Re: Re: Breast Milk

[Guest guest]

I specifically wanted to address your comments about your friend tasting

his wifes milk. This would not be an good opinion as to the actual fat

content in his wifes breastmilk. You really need to understand the factors

of foremilk & hindmilk. It would be very different if she expressed an

entire breast and then he tasted the milk based on what would be available

to an infant during one entire feeding. That would be a much better

representation of the fat/richness of the milk.

There is a great article that discusses forehind/hindmilk on mom. A

very informative website on breastfeeding.

http://www.kellymom.com/bf/supply/foremilk-hindmilk.html

They also make reference to a variation of fat content in milk based on when

during the day it is expressed. I personally have a much higher fat content

in my morning milk than evening milk. I would assume that is due to an

accumulation of fat during the night but this is only if I express the

entire breast. If I was to stop only half way the milk would be very watery

and almost a clear/blue color.

http://www.kellymom.com/nutrition/milk/change-milkfat.html

Average calorie & fat content of human milk

The average calorie content of human milk is 22 kcal/oz. Caloric content

varies widely throughout each feeding and the day, however, due to changing

fat content. The amount of fat in human milk changes dramatically during

each feeding and throughout the day, since fat content depends on the degree

of emptyness of the breast (empty breast = high fat, full breast = low fat).

The average fat content of human milk is 1.2 grams/oz.

Calorie & Fat Content of Human Milk

Average Range

Energy 22 kcal/oz 13 - 35 kcal/oz

75 kcal/100 mL 45 - 119 kcal/100 mL

Fat (total lipids) 1.2 g/oz 0.6 - 1.5 g/oz

4.2 g/100 mL 2 - 5 g/100 mL

3-5% 1-10%

References:

Hamosh 1991, p. 118; Jelliffe & Jelliffe 1978; Lawrence 1999, p. 108,

305, 738.

quote " I disagree with this as indicated above, but if this is your

position, then

it seems to me that you're conceding the point! My friend tasted his

wife's milk and felt that it was much lower in fat -- much thinner and more

watery -- than full-fat storebought Holstein milk. But Holstein milk

actually has a slightly lower level of total solids (ignoring macronutrient

ratios among those solids) than human milk, and thus by your logic, the

milk he tasted should've seemed a little RICHER than full-fat Holstein milk!

"

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

-

>Dairies routinely add non-fat milk powder to milk to improve opacity

>and percieved richness. That's how I figure that.

They add non-fat milk powder to improve opacity, yes, but the other value

they're addressing is body, not richness.

>Add more protein in the form of

>non-fat powder and cunsumers can hardly tell a difference unless

>they're epicures.

I see, I can tell the difference between Jersey milk, full fat storebought

milk, skim storebought milk and nonfat storebought milk because I'm an

EPICURE? That notion is certainly contradicted by the near-universal

advice from dieticians and doctors to milk drinkers that if they wean

themselves off full-fat milk, they'll eventually get used to the taste of skim.

In fact, here's a quote from http://www.dietitian.com/milk.html.

>>To help wean yourself off a higher fat milk, try drinking two percent

>>milk for one week, then drink one percent milk for one or two weeks and

>>finally start drinking skim milk the remainder of the time. Over time you

>>will become used to the taste of skim milk and higher fat milk will taste

>>like cream to you.

It sure doesn't sound like the ability to discern between grades of milk is

limited to degenerate epicurean hedonists like me.

>Remove the

>opaque, thick protein, and you have crystal clear, watery whey.

How many times to I have to repeat that I'm not talking about the opacity

of the milk? A hundred? A thousand? Continuously until I die?

>I bit on this because I was offended at the suggestion that thin milk

>is " bad " because MY milk was thin, and perfectly adequate, because I

>am a human being who carried my baby all day, and not some other

>species that leaves its babies in safe places without contact or

>nursing for significant periods of time.

I understand that you have an emotional involvement in your position. I'm

sorry that it will apparently preclude productive objective discussion.

>I never stated that ONLY protein is what determines richness IN MILK.

>I stated that PRIMARILY protein is involved.

Actually, you initially said this:

>(and it is primarily protein content which provides opacity, not fat so much)

I apparently made the mistake of thinking you were talking about richness

due to our misunderstanding over whether my friend was talking about the

appearance or taste of his wife's milk. (Again, to be clear, he was

talking about the appearance: he drank it straight from the breast.)

As to actual richness, I reiterate my earlier point: Jersey milk at 5.5%

fat and 3.9% protein tastes much richer than Brown Swiss milk at 4% milk

and 3.6% protein. Clearly the large difference in fat has much more effect

on the taste sensation of richness than the much smaller difference in protein.

>Exactly. And percentage of total solids (including fat - AND, mostly,

>protein) will determine the apparent richness of milk. Not the solids

>COMPOSITION. You can add all the fat or protein you want to the solids

>but if the water/solids ratio is low, the milk will be thin. And that

>is that.

I disagree with this as indicated above, but if this is your position, then

it seems to me that you're conceding the point! My friend tasted his

wife's milk and felt that it was much lower in fat -- much thinner and more

watery -- than full-fat storebought Holstein milk. But Holstein milk

actually has a slightly lower level of total solids (ignoring macronutrient

ratios among those solids) than human milk, and thus by your logic, the

milk he tasted should've seemed a little RICHER than full-fat Holstein milk!

>What basis do you have for assuming that increased

> > nursing frequency = increased consumption of sugar as a percentage of

> > calories?

>

>I never said any such thing. Don't put words into my mouth.

You said PRECISELY that. To wit:

>Interestingly, all equidae (horses, asses, zebras) have extremely thin,

>very sugary milk. Would you say that foals are better off nursing from

>seals, then, since their natural mothers produce such " worthless " milk?

>Thin milk seems to have evolved among many species, particularly those

>that nurse very frequently and develop slowly, like humans.

This is from your first post on the subject. " Very sugary milk " clearly

describes milk which has more sugar as a percentage of total calories.

You also said:

>C) The overall fat (or solids) content of the milk of any given species is

>a function of how often the neonates nurse - not their diets as adults.

I grant you that this is somewhat ambiguous, but by and large you seem to

have been arguing, at least initially, that fat percentage both by wet

weight and dry is determined by frequency of nursing, with the more

frequent nursers producing lower-fat milk and infrequent nursers producing

higher-fat milk.

For example, you said:

>You'll notice that the lowest fat content is the kangaroo, who is

>vegetarian, like reindeer, but whose young are latched on continuously.

Actually, kangaroo milk is only fifth lowest on the chart, but it is lowest

in total dissolved solids, at 9.5%. Donkey milk, with little more than

half the fat percentage of kangaroo milk (1.2% versus 2.1%) however has

10.2% total dissolved solids. Horse milk, with 1.6% fat, has 11% total

dissolved solids. Antelope milk, with 1.3% fat, has a whopping 25.2%

dissolved solids, though it seems quite possible that that's a mistake on

the chart as I don't know where the missing solids could be coming

from. Bison milk, with 1.7% fat, has 13.2% total dissolved solids -- more

than human milk, at 12.6%!

So clearly, total dissolved solids do not vary linearly with fat

percentage. Not even close. Therefore it's not accurate to say that human

milk should be more sugary and less fatty because human infants nurse

frequently.

>Human milk that superficially

>resembles skim milk is not a concern as far as fat content goes when

>protein and water-content is PRIMARILY what determines " mouthfeel, "

>opacity and percieved richness.

Yes, you keep saying this, but the facts don't agree. Brown Swiss and

Jersey milk have very similar levels of protein. They're separated by all

of 0.3%. But Jersey milk tastes much richer, clearly mainly because of the

1.5% absolute difference in fat levels. Furthermore, skim milk, which is

generally fortified with non-fat milk solids, does NOT taste anything like

as rich as full-fat milk.

>The dairy folks know this, that is how

>they fool customers into accepting non-fat and low-fat milks at ALL.

No, they fool customers into accepting non-fat and low-fat milks by

convincing them that fat is public health enemy #1. Milk solids are added

primarily for opacity, so that people don't realize they're practically

buying water. They adjust the opacity so that non-fat and low-fat milk

_looks_ like milk just as they add food coloring to factory farm butter so

that it _looks_ like butter is supposed to look.

>Notice that jerseys also

>have more protein in their milk than holsteins.

They have 0.8% more protein. As I said, that's not a trivial difference,

but it's substantially outweighed by the 2% difference in milkfat.

>On that chart human

>milk protein is 1.1%. Cows are 3.6%-3.9%. The fat is the same, whether

>those human mothers were SAD or not. This jives perfectly with what

>I've said.

No the fat is not the same, and this doesn't jive with what you've

said. You've refused to even acknowledge the that Jersey milk tastes much

richer than Brown Swiss milk despite the trivial difference in their

protein contents. I know this for myself because I've tasted both -- raw

and grass-fed. I'm also told that Jersey milk tastes noticeably richer

than Guernsey milk, though I've never tasted Guernsey milk myself. How

does that square with what you're saying when Jersey milk is 0.5% fattier

but only 0.1% more proteinaceous?

Furthermore, by your logic, protein-fortified 1% fat milk should taste

fully or very nearly fully as rich as full-fat storebought milk (certainly

enough to fool the vast majority of people who aren't " epicures " ) because

it's 4% protein by weight.

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s0024.html

Yet most people realize that 1% milk tastes thin and watery despite the

added milk solids and the extra sugar.

>I heard you say that TOTAL fat content (enough to

>increase percieved richness) is important and therefore thin milk is

>bad, since according to you fat makes milk thick and rich. I said that

>apparently thin milk is not bad if it is high in water because the

>neonates nurse a lot. Thin milk can still be high in fat on a solids

>ratio basis, as human milk apparently is, whether those mothers were

>SAD or not.

OK, let's break this down once and for all. If I understand you correctly,

your argument is that increased frequency of nursing results in either

lower total dissolved solids or lower fat because the solids or fat are

spread out across more nursings. Yes?

First, I don't know why increased frequency of nursing wouldn't just result

in smaller volume of consumption per nursing rather than more diluted milk.

Second, the chart you provided doesn't seem to support your assertion,

because human milk has 0.4% more total dissolved solids than Holstein milk,

and as I pointed out earlier, the other numbers are all over the map.

Third, you think SAD milk tastes thin and watery because it's low in

protein and this low protein level deceives people into thinking that it's

low in fat, but in fact protein-fortified 1% fat milk tastes thin and

watery despite having more protein than milk from any breed of cow listed

in your chart.

Fourth, I don't think low-fat milk is unhealthy because of its taste, I

think it's unhealthy because humans clearly require a high-fat diet for

brain development, insulin regulation, resistance to disease and aging, and

a horde of other reasons.

>The human milk listed on that chart has fat levels comparable to cow

>milk. The human milk listed on that chart BEFORE you actually read it

>was accused by you to be from SAD mothers, and therefore deficient,

>and you used the description of watery as a back-up to that claim.

Huh? You introduced that chart in RESPONSE to my questioning the nutritive

value of thin and watery milk from SAD-eating mothers.

>Then when you saw for yourself that the human milk on that chart is

>comparable in fat content to whole cow's milk, you used that to back

>up another claim. Two different things from 1) assumed data and then

>2) actual data without correcting yourself for the first mistake.

I think you need to review the chronology of our discussion. I do question

whether 4.5% is ideal, but I much more strongly question whether milk which

is significantly lower in fat than that is healthy. That's a very simple

position.

>It was claimed

>that perceived richness is a AGAIN: PRIMARILY (not totally) a function

>of protein content, not fat,

It was claimed by you, you mean.

>AND that high water content relative to

>total solids (especially protein) will make milk appear thin.

Yes, but your assertion that human milk should be thinner (IOW lower in

total dissolved solids) than, say, cows milk because of a higher frequency

of nursing isn't supported by the chart you provided, which states that

human milk has a slightly higher level of total dissolved solids than

Holstein milk.

>You're talking to a biologist, and this is what this biologist knows

>about the species on that chart.

I'm sorry, but I reject all argument on authority. It's a common logical

fallacy.

>Seal, gray 53.2 - Halichoerus grypus. Aquatic, sub-arctic to

>cold-temperate. Leaves pups for long periods.

>Whale 34.8 - Aquatic, arctic to tropical (for calving). Too many

>species widely differing to make an educated guess on the one used for

>the analysis. Leaves calves for long periods.

I know nothing about seals, but from some TV nature documentaries I've

watched, I know that at least some whale mothers are accompanied by their

calves constantly. I don't remember which species, though.

>Deer 19.7 - NOT arctic,

I didn't say deer are arctic animals and I object to your implication that

I did.

As to the rest of your list, there are too many gaps in your knowledge of

nursing habits to support any kind of confidence in your hypothesis.

>Again, I am a biologist.

Again, I'm sorry, but I reject all argument on authority.

>My specialty is ethnobotany

Thank you for admitting that your specialization (the plant lore and

customs of various peoples) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with

the topic under discussion.

-

[Guest guest]

Sorry the chart at the bottom didn't come thru correctly...if you follow the

second link you can see the chart.

I am coming in late on this thread and am trying to follow. Why is this

discussion going on?

Is someone saying the breastmilk does not have enough fat content and it

would be better to feed a child a higher fat content milk...such a Jersey or

Guernsey milk?

Personally the fat content in milk is created specifically for human babies.

I do understand that it would vary based on diet but not to the extremes

that I feel would cause the need to not breastfeed. Even with a SAD diet if

it is not a complete junk food diet. Of course a WAP mother would have a

much higher quality breastmilk. BUT I do personally know 2 examples of

women on very strict raw vegan diets that had infants with failure to

thrive. They both had to stop nursing and add in a high calorie formula in

order to save their babies life. Both of them did not have a " lack " of

milk. They were making more than enough milk. I believe it was due to the

quality of their milk. Which I think would be a direct result of the lack

or proper fats in their diets.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

>I bit on this because I was offended at the suggestion that thin milk is

> " bad " because MY milk was thin, and perfectly adequate, because I am a

>human being who carried my baby all day, and not some other species that

>leaves its babies in safe places without contact or nursing for

>significant periods of time.

Let my just say that I'm sorry I responded to this in the way that I

did. Sometimes I let frustration turn into irritability, which is not to

my credit. Chris's reponse was much more polite, productive and frankly

meaningful, so let me just echo him:

>>I don't think it helps this discussion to make it personal. I'm not sure

>>why anyone would claim, aside from emotional reasons, that their own milk

>>and genes are entirely adequate in terms of a global/historical

>>perspective, when it is probably true that noones ova, sperm, or breast

>>milk are fully adequate in this sense. I'm sure it's certianly true that

>>people like me who have had problems through life of allergies and tooth

>>decay, etc, are less than adequate or less than optimal source of sperm,

>>for example, and while this sucks, I'm not going to make it a personal

>>issue for me. The purpose of the discussion is to sort out what the best

>>thing we can do now is, given our resources. It is not to attack people

>>for being inadequate.

>

>

>

>-

[Guest guest]

,

>

>I am coming in late on this thread and am trying to follow. Why is this

>discussion going on?

>

I looked at the latest WAPF Wise Traditions and it seems to be very pro

formula in that there was recipes (great for those who need it), stories

and articles about infant nutrition. In the stories were tales of not

being able to nurse. There is not one story or encouragement of

breastfeeding, which I think is unfair. The website has, what I see, as

very confusing information on this subject. Were I a new mom, I would

not know what to think of it. As usual, the discussion has taken on a

life of its own.

BTW, I have 3 more copies of this issue of WT left. If anyone would

like one and/or some older issues, please email me off list with your

address and I will mail them to you free of charge. First come, first

served.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Personally I don't see how " thin " milk would have anything to do with the

nutritional content. Breastmilk is much more than fat & water. Breastmilk

changes often depending on the needs of your child. The fat/nutritional

content is very different for a newborn infant than for a nursing toddler.

Even by pumping you can not see the full content of your milk. Babies are

much more efficient at draining a breast than any electric/manual pump. If

your child is thriving and growing than you are doing well. I really have a

problem with current articles & recommendation from WAP on this subject.

To me WAYYYYYYY too much emphasis is being placed on homemade formulas. Why

do they not spend this same energy encouraging mothers to improve their

personal diets? Not only will this help the mother but the nursling and all

future children.

I understand that Sally had a hard time nursing but I think her view point

on this issue is unbalanced. This is not the norm from mothers with proper

support. God created our body to birth & feed our babies. I feel that WAPF

continues to portray a VERY negative view of nursing. Basically from

reading the WAP site it seems that cow/goats milk is better for babies than

human milk .....which I adamently disagree.

Blessings,

>

> I am coming in late on this thread and am trying to follow. Why is this

> discussion going on?

Because I took offense at the notion that I should have formula-fed

because my milk was thin and barked back.

>

> Is someone saying the breastmilk does not have enough fat content and it

> would be better to feed a child a higher fat content milk...such a

Jersey or

> Guernsey milk?

That was my understanding, yes.

[Guest guest]

,

>I came to this list in the hopes of finding others who were finding

>ways to help themselves and their children, too..

>

Your girl is beautiful. What happy, healthy eyes she has! I have

enjoyed reading your support of nursing, btw. I too can get caught up

in the moment. It happens.

You have come to the right place to find healthy lifestyles for

families. We are getting into homesteading ourselves. Welcome.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>The only two reasonable interpretations are that 1) fat is the major

>contributor or 2) total solids are the major contributor. I would

>guess that total solids is the major contributor with fat playing a

>significantly greater role than the other solids.

I think you're understating it, really. Given that water with Goatein (or

some other milk-based protein powder) added in abundance doesn't taste at

all rich, and yet cream, with very little protein and very little lactose,

is immensely rich, I think it's clear that fat is by far the most important

factor involved in richness.

>'s suggesting that SAD mothers may not have fatty milk on a solids

>ratio basis.

Yes, exactly. Obviously we don't know for sure, but all the anecdotal

reports I've heard from men tasting their SAD-eating wives' milk, including

those who were probably tasting hind milk because the wives didn't want

their husbands to " rob " their babies of any milk and therefore fed the

babies first, describe the milk as being like low-fat sweetened Holstein

milk, so I'm inclined to think there's something to the idea that modern

low-fat orthodoxy is robbing nursing babies of adequate fat -- and

presumably adequate fat-soluble nutrients and other important factors too.

>Interesting, but I take on faith your sensible suggestion that the

>nursing frequency determines the proportion of total that is solids.

It's certainly a plausible theory, but I don't know that the facts bear it

out, and it's equally plausible to suppose that more frequent nursers

simply consume less at a sitting (controlled for growth rate and body size,

presumably).

SPECIES TOTAL SOLIDS % NURSING FREQUENCY

----------------------------------------------------

Kangaroo 9.5 constant?

Ass (donkey) 10.2 ? Foals always with mom 24/7 per

Horse 11 ? Foals always with mom 24/7 per

Goat 12 ? Will hide newborns, but in a few days

joins the herd per

Cow: Holstein 12.2 ? Otherwise, calves with mom nearly 24/7

per

Human 12.6

Cow: Ayrshire 13.1 ? Otherwise, calves with mom nearly 24/7

per

Bison 13.2 ? Calves always with mom per

Cow: Brown S. 13.3 ? Otherwise, calves with mom nearly 24/7

per

Camel 14.4 ?

Cow: Guernsey 14.4 ? Otherwise, calves with mom nearly 24/7

per

Monkey 14.5 ? Infants usually carried with mothers,

though

Cow: Zebu 14.7 ? Otherwise, calves with mom nearly 24/7

per

Cow: Jersey 15 ? Otherwise, calves with mom nearly 24/7

per

Guinea Pig 15.8 ?

Sheep 16.3 ? Wild sheep are known to hide their

young, but not as long or as completely as deer per

Pig 19.9 ?

Dog 20.7 ?

Buffalo, Phil. 21.5 ?

Mink 22.6 ? but young visited frequently per

Opossum 24.5 constant? marsupial like kangaroos

Antelope 25.2 ? Calves always with mom after the first

day or two, few places to hide per

Cat 25.4 ?

Rabbit 26.4 ?

Elephant 26.9 ?

Dolphin 30.4 ?

Rat 31.7 ?

Deer 34.1 Leaves young in one spot, visiting

several times per day for a short nursing session per

Reindeer 36.7 Leaves young in one spot, visiting

several times per day for a short nursing session per

Bear, polar 42.9 Leaves cubs for long periods to hunt per

Whale 51.2 Leaves calves for long periods per

, not necessarily per me

Seal, gray 67.7 leaves pups for long periods per

I was going to work on filling in the blanks and checking 's

statements about nursing frequency, but on the very same site that the

chart with the first two columns above came from I found this smaller

chart. (It's near the top of this

page: http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/milkejection.html.) I've

added the total dissolved solids from above where available.

NURSING FREQUENCY SPECIES TOTAL SOLIDS %

..5 hr whale, dolphin 51.2, 30.4

1 hr pig 19.9

4-6 hr cow 12.2-15

1X/day rabbit 26.4

1X/2 days tree shrew ?

1X/week Northern fur seal 67.7 IF the northern fur seal is

similar to the gray in this respect

So as you can see, total dissolved solids doesn't vary even remotely

linearly with nursing frequency.

Apologies if the tables don't come out right, but I formatted them in a

monospaced font, so if they look wrong, just display this message in a

monospaced font like Courier.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I specifically wanted to address your comments about your friend tasting

>his wifes milk. This would not be an good opinion as to the actual fat

>content in his wifes breastmilk. You really need to understand the factors

>of foremilk & hindmilk.

I understand about the differences between the two, but IIRC the friend I'm

talking about now tasted his wife's milk after his daughter nursed, and I

know that's true of several other people I've heard from, so presumably at

least some of them were tasting hind milk.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Because I took offense at the notion that I should have formula-fed

>because my milk was thin and barked back.

I've never said anything like this. Also, " formula " can mean a lot of

things. Since it usually denotes the toxic garbage you can buy in the

store, I'd rather not use the word for NT-type milk replacement recipes. I

don't actually know where the threshold is between milk that's so bad it

should be replaced entirely and milk that has enough virtue that it should

just be supplemented, but I do strongly suspect that in light of the fact

that virtually all our soil is in a debased state and virtually everyone's

health is impaired relative to the ideal to at least some degree, most

babies would probably benefit if their mothers supplemented their milk with

something, even most WAPF babies. How much supplementation (i.e.

pre-chewed liver and egg yolks) I don't know. But I believe it's possible

to make a very strong case in favor of that position.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Thanks. I also apologize, and have the same tendencies. I'm working on

>NVC with my family but I haven't quite gotten to the point where

>that's what I think of in normal conversation yet...

NVC? Anyway, don't worry about it. I can take at least as much as I can

dish out, and I've never come close to dishing out as much as I could on

this list, so as far as I'm concerned, it's water under the bridge AND off

a duck's back! <g>

>I'm too angry about words being stuffed into my mouth (again) to

>address Chris' post in a civil manner, and I don't want to dirty the

>list any more, so I guess the " other side wins. " I stand by my

>position, however.

I don't think he unfairly characterized any of your positions. The

problem, I think, was that there was a good deal of confusion and

miscommunication over some of the starting points in our debate. You

thought I was talking about my friend's reaction to the appearance of his

wife's milk, for example, and I wasn't clear whether you were saying fat as

a percentage of solids or solids as a percentage of wet weight varies with

nursing frequency. In fact, I'm still somewhat confused about your

position on that issue, but hey, that's the nature of communication.

>Oh, and I'm new here, nice to meet you.

Likewise! I'm sorry if your introduction to the list was a bit harsh, but

we have a lot of opinionated people here, and sometimes arguments can get a

bit strong. But we always try to keep things civil.

>Though I swear her grandparents

>are trying to do their best to reverse everything I've done.

That's got to be one of the most frustrating things in the world for a

mother -- or really for any concerned family member.

>Thankfully, we're moving far away soon. Here she is as of a week ago:

>http://cermaith.com/deirdre0805.jpg

Wow, you've got a beautiful, healthy-looking daughter! Keep up the good work!

>I came to this list in the hopes of finding others who were finding

>ways to help themselves and their children, too..

Oh, there's definitely a lot of that. Plenty of debate too, but one of the

main purposes of the list is for like-minded people to help each other out

finding good foods, getting healthier, and so on.

-

[Guest guest]

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.

Also I highly doubt that any man would get the real content of breastmilk as

I doubt that a woman would have a " true " letdown relex from having her

husband try her milk. Yes, breastmilk does normal taste sweet. I don't

think this has anything to do with nutritional content.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>I specifically wanted to address your comments about your friend tasting

>his wifes milk. This would not be an good opinion as to the actual fat

>content in his wifes breastmilk. You really need to understand the factors

>of foremilk & hindmilk.

I understand about the differences between the two, but IIRC the friend I'm

talking about now tasted his wife's milk after his daughter nursed, and I

know that's true of several other people I've heard from, so presumably at

least some of them were tasting hind milk.

-

[Guest guest]

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.

By giving an infant ANY other nutrition than it's own mother's milk

(especially during the first 6 months of life) you are introducing a foreign

substance that is not meant for infant consumption. This can begin the

process of an allergic reaction. Anyone can become allergic to any

substance that is introduced in to the body. Why would a mother want to

introduce a foreign substance to a child that is thriving? There are so

many other positive factors that a child receives through their mother's

breastmilk and any supplementation will begin to decrease a mother's supply,

which in turn can cause many other problems.

Please do your research and know your facts before you give this kind of

advice. This could do severe harm to a infant who was otherwise thriving.

It is a very different story to offer the advice of supplementation with WAP

homemade formula to a mother who is seeking counsel and looking into

supplementation with synthetic formulas. I do believe that a WAP formula

does have many more benefits to an infant that those but it is NO WHERE near

the product that the child's own mother can produce.

" but I do strongly suspect that in light of the fact that virtually all our

soil is in a debased state and virtually everyone's health is impaired

relative to the ideal to at least some degree, most babies would probably

benefit if their mothers supplemented their milk with

something, even most WAPF babies. How much supplementation (i.e.

pre-chewed liver and egg yolks) I don't know. But I believe it's possible

to make a very strong case in favor of that position.

-

[Guest guest]

I understand that this maybe the way it is on the chapter leaders list BUT

if you read all of the articles list on the WAP site. None of them have a

completely positive view of breastfeeding. At least none that I have found.

They are all negative and encourage supplementation. So I understand the

perception on this list.

As for the perception being different for men/women on this list. I know I

am not taking this personally because I am a " woman " . I am taking this

seriously because I am educated on this subject. Of course I understand

that I am probably more educated because I am a mother...yes, I would agree

with that fact. I highly doubt there are many men that would spend hours,

day, years researching this topic to the extent that a mother would. This

is a mother's instinct especially I think a WAP mother. We want to do the

best for our children (especially in regards to nutrition) therefore we

research & discuss these issues to a higher degree than most.

I am sure there are some " male " issues that if discussed I would have no

basis of research to speak about. BUT I would not speak to them instead of

making claims for something I do not know about.

I do appreciate that WAP has addressed the idea of proper supplementation

because there are very few others doing this properly. I just feel the

emphasis is too much in place of supplementation that it makes it seem that

supplementation is better than even a WAP mother's milk. An example is what

you said about Sally's children...the last child appeared " healthier " than

his brothers and sisters. Do you see where this places the emphasis and

causes a healthy nursing mother to begin improper supplementation?

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

According to a recent comment by a chapter leader, Sally successfully

breast fed three kids, and had trouble with the last one while on

travels in Europe, whom she successfully fed raw Jersey (?) milk and

who apparently is even healthier than his brothers and sisters.

I've noticed a clear split along gender lines on THIS list. It seems

like a lot of women are taking it personally on either side here,

which I guess is to be expected with people so close personally to the

subject. Being young and male, I have no personal attachment to the

issue.

In any case, it is even more interesting that the reaction on the

chapter leaders list (from women) was one that perceived it to be

obvious that breast feeding is best

Chris

[Guest guest]

I really think we all basically agree. I competely agree that the

breastmilk of a SAD mother would not be as nutritious as a WAP mother. I do

agree that groups such as LLL do not put enough emphasis on the nutrition of

a mother.

But I think WAP is missing the boat too but putting too much emphasis on

supplementation instead of putting that same energy into improving the

health of the mother. This inturn wouldl improving the quality of her

current breastmilk dramatically and increase the mother's health for all

future children.

[Guest guest]

I do not think that giving solids at 12 months is what we are debating here.

I was assuming that supplementation was being recommended at a much earlier

age when breastmilk should be the infants primary source of nutrition...say

prior to 5-6 months.

I think ALL infants would need increased solids (supplementation) of solid

foods by the age of 12 months. I am sure there are exceptions but far and

few between.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of

Now that you mention it, though I did not consider it formally

" supplementation " at the time, I did chew up liver for Deirdre when

she began showing interest in nibbling solid food, at about 12 months.

[Guest guest]

I totally agree that there is a threshhold as I pointed out in my earlier

post. I personally know 2 infants that were diagnosed with failure to

thrive. I am talking more about middle of the road SAD dieters to WAP moms.

Not the completely off base junk food junky or vegan mom. I think the

advice for supplementation should be saved for a mother who is exhaused

other avenues and is looking to supplement with other synthetic products.

Why not point a mother to articles on improving her personal nutrition? I

just don't see any evidence that points to where a " foreign " products

(cow/goat/liver) formula would be provide superior nutrition for an infant

(under 6 months) than a reasonably healthy mother's breastmilk.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

The excerpt from _NAPD_ that posted for an anonymous list member

essentially PROVES that it is POSSIBLE for a " foreign " product to be

very superior to breast milk. That is not even up for debate, unless

Price was lying.

What IS up for debate is the THRESHOLD of quality level at which a

foreign substance can match the value of human milk and beyond which

it could be superior.

So, you could argue that this threshold is at an extreme pole and

can't be crossed unless the mother is on a diet that essentially

approximates the nutritional value of cardboard. But you can't argue

that that threshold simply DOESN'T exist. That just isn't arguable.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I think threshold is the key but until real research has been done on the

subject. I would love to see a study done with WAP mothers and SAD mothers.

I don't think threshold is something we can really determine without a true

study. So until that is done I think we should determine this by looking at

the infants they are feeding. Are these infants thriving? Does the mother

have a good milk supply? To me these are the important factors. If an

infant isn't thriving and I don't mean just doing ok. I really think you

can see a difference between WAP babies and mainstream babies. I certainly

do in my circles.

I agree it seems ideal to advocate bettering the mother's nutrition.

Nevertheless, I think it is an open question about where the threshold

is, and something that hasn't been researched (in any way that should

be satisfactory to us), and deserves more discussion.

Chris

[Guest guest]

WAPF repeatedly says that breast milk is best. NT formula is only when

nursing isn't possible. I don't understand how that can be perceived as

negative.

Irene

At 06:49 PM 8/26/2005, you wrote:

>I understand that this maybe the way it is on the chapter leaders list BUT

>if you read all of the articles list on the WAP site. None of them have a

>completely positive view of breastfeeding. At least none that I have found.

>They are all negative and encourage supplementation. So I understand the

>perception on this list.

[Guest guest]

That was my point. I am not taking this personally. I am taking this

discussion seriously. Personally there is nothing you can say to make me

believe that any foreign substance is superior to my current breastmilk (in

the past may be a different story) so I know I am not taking offense.

I said seriously because I don't want someone on this list to read this

thread and feel they should begin supplementing because their breastmilk

doesn't provide adequate nutrition for their child.

Those are two different things: seriously, and personally. I was

referring to personal offense being taken, not the seriousness with

which anyone has been arguing.

I wasn't saying I " am " more educated just because I am a mother and you are.

I was making the case that on average a mother just for the fact that we do

lactate would normally have more education in this area than the average

man. I am speaking in general terms where I think you are taking my

statements too specifically.

Hmm. I didn't mean to suggest that, if I did. I don't think being a

mother would make you any more educated on the subject at all. That's

not to say that you *aren't* highly educated on the subject, but

that's a variable independent from motherhood, for sure.

Other points are not convincing. As I pointed out, for example, it is

absolutely sensible to assume human milk should be fatty, and the

differing needs of cows and humans in this respect support a role for

low-protein high-fat human milk, which the data also support, not

low-fat milk. I don't think the quantity of research you've done or

the number of hours you've spent discussing this issue impacts the

fact that this particular argument is less than compelling.

As for fat content from personal experience.....I have a friend that has

severe problem nursing because her milk has an extremely high fat content.

I can not figure out why this is. She has to take a variety of herbs and

medication to " thin " out her milk. This is a total SAD mother who is even

on a VERY low fat weight watchers diet. So my personal experience causes me

more confusion in this area. I would think there must also be a genetic

factor linked to fat content that we are not aware of yet just as their are

different fat contents in the different breads of cattle.

[Guest guest]

>

>According to a recent comment by a chapter leader, Sally successfully

>breast fed three kids, and had trouble with the last one while on

>travels in Europe, whom she successfully fed raw Jersey (?) milk and

>who apparently is even healthier than his brothers and sisters.

>

>

Read Sally's story from her own words here:

http://www.westonaprice.org/children/saga.html

I would hardly call eight months with solids introduced early at 4

months success. And BTW, this same chapter leader says that LLL

advocates breast milk so WAPF would be redundant to do so. Hello? WAPF

slams on LLL, so if anything, they ought to cut the confusion and

advocate what Price would, which is a natural diet. We eat cows and

such fed natural foods, and the natural food for a baby is milk from

mama, unless it fails. Lifestyle is a choice, and I don't think is a

factor that should come into play, else we could all claim Mc's is

okay because I don't have time to cook (or I can't/don't want to stay

home with baby). Many working moms nurse so that is a cop out, imho.

>I suspect the issue is a matter of misplaced emphasis, probably

>accidental. The reaction on the chapter leaders list seemed to

>indicate that none of the chapter leaders understood the Foundation's

>position to be the one that many on this list are perceiving it to be.

>

>

I think it's personal bias infiltrating policy, which knocks credibility

for me big time. The foundation has a confusing maze of info on the

site about this. WT is pro formula in my eyes, and this is flat out

wrong for most women. I won't support WAPF any longer, financially or

otherwise. It is a most important time for good nutrition, and they

should be clear on it and the policy based on science. Period.

>I've noticed a clear split along gender lines on THIS list. It seems

>like a lot of women are taking it personally on either side here,

>which I guess is to be expected with people so close personally to the

>subject. Being young and male, I have no personal attachment to the

>issue.

>

>

Nor do you or will you ever have experience with it. So this is the

more precise line up: women with experience and single men without

experience, for JC has expressed a preference with the ladies as his

wife is nursing. But I bet that you would want a healthy woman to feed

your child a natural diet. I'd bet money on that.

>In any case, it is even more interesting that the reaction on the

>chapter leaders list (from women) was one that perceived it to be

>obvious that breast feeding is best, that most chapter leaders breast

>feed, but that it is important to provide for alternatives, while the

>reaction on this list seems to be a perception that the Foundation is

>anti-breast-feeding and that it needs to do more to educate that

>breast feeding is best.

>

>

But that's because Sally is on *that* list. If the guru worship

(eggshells, what have you) were here, it would be different I am sure.

>I suspect this is a simple matter of perception of what is the

>standard view. On the chapter leaders list, people seem to perceive

>the issue as coming up against a standard that says breast is best

>with no awareness of the mother's diet, and here the perception seems

>to be that the issue is coming up against a standard that encourages

>confusion and no clear direction for a young mother whether to breast

>feed or formula feed.

>

>

Diet or not, a baby can't get antibodies without breast milk until at

least 3 months. Also, freshness and safety are assured. Any other

source will not be as fresh and may be contaminated with pathogens. It

does happen depending on the source. An infant will be much more

severely compromised in such an instance. How would you feel if an

infant were sickened possibly by contaminants in raw milk substitute

that you recommended, as happened to a toddler with the very bad e. coli

strain on chapter leaders list. Can you say law suit? Her mom was

upset that no one could possibly consider that raw milk was the source,

being the sacred cow it is in WAPF circles.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

After reading your reply to Deanna....I think we basically are on the same

page here.

I completely agree. This discussion is wonderful on a list such as this and

I think it is long over due.

People are afraid to discuss it. I think discussion here is far different

than advising a women off list to supplement without knowing their specific

circumstances.

I personally have sent the NT formula at least 1/2 dozen times in the last

year. I think the alternative is needed out in our mainstream culture.

Many women do not realize there is an alternative to " canned " formulas.

Unfortunately many women hear the negatives of cow's milk canned formulas

and then take the leap to soy formulas which to me are even worse.

Thanks for providing a balance in this discussion. Like I said in my first

post...I was coming in late and trying to jump into a discussion without all

the information. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this subject.

I would love to see if we can find a unbiased study (not done by a formula

company) that shows differences (or lack of) in breastmilk based on a

mother's diet.

[Guest guest]

The idea of " not having enough " milk I think is very misunderstood and can

only be determined by a health professional. I feel that many women do not

get (or seek) out the proper support for breastfeeding. I have no idea of

your specific story and I am not speaking of anything you personally did or

didn't do. Please do not take this as that.

There are many factors other than nutrition that can lead to a low milk

supply....including stress, birth trauma, c-sections, lack of hydration,

physical issues with the infant such as poor sucking relex, muscle tone,

teething, etc. Many women seek out a health professional during their

pregnancy and delivery. Most wouldn't think of doing it any other way but

then do not seek help when they have nursing problems.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Irene Musiol

I was NT many years before I had my son. I didn't have enough breastmilk.

Irene

[Guest guest]

I was NT many years before I had my son. I didn't have enough breastmilk.

Irene

At 07:22 PM 8/26/2005, you wrote:

>I think threshold is the key but until real research has been done on the

>subject. I would love to see a study done with WAP mothers and SAD mothers.

>I don't think threshold is something we can really determine without a true

>study. So until that is done I think we should determine this by looking at

>the infants they are feeding. Are these infants thriving? Does the mother

>have a good milk supply? To me these are the important factors. If an

>infant isn't thriving and I don't mean just doing ok. I really think you

>can see a difference between WAP babies and mainstream babies. I certainly

>do in my circles.

>

>

>

>I agree it seems ideal to advocate bettering the mother's nutrition.

>Nevertheless, I think it is an open question about where the threshold

>is, and something that hasn't been researched (in any way that should

>be satisfactory to us), and deserves more discussion.

>

>Chris

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I agree I don't see how the levels would change based on frequency of

nursing but I do see that the levels would changed based on diet.

So I think depending on the time of the day the percentage would differ.

-----Original Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

Which issue? suggested that solids as a percentage of wet weight

vary with nursing frequency, with greater frequency being associated with

lower levels of total dissolved solids. I found a chart which demonstrates

that it's not so.

-