next day. All this is water under the bridge, I see, but I do think that's an important point. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 - >I did read the posts and that is why I was reacting in that way. I was >reacting to your comment that > " most babies would probably benefit if their mothers supplemented their milk >with something, even most WAPF babies. " > >I do not see where or how this is true. Because I would consider >supplementation giving a substitute for breastmilk and not beginning solids >between 4-8 months of age. To me beginning solids is a very different >subject that supplementing NT or any other formula. Once you begin >supplementation with any formula you are decreasing a mother's milk supply >which can be disastrous to the nursing relationship. This can begin an >unnecessary chain of events that will cause a mother to loose her milk >supply rapidly and cause the need for complete supplementation with formula >prior to the minimum recommended 1 year. > >I have now come to the conclusion that many of us may have had a very >different meaning by " supplementation. " One problem is that we have little hard information on how changes in diet and other factors like the nutritional and health history of the mothers affect the nutritional quality of their milk. We're actually much more knowledgeable about such variance in the nutritional quality of cows' milk, absurdly enough. But from what we do know, it's very clear that very many women are producing nutritionally inadequate milk. My speculation is that even many WAPF-type women are, unfortunately, producing markedly less than ideal milk for a variety of reasons including lack of dietary compliance, certain problem areas in WAPF dietary recommendations, prior health issues, cross-generational nutritional problems, nearly universal poor soil fertility, etc. Also, you've said that you're extremely educated on the subject and you've strongly questioned my education, but you've said things like this: >But what makes you think the fact that there was less fat in the milk is >bad. I don't see why the fat content in breastmilk would need to have the >same amount of fat content as cows's milk. A cow is meant to grow in MUCH >larger proportions than an human infant. We've hashed out this exact question repeatedly in the last few days, and in stark contrast to that post of yours it's actually _very_ well documented that human milk should be significantly fattier than Holstein milk, and it's also obvious that the fat content has relatively little to do with the bulk growth rate of the infant and a lot to do with proper brain development. So I'm afraid that your questions are largely based on a mistaken foundation. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Heidi, >And while I do agree (from my experience) that LLL >can be simplistic, and makes it sound that " every woman >can nurse " which just isn't true, I think the article on >WAPF shouldn't come down so hard on that. Women >today have too many time constraints and are just looking >for an excuse not to nurse. Further, it's just not true >that studies don't show an advantage to breastfeeding. >Perhaps SOME studies don't show an advantage, but >a bunch of others do, esp. over the long haul. I realize >the point of the article was probably to say " women should >eat better when they are nursing " ... which I'd agree with ... >but even a woman eating SAD will produce better milk >than Enfamil. And the folks who wouldn't use Enfamil >are the same ones that won't eat SAD. > I agree. Again, I am confused by the foundation's stance. Moreover, with new moms stressed for time and/or just frazzled with their new addition to the family, possibly without support from extended family, how many will stick with the NT breast milk replacement (or whatever you want to call it, I have no emotional attachment to any name)? I mean, it's a long list of ingredients, some of which appear to be health food store only items. The article in WT says it takes 20 minutes from start to clean up iirc, but they also recommend making it daily. Is this something SAD folks would even do? If attempting to nurse is truly best for NT moms and babies, then let's support that with information, as new members are coming in all the time who are afraid to ferment cabbage even, let alone feeling secure about feeding a new life. NT formula (, WAPF calls it that) is a great thing to have the ingredients for on hand just in case, of course. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Suze >You are welcome :-) I'm glad to see you are not giving up but are willing to >do something constructive within the organization to improve its message re >the subject of breast feeding, which I agree is an absolutely critical >subject. > > See, we are both menstruating, lol! Watch out y'all. <hiss hiss> Yes, I have been pondering these months what good I could do within my fringe region (Dallas has all the fun). And this subject has come up before here on NN and I ignored it basically (was it Naomi and recently?). Now that I am looking into it, WAPF literature is controversial to say the least. This is nothing new, of course, but when there is such mixed feeling within the NT community (WAPF members and friends, health seekers, and all), then perhaps some discussion and/or clarification is called for. I would really like to hear from the NT moms and dads like , Pratick, Naomi, and others who have so much to offer in this regard. >Now, I want to post something to the chapterleaders list that summarizes the >concerns posted over here but am feeling crappy/crampy right now so can't >put my mind to it. Would anyone care to write a full bullets re the >overarching concerns re the WAPF's presentation of infant nutrition that I >may post to the chapterleaders list, attn. to Sally? > > This is fabulous. And now that I see that Sally has responded (but I haven't read it yet - thanks for forwarding, <waving furiously>) I am hopeful to engage further in this quest. It is no rush. I am willing to help compile a list of concerns from guys and gals here and elsewhere about presenting a clear policy of feeding options or whatnot that *you* can present to Sally. >I understand, I think, that the main issue is that it's not clear and >emphasized in the WAPF literature that breast milk is best, and that women >should try every way they can to improve the quality of their breast milk, >before considering formulas? That there seems to be a mixed message in that >some folks reading the WAPF lit feel that the emphasis is on formula? > Well, I am willing even to look more deeply into what the questions/problems are and perhaps poll people on some of them. We could get many chapters involved as well to get a really big picture on it all. I don't know what I will do in terms of leading a chapter in the future. I may find someone with more community ties to take over. That might actually be best for all concerned. Honestly, I have been contemplating it and do best behind the scenes I think (then I can be more outspoken than ever!). I will have to see. I appreciate having this discussion with you no matter how heated it gets. I have six cats and rarely do they ever all get along. :-) Be well, Deanna PS. The writing of this message was interrupted by a phone call from PCRM asking me to renew by phone (uh, after a couple years' absence). I told them it would be a conflict of interest for me since I am a WAPF chapter leader, hee hee hee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Deanna Wagner wrote: > > I agree. Again, I am confused by the foundation's stance. Moreover, > with new moms stressed for time and/or just frazzled with their new > addition to the family, possibly without support from extended family, > how many will stick with the NT breast milk replacement (or whatever you > want to call it, I have no emotional attachment to any name)? I mean, > it's a long list of ingredients, some of which appear to be health food > store only items. The article in WT says it takes 20 minutes from start > to clean up iirc, but they also recommend making it daily. Is this > something SAD folks would even do? > > If attempting to nurse is truly best for NT moms and babies, then let's > support that with information, as new members are coming in all the time > who are afraid to ferment cabbage even, let alone feeling secure about > feeding a new life. NT formula (, WAPF calls it that) is a great > thing to have the ingredients for on hand just in case, of course. > > > Deanna > Those are really excellent points. The thing I DID like about nursing is that it was easier, even, than making Enfamil. Cheaper too. Mind you I didn't have a " real job " for the first kid ... I just put her in a sling and sat at my computer. When she got hungry, she sucked. Otherwise, she slept. But when I didn't have enough milk I had to drag myself out of my chair and make milk! Which was too much work for me at the time! I don't know what I would have done of I had to actually mix ingredients. And there is no way I would have fed her raw liver and raw egg yolks. Or that my dh would have allowed it. Let alone kefir! -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 I've never had kids so have stayed out of this discussion, but I do breed dogs, and one thing I've learned in almost 20 years of naturally rearing them: When something isn't right with mama's milk, supplement MOM, not the puppies. Many breeders start pulling the puppies off the bitch at 3 weeks of age. Some puppies are fully weaned by 4 weeks old - this is called " force weaning. " My bitches routinely nurse their puppies until 12 weeks of age, and I have never had to lift a finger to wean a puppy. Mama does it when she's good and ready. And deerhounds are big dogs, too, and have big litters most of the time. Strombeck DVM PhD is a professor of veterinary gastroenterology at UC , and author of the basic veterinary text on gastroenterology, Strombeck's Small Animal Gastroenterology. (And is there a prize for using the word " gastroenterology " most times in a post?). He has written extensively about what he has called an epidemic of improper weaning of kittens and puppies ... too young, and too many foreign proteins all at once. He is adamant that even ONE MOUTHFUL of anything other than mother's milk before the puppies are around six weeks of age, when the canine gastrointestinal mucosal barrier is mature, will irreversably damage the intestinal microbial balance, which cannot ever be restored, and that the potential exists for doing permanent damage to the immune system of the dog or cat. He blames many of the common health problems dogs and cats experience on this. I used to wean my puppies onto raw goat's milk, soaked oats, chamomile tea and probiotics, at 4 weeks. I now wean onto meat alone, at 6 weeks. I feed my bitches on raw meat, organs, and bones (grass fed mostly, although the rabbit I get is raised on alfalfa pellets), raw goat's milk, herbs that support lactation, raw eggs, cooked sweet potatoes with raw butter, molasses, raw honey, raw cheese, yogurt, cod liver oil, fish oil, cooked sardines and salmon (canned, with the bones), and various other foods in small amounts. Beeders I know who feed kibble tell me their bitches are drying up at 3 and a half weeks. They start feeding the puppies. I feed my bitch. It is unbelievable how much a bitch with a big growing litter can eat. It boggles the mind. I've had bitches of 80 pounds who could put away two gallons of goat's milk in a day. On top of all their other food. I have also seen a lot of breeders assure me that their bitches would have to be hogtied to nurse their puppies much past 4 weeks, and they start feeding them because otherwise the pups would starve. This is obviously completely insane. I wouldn't have a bitch like that in my breeding program, and I'm sure there is a genetic component there, but I also firmly believe that their bitches are failing at lactation because of bad diet. And that you can often restore abundant and normal canine lactation patterns by improving both the composition and the AMOUNT of the diet of the bitch. I really have absolutely no idea how useful or pertinent any of this is to those cute little two-legged hairless monkeys you all are talking about. <G> Christie Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986 http://www.caberfeidh.com/ http://www.doggedblog.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 >-----Original Message----- >From: >[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna Wagner >Suze > >>You are welcome :-) I'm glad to see you are not giving up but are >willing to >>do something constructive within the organization to improve its >message re >>the subject of breast feeding, which I agree is an absolutely critical >>subject. >> >> >See, we are both menstruating, lol! Watch out y'all. <hiss hiss> Ah you too, huh? Well I guess we've both used up our free passes to be bitchy today. Only one per cycle, LOL (although sometimes I really need more!) > >Yes, I have been pondering these months what good I could do within my >fringe region (Dallas has all the fun). And this subject has come up >before here on NN and I ignored it basically (was it Naomi and >recently?). Now that I am looking into it, WAPF literature is >controversial to say the least. This is nothing new, of course, but >when there is such mixed feeling within the NT community (WAPF members >and friends, health seekers, and all), then perhaps some discussion >and/or clarification is called for. Right. It just hasn't been on my rader screen personally, and I've only read a few articles in the latest WT so I really hadn't noticed any proclivity towards formula feeding. I think, as some of the other chapter leaders mentioned on the CL list, that I just take it for granted that the WAPF is for breast feeding above formula feeding whenever possible. I think Sally's answer to you today implied as much anyway. However, if several folks are noticing a slant toward formula feeding, I think Sally may simply not be aware that that is the impression that the WAPF literature is giving. And so our primary task would be to make her aware of this so that she might take measures to make sure that the WAPF message re breast feeding is clear. > >>Now, I want to post something to the chapterleaders list that >summarizes the >>concerns posted over here but am feeling crappy/crampy right now so can't >>put my mind to it. Would anyone care to write a full bullets re the >>overarching concerns re the WAPF's presentation of infant nutrition that I >>may post to the chapterleaders list, attn. to Sally? >> >> >This is fabulous. And now that I see that Sally has responded (but I >haven't read it yet - thanks for forwarding, <waving furiously>) I >am hopeful to engage further in this quest. It is no rush. I am >willing to help compile a list of concerns from guys and gals here and >elsewhere about presenting a clear policy of feeding options or whatnot >that *you* can present to Sally. Well, if you feel like doing it, go for it. I just wanted to give her an idea of the impression many folks are coming away with when reading WAPF lit on infant nutrition. I wasn't really thinking of a policy on feeding options - I don't think I have time to gather something that detailed at the moment, but again, feel free to take this on yourself if you feel so inclined. > >>I understand, I think, that the main issue is that it's not clear and >>emphasized in the WAPF literature that breast milk is best, and that women >>should try every way they can to improve the quality of their breast milk, >>before considering formulas? That there seems to be a mixed >message in that >>some folks reading the WAPF lit feel that the emphasis is on formula? >> >Well, I am willing even to look more deeply into what the >questions/problems are and perhaps poll people on some of them. We >could get many chapters involved as well to get a really big picture on >it all. Sounds great. > >I don't know what I will do in terms of leading a chapter in the >future. I may find someone with more community ties to take over. That >might actually be best for all concerned. Honestly, I have been >contemplating it and do best behind the scenes I think (then I can be >more outspoken than ever!). I will have to see. Well, it's nice to see you're sticking around and still supporting a good movement in any case, despite it's shortcomings. > >I appreciate having this discussion with you no matter how heated it >gets. I have six cats and rarely do they ever all get along. :-) Likewise. And forgive me for unsubbing you without first consulting with you about it. It was a mistake and I apologize. >PS. The writing of this message was interrupted by a phone call from >PCRM asking me to renew by phone (uh, after a couple years' absence). I >told them it would be a conflict of interest for me since I am a WAPF >chapter leader, hee hee hee. heh, they probably have a dartboard with poor ol' WAP as the bullseye ;-) Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2005 Report Share Posted August 27, 2005 Christie wrote: > . > > Strombeck DVM PhD is a professor of veterinary gastroenterology > at UC , and author of the basic veterinary text on > gastroenterology, Strombeck's Small Animal Gastroenterology. (And is > there a prize for using the word " gastroenterology " most times in a > post?). No, but there should be an award for using the word " bitch " in a non-angry post the most times! It was funny reading that, watching my own reaction to the word. Now I'm sure dog breeders use it a lot. *I* just don't see it a lot! It's interesting about the gastro/nursing link in dogs. That's a similar thing to what the celiac researchers have been talking about, for the little hairless 2-legged " pups " . -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 On 8/28/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote: > > > I doubt anyone in this discussion doesn't really think there is a > > place for supplementation, just that WAPF's official view seems wishy > > washy and confusing on the subject. Perhaps that is inaccurate, but it > > comes up again and again and again and again, from both insiders and > > outsiders. > > Thank you. Perhaps I get charged on some issues, but honestly I am > not thinking of myself here, as I am long done in the nursing > department. I see the confusion as well and want to help get it > straightened out. > > Sally wrote me and is thrilled that Suze and I will take up this cause > to find out specifically from concerned parents or would be parents > what needs clarification. This would be placed front and center on > the children's health page. Suze was smart to bring constructive > criticism into play, and now it is up to us to voice the changes > needed. I am willing to research the archives and take comments now > and compile a list. Suze can add what she wants and present it. > Sound good? > > Your participation is needed. Thank you for looking at the Children's > Health section of the website and commenting on it. My thoughts on the whole issue aren't really so much with what WAPF says, as to what it doesn't say or emphasize. This comes out in more subtle ways and is reflected in things like the article in Wise Traditions which seemed to celebrate no night feedings and which, as Singer correctly pointed out in a letter to the editor, totally misses the boat. What I get from the overall experience of reading WAPF on the subject is that yes, " breast is best " but at the first sign of trouble head to the formulas. They go from A - Z and skip all the steps in between. They clearly DO skip all the steps in between because there is hardly ever a mention of what a mother can do who is having trouble producing milk. The strong inference seems to be " well go to formula, " which IMO, is the *last* thing a mother should do. An opinion which I think is bourne out by " nourishing traditions. " I also don't think it makes much sense to be recommending formula *alone* on the basis that most women are asking WAPF what to do when they can't produce milk, and since there seems to be so little information of the topic, that is what they present. I don't buy that. If you read the various articles they clearly state over and over that the reason they recommend formula is because of the appalling state of the diet of many mothers. Such may be true but that IS NOT the group asking WAPF the questions. It is a group of mothers already committed to nutrient dense foods. They are not SAD'ers. In fact I would dare say that they are probably concerned as much about their own health as their babies health to be within earshot of WAPF to begin with. So when a WAP mother comes asking questions the *last* thing they ought to hear about is formula. And this is where I think the rubber hits the road. When Sally had a problem it appears she went directly to formula. At any rate she was unsuccessful if she did try to do anything else. Thus the WAPF seems to advocate the same thing. Whereas a large portion of people who read the site and other materials say no, if you have a problem try these other avenues *first*. If for some rare reason you can't resolve the problem, THEN go to formula. That is the emphasis which seems to be missing from the WAPF approach and I think the basis for the continued negativity and confusion that arises over WAPF's position. I think Christie had a very profound insight in her post when she mentioned that with dogs, when they have a problem, you supplement the mom, not the puppy. I would venture that would be the first thing that should occur with humans as well. Upgrade or fine tune the mothers nutrition, take things that increase milk production, get experienced help, or whathaveyou. That kind of info is hardly NOWHERE to be found in the WAPF material which seems very strange if you really think breast is best. And what makes the intermediate steps so vitally important is because the benefits of breastfeeding for the baby *and* the mom go far beyond nutrition, so if it is to be abandoned it should be done so very reluctantly after having exhausted all other avenues. So if that doesn't work, which apparently is quite rare, should one then resort to some formula? I don't think so. Traditionally when a mother couldn't nurse she would use a wet nurse instead. Isn't that interesting. Apparently breastfeeding was so important that even when the mother couldn't do it a surrogate was brought in instead. I have even read of men, with the help of herbs known as galactagogues (agents that increase the secretion of milk), who became wet nurses to their babies when the mom couldn't produce the milk. At any rate, the impression I get from the literature is that WAPF is to quick to jump the gun and for all practical purposes, doesn't think breast is best, because it seemingly does so little to encourage people to solve milking problems *before* resorting to formula. Formula should be the last step, and one only taken reluctantly, when all else has failed. That is certainly not the take away message I get from the WAPF approach. Far as I know, there is nothing traditional about formula feeding, but if needed we should look at it as an unfortunate but necessary substitute for the people involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.