Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Idol wrote: >Suzanne- > > > >>It might be important to note that a gastroenterologist will not even >>perform a colonoscopy unless the laxative has effected complete and >>total evacuation. >> >> > >Yeah, but my understanding is that this is very rare. A friend recently >had a colonoscopy and inquired about this and other things. > > > Oh, my poor friend..... At any rate, this does leave room for the possibility that *some* people carry around " old " fecal matter despite eliminating regularly. I agree that the idea that this is true for the average individual is probably overstated. The point isn't that there are no feces in the digestive tract, just that a >quick bit of diarrhea purges just about everyone's bowels, indicating that >the notion of widespread and common impactions and feces glued to the >intestinal walls is a myth. > > > But...and I don't know why I'm sticking with this point, since I don't have a dog in this fight .....I'm unconvinced that the chemical purge induced for a colonscopy is the same as another's quick bit of diarrhea. The only way one could talk apples and apples is if they did a coloscopy after someone used more " kitchen table " methods for cleansing, yk? --s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Suzanne- >At any rate, this does leave room for the possibility that *some* people >carry around " old " fecal matter despite eliminating regularly. I don't really think so. What strikes me as much more likely is that some people's intestines move their contents more slowly, and thus at any given time they have more stuff in there. >But...and I don't know why I'm sticking with this point, since I don't >have a dog in this fight .....I'm unconvinced that the chemical purge >induced for a colonscopy is the same as another's quick bit of >diarrhea. " Chemical purge " makes it sounds more dramatic than it is. It's just a garden-variety laxative. And often enough they do colonoscopies after the laxative alone, without even bothering with an enema. > The only way one could talk apples and apples is if they did >a coloscopy after someone used more " kitchen table " methods for >cleansing, yk? I think a laxative is a laxative is a laxative. Different laxatives differ somewhat in strength and probably in people's reactions to them, but that's all. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Idol wrote: >Suzanne- > > > >>At any rate, this does leave room for the possibility that *some* people >>carry around " old " fecal matter despite eliminating regularly. >> >> > >I don't really think so. What strikes me as much more likely is that some >people's intestines move their contents more slowly, and thus at any given >time they have more stuff in there. > > Hmmm....just gonna have to agree to disagree. The friend I mentioned earlier had some celiac issues and just wasn't able to evacuate completely. It wasn't a matter of more, but a matter of some of the stuff just wasn't moving at all. >>But...and I don't know why I'm sticking with this point, since I don't >>have a dog in this fight .....I'm unconvinced that the chemical purge >>induced for a colonscopy is the same as another's quick bit of >>diarrhea. >> >> > > " Chemical purge " makes it sounds more dramatic than it is. > Then maybe my husband's colonoscopy purge was more dramatic than the average bear. Wouldn't surprise me. >It's just a >garden-variety laxative. > The laxative that my husband had to take wasn't fletcher's castoria, yk? It *was* more potent than what one could find on the grocery store shelves. And locally, another friend of mine reported a difference in the colonoscopy laxative and OTC stuff, though even the one for the colonoscopy didn't do a complete job, it did do better than anything else she'd tried. Maybe each GI has their own preference for what does the trick and some lean toward more potent stuff than others.... --s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 >Oh, well, lacking breastmilk as a nutritional foundation sets a person >up for all kinds of digestive havoc. Everyone is a fan of kefir here, >so we know how important good gut bacteria is. Well, breastmilk is the >very first opportunity to seed the intestines with the right kind of >bacteria. Not to mention that an infant's intestines are coated with an >additional (my materials are up in the attic, so I'd rather not scare >up my resource books to give a cite on this that stays intact as long >as the sole food source is mother's milk. When food other than mother's >milk is introduced, this lining begins to disappear. This seems to >imply that early introduction of solids, as well as artificial >breastmilk substitutes of any sort, would begin the slippery slope >toward potential intestinal hyper permeability. > >--s, who also has counterculture opinions on how long a nursling should >breastfeed. > > You wild hippychick, you! <G> So, have they ever done studies on the health of people who never had any breastmilk? I know they've reported correlations in intelligence, etc., but I mean more like celiac and other serious health issues? My 3 year old adopted son is in considerably worse shape, gut wise, than the rest of us. His birthmother's medical issues were roughly the same as those in mine and DH's families - pretty common stuff. So, unless his birthfather - whom we know absolutely nothing about - had serious medical issues, I wonder how much better off my son would be had he at least gotten *some* breastmilk. Poor little guy. Of course, it didn't help that his doctor didn't recognize his casein allergy, and I didn't figure it out until after he'd been solely ingesting casein for 7 months! I do see signs of his health improving lately, though. :-D Steph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Suzanne, >As a former LLLL candidate, I want to specify that fore milk and >colostrum are two different things, though colostrum does indeed appear >before a woman's milk comes in. > > Thank you for correcting me. It was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away when I had babies <g>. I was thinking colostrum, but what is the fore milk then? >Ingested nutrition of any type will expel the meconium, but artificial >breastmilk substitutes won't be as efficient as mother's milk. > > That's how I remember it. No substitute for nature. >Oh, well, lacking breastmilk as a nutritional foundation sets a person >up for all kinds of digestive havoc. Everyone is a fan of kefir here, >so we know how important good gut bacteria is. Well, breastmilk is the >very first opportunity to seed the intestines with the right kind of >bacteria. Not to mention that an infant's intestines are coated with an >additional (my materials are up in the attic, so I'd rather not scare >up my resource books to give a cite on this that stays intact as long >as the sole food source is mother's milk. When food other than mother's >milk is introduced, this lining begins to disappear. This seems to >imply that early introduction of solids, as well as artificial >breastmilk substitutes of any sort, would begin the slippery slope >toward potential intestinal hyper permeability. > > Wow, that is good to know. Sounds like you should have contributed to the last WT - all things baby. Maybe you did and I haven't seen it yet. > You may well be correct that mucoid plaque could be prevented by >breastfeeding instead of artificial breastmilk substitutes. That's >probably true for a lot of the health problems that are so rampant in >our culture. Which is why I'm always astonished when people on WAPF >style lists post about " healthy " formulas..... > >--s, who also has counterculture opinions on how long a nursling should >breastfeed. > Honestly, I was just thinking out loud. I can't comment one way or the other on the mucoid plaque, but since Heidi brought up that meconium, I thought it might be a possibility. And speaking of Wise Traditions, they do have a big article on baby formula in this issue with the caveat: breastfeeding is best. Hello? How many people would ever need formula? Very few women don't have adequate milk, right? For three kids I never did; no formula ever touched my kids' lips. I would think the need for the supplementation of breast milk is a totally lifestyle driven factor. If mom is home with kids, then she is the food source - a cow in the midst, lol. When mom has to work - which unfortunately may be the case for many - then formula will end up taking over in no time. But I defer to you, my experience from the cobwebs of my memory may be inadequate. Is it true - as I seem to have seen in many friends and relatives - that a woman who must work and leave her child in the care of others will most likely result to feeding mostly or exclusively on formula? Why doesn't WAPF start a wet nurse program? Surely that would be far better than raw cows milk formula. We look all over for sources of raw milk. Well, we should help babies get the only food that's right for them, which is human milk. I only nursed 1.5 years for each kid, probably bowing to social pressure more than anything, but I am still home with them as they grow. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Deanna wrote: >And speaking of Wise Traditions, they do have a big article on baby >formula in this issue with the caveat: breastfeeding is best. Hello? >How many people would ever need formula? > How about those of us that adopt? :-D >Very few women don't have >adequate milk, right? > Sally herself had problems. I know at least one lady of my acquaintance who couldn't nurse. > Why doesn't WAPF >start a wet nurse program? Surely that would be far better than raw >cows milk formula. We look all over for sources of raw milk. Well, we >should help babies get the only food that's right for them, which is >human milk. > > Now, that is a truly brilliant idea!!!! Steph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 >How many people would ever need formula? Very few women don't have >adequate milk, right? For three kids I never did; no formula ever >touched my kids' lips. > That was about as clear as Christie's weight gain/loss, lol. What I meant, before I inserted the request about adequate milk, was that I never needed formula and just can't see the need for formula ever. Milk can be pumped for the rare occasion it is needed. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Steph, > >How about those of us that adopt? :-D > > Well, that would be an exception, but I would still try to make friends with a nursing mom. ;-) In fact, for weight loss, wouldn't it be great to feed another baby? This is a much more common thing in Europe. Women do help each other in this regard. And it is fabulous that you have adopted a child, Steph. It is deeply touching to read that. I'm sorry your young son is having gut problems already. My boy (who is PDD, nos) had problems young as well, thanks to that nasty wheat I fed him. Our diet, although not truly NT, was whole foods, additive free and all that. These are good questions to be asking, in any case. >Sally herself had problems. I know at least one lady of my acquaintance >who couldn't nurse. > > I have known only one woman who gave up because she had inverted nipples, thus baby had a hard time latching on. I just can't imagine it is a common thing. It certainly isn't survival friendly. And remember, , it has nothing to do with breast size! :-P >>Why doesn't WAPF >>start a wet nurse program? Surely that would be far better than raw >>cows milk formula. We look all over for sources of raw milk. Well, we >>should help babies get the only food that's right for them, which is >>human milk. >> >> > >Now, that is a truly brilliant idea!!!! > Thank you, thank you very much. Actually, it isn't a new idea. Other cultures do it. I see in my vision NT daycare facilities with alternating caregiver moms eating great foods and nursing all the babes in turn. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Deanna wrote: >Suzanne, > > > >>As a former LLLL candidate, I want to specify that fore milk and >>colostrum are two different things, though colostrum does indeed appear >>before a woman's milk comes in. >> >> >> >> >Thank you for correcting me. It was a long time ago in a galaxy far far >away when I had babies <g>. I was thinking colostrum, but what is the >fore milk then? > > > During each nursing session, there is foremilk and hindmilk. Foremilk is more liquid, watery, with a higher sugar content and the hindmilk is the fatty stuff and higher in protein. While I'm waxing on the subject, many time colicky babies are nurslings who are the victims of the " nurse for 10 minutes on each side " style of nursing management. Getting too much foremilk creates gas and unhappy babies. Nursing on one side one session and the other side the next session gives a better balance of fore and hind milk and better satiation. >Wow, that is good to know. Sounds like you should have contributed to >the last WT - all things baby. Maybe you did and I haven't seen it yet. > > > Nope. I just assumed, given the august knowledge of this body, that there'd be more knowledgeable contributors than I. And speaking of Wise Traditions, they do have a big article on baby >formula in this issue with the caveat: breastfeeding is best. Hello? >How many people would ever need formula? Very few women don't have >adequate milk, right? > Without interference from outside influences, almost all women will produce enough milk. Glandular insufficiency is very rare. I do know someone with this difficulty, though, and even she was able to nurse some. She used a SNS for the formula instead of a bottle, as well. > Is it true >- as I seem to have seen in many friends and relatives - that a woman >who must work and leave her child in the care of others will most likely >result to feeding mostly or exclusively on formula? > Historically, yes, but more workplaces are making things more nursing friendly. Moms are given the opportunity and space to pump during the day. My oldest didn't get any formula, but I did do work outside the home from time to time and would pump when necessary. It does take some resistance to intimidation, though....I can see how someone who wasn't completely committed to the idea or was timid in the face of disapproval might switch to ABM. >Why doesn't WAPF >start a wet nurse program? Surely that would be far better than raw >cows milk formula. We look all over for sources of raw milk. Well, we >should help babies get the only food that's right for them, which is >human milk. > > > Well, infectious diseases such as AIDS has really put the cramp on wet nursing and milk donation programs. There is screening process in place now, but a casual wet nursing program would be a law suit waiting to happen, unfortunately. >I only nursed 1.5 years for each kid, probably bowing to social pressure >more than anything, > > <nodding> I do stop nursing in public when the nursling gets around 3 yo, but that's more to protect them from comments than other people's sensibilities. --s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Steph wrote: >Deanna wrote: > > > >>And speaking of Wise Traditions, they do have a big article on baby >>formula in this issue with the caveat: breastfeeding is best. Hello? >>How many people would ever need formula? >> >> >> > >How about those of us that adopt? :-D > > > Good on you for adopting! Just for the edification of the audience, there are adoptive moms who have successfully induced lactation (usually those who have nursed more than one child for what our society considers longer than the norm) and were able to nurse their baby along with the ABM supplementation. Of course, this works best with infants....babies older than, say, a couple of months may not take to the process at all. >>Very few women don't have >>adequate milk, right? >> >> >> > >Sally herself had problems. I know at least one lady of my acquaintance >who couldn't nurse. > > > It's sad to see women have such poor, if any, support for nursing. In generations past, these women would be surrounded by wifely wisdom about how to overcome what difficulties they may have faced at the time. Many of the difficulties that women face today are created by our medical style of birthing and nursing mismanagement. --s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Time For A Change to the Subject Heading......... Re: another weird fasting poop >Oh, well, lacking breastmilk as a nutritional foundation sets a person >up for all kinds of digestive havoc. Everyone is a fan of kefir here, >so we know how important good gut bacteria is. Well, breastmilk is the >very first opportunity to seed the intestines with the right kind of >bacteria. Not to mention that an infant's intestines are coated with an >additional (my materials are up in the attic, so I'd rather not scare >up my resource books to give a cite on this that stays intact as long >as the sole food source is mother's milk. When food other than mother's >milk is introduced, this lining begins to disappear. This seems to >imply that early introduction of solids, as well as artificial >breastmilk substitutes of any sort, would begin the slippery slope >toward potential intestinal hyper permeability. > >--s, who also has counterculture opinions on how long a nursling should >breastfeed. > > You wild hippychick, you! <G> So, have they ever done studies on the health of people who never had any breastmilk? I know they've reported correlations in intelligence, etc., but I mean more like celiac and other serious health issues? My 3 year old adopted son is in considerably worse shape, gut wise, than the rest of us. His birthmother's medical issues were roughly the same as those in mine and DH's families - pretty common stuff. So, unless his birthfather - whom we know absolutely nothing about - had serious medical issues, I wonder how much better off my son would be had he at least gotten *some* breastmilk. Poor little guy. Of course, it didn't help that his doctor didn't recognize his casein allergy, and I didn't figure it out until after he'd been solely ingesting casein for 7 months! I do see signs of his health improving lately, though. :-D Steph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 >-----Original Message----- >From: >[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol > > >Suze- > >>On page 27, he reveals his experience in this >>matter. " One autopsy revealed a colon to be 9 inches in diameter with a >>passage through it no larger than a pencil. > >Was the person administered a laxative before he died? If not, I >don't see >why we should assume that he didn't just have some feces which would've >been vacated in the ordinary course of events if he hadn't died. Well, isn't it rather odd that the fecal matter lined the walls of the colon and there was a pencil thin passage way running through it? And that Jense described it as " caked up layer upon layer of encrusted fecal material " ? This certainly doesn't sound normal or healthy to me. Having said that, I have no idea about a laxative or anything. I just happened to run across these passages from Jensen while looking for pictures of " mucoid plaque " . I don't have any answers about this controversy. 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 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Suze- >Well, isn't it rather odd that the fecal matter lined the walls of the colon >and there was a pencil thin passage way running through it? Maybe he was one of the rare people with actual impaction-type problems. More likely, I think, is that the character of his intestines and their contents changed after his death, leading people to draw erroneous conclusions. I mean, think about the functioning of the colon. The main obvious characteristic of its function is that it absorbs water. If in life his colon had been lined with an impenetrable layer of feces, it seems to me he'd have been suffering from severe diarrhea. > And that Jense >described it as " caked up layer >upon layer of encrusted fecal material " ? This certainly doesn't sound normal >or healthy to me. How long was he dead before the autopsy? Under what conditions had his body been stored? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 > Is it true > - as I seem to have seen in many friends and relatives - that a woman > who must work and leave her child in the care of others will most likely > result to feeding mostly or exclusively on formula? I worked for my 3d and didn't use formula. But I must say, it took all of my skill, ingenuity, experience, and maturity, and the collusion of my midwife. i was 35 and had a good-paying job. I used flex time and visited the day-care for feedings - much easier than all that expelling and storing. I can't imagine how someone could do it with a first baby. (PS finally a thread I can participate in! since I joined here it's been about poop and fasting!) PS I was also a counter-culture person with length of nursing. One of mine finally weaned after her friends said " why do you do that " when she ran in for a comfort nip after wiping out on a pop-a-wheelie on her bike, age 4. Connie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 cbrown2008 wrote: >PS I was also a counter-culture person with length of nursing. One of >mine finally weaned after her friends said " why do you do that " when >she ran in for a comfort nip after wiping out on a pop-a-wheelie on >her bike, age 4. > > > My oldest was 4.5 when he weaned. There was a little nudging involved, since I was ready to be done tandem nursing. Looking back, though, if I knew about the GI stuff like I know now, I don't think I'd've been so ready to be done. My middle weaned at 3 yo without any encouragement....in fact, I tried to coax him to continue, since by then I *did* know about the GI stuff, but he was really ready. Interestingly, he's more digestively stable than his older brother. I think their bodies tell them when it's time.... --s, whose 2.5 yo isn't even *close* to feeling done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Suzanne, >During each nursing session, there is foremilk and hindmilk. Foremilk >is more liquid, watery, with a higher sugar content and the hindmilk is >the fatty stuff and higher in protein. While I'm waxing on the subject, >many time colicky babies are nurslings who are the victims of the " nurse >for 10 minutes on each side " style of nursing management. Getting too >much foremilk creates gas and unhappy babies. Nursing on one side one >session and the other side the next session gives a better balance of >fore and hind milk and better satiation. > > Ah yes, thank you for reminding me of the importance of draining one breast at a time. I was fortunate to have this sort of information when it was important. I do hope someone in need of this information is helped. Colic did come up recently. But you also did mention induced lactation to Steph. Is there a timeline for optimal flow on this? IOW, how many years past a pregnancy might a woman lactate spontaneously (forgive bad terminology). I gave birth last 12 years ago. You spoke of women lactating without pregnancy (I think). So this is very interesting. I sometimes feel like I'm lactating in the presence of babies, so I do wonder. >Well, infectious diseases such as AIDS has really put the cramp on wet >nursing and milk donation programs. There is screening process in place >now, but a casual wet nursing program would be a law suit waiting to >happen, unfortunately. > > Well, no duh! Very good point. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Deanna- >And remember, >, it has nothing to do with breast size! :-P <g> Is there any science to support that assertion, though? Granted, I'm not sure how much there is to support my hunch, but I think my hunch makes more sense. BTW, just to throw another wrench in the works, the mere fact that a woman can produce adequate volumes of milk means nothing, I'm afraid. A friend of mine, for example, tasted his wife's milk and found it very thin -- low-fat -- and very sweet. He said it was like drinking 1% milk (or maybe nonfat; I forget) with a lot of sugar added. That's not good milk. An NT-style " formula " made from raw goat's milk and with other stuff added (IIRC raw liver is in there somewhere) would doubtless be much more nutritious. I don't know that anyone's done a proper survey of mother's milk to discover how common that sort of problem is, but given the modern diet just about everyone eats, I suspect milk in general sucks. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Deanna Wagner wrote: >Ah yes, thank you for reminding me of the importance of draining one >breast at a time. I was fortunate to have this sort of information when >it was important. I do hope someone in need of this information is >helped. > <Nodding> Which is why I mentioned it. I always had an oversupply and had a problem with my kids getting too much, so I tend to harp on it when the subject comes up. >Colic did come up recently. But you also did mention induced >lactation to Steph. Is there a timeline for optimal flow on this? IOW, >how many years past a pregnancy might a woman lactate spontaneously >(forgive bad terminology). I gave birth last 12 years ago. You spoke >of women lactating without pregnancy (I think). So this is very >interesting. I sometimes feel like I'm lactating in the presence of >babies, so I do wonder. > > > It isn't something that I've researched. Some of the moms on a few of the parenting lists I'm on have adopted and considered relactation. If memory serves me, the more babies you've nursed and the longer each nursed, the more successful relactation is. It's a complicated dance between indocrine and autocrine systems. When a woman is pregnant, she's got all those hormones jumpstarting the process. By the time a child naturally weans, it is down to autocrine signalling. It seems--and again, I don't have the cites for this, sorry!--that once those pathways have been accessed in a meaningful way, the process occurs more readily. I'm unclear as to whether or not a long period of time has lapsed would impact the supply and demand process and it would only be sheer speculation on my part. Relactating, as I understand, involves a lot of preparation and commitment. IOT have a supply running by the time the baby is placed in the home, pumping needs to begin months in advance and done with a commercial grade pump. Some women, I believe, utilize lactation boosting medications and/or herbs. My LLLL was sceptical of the ability of herbs to assist in the process....she felt that things like fenugreek were only useful in the early postpartum days while there was still significal hormonal levels going on. And even with successful relactation, the mom shouldn't expect to nurse exclusively....some supplementation is going to be necessary, especially if the child isn't on solids yet. >>Well, infectious diseases such as AIDS has really put the cramp on wet >>nursing and milk donation programs. There is screening process in place >>now, but a casual wet nursing program would be a law suit waiting to >>happen, unfortunately. >> >> >> >> >Well, no duh! Very good point. > > Yeah, this has come up in conversation on some of my parenting lists. The idea of shared nursing seems to reach back to a time when we were more grounded in closeknit communities than now. It certainly would allow for more flexibility that our current society, eh? --s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 , >>And remember, >>, it has nothing to do with breast size! :-P >> >> > ><g> Is there any science to support that assertion, though? Granted, I'm >not sure how much there is to support my hunch, but I think my hunch makes >more sense. > > I don't know, honey. I'm kind of a medium gal myself. I haven't studied the matter much academically. But having lived my life, I have seen women of all shapes and sizes successfully nurse their babies. And also, perhaps breast size is somewhat dictated by ancestry. I don't know, but I do hope someone else picks up this flowing organ. >BTW, just to throw another wrench in the works, the mere fact that a woman >can produce adequate volumes of milk means nothing, I'm afraid. A friend >of mine, for example, tasted his wife's milk and found it very thin -- >low-fat -- and very sweet. He said it was like drinking 1% milk (or maybe >nonfat; I forget) with a lot of sugar added. That's not good milk. An >NT-style " formula " made from raw goat's milk and with other stuff added >(IIRC raw liver is in there somewhere) would doubtless be much more >nutritious. I don't know that anyone's done a proper survey of mother's >milk to discover how common that sort of problem is, but given the modern >diet just about everyone eats, I suspect milk in general sucks. > Have you no recollection of breast milk? It is sweet. Maybe it's a species driven taste, I don't know. But for you to say based on your carb fears that an NT formula is better, well, please do look for general human milk constituents before jumping on that bandwagon. Your friend didn't measure fat content, but it is thin, I will agree. , you don't know what you're missing! It is sweet and thin, but that is how it is. Drink from several breasts and report back. It is the only way to be sure <weg>. Moo, Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2005 Report Share Posted August 24, 2005 >I don't recall if I've had my appendix removed or not. But diverticuli seem >like a likely culprit. ??? " Don't recall " ??? One would think that would be a memorable experience ... > >On page 23 of his [Jensen's] book, Tissue Cleansing Through Bowel >Management, he describes mucoid plaque. " The heavy mucus coating in the >colon thickens and becomes a host of putrefaction. The blood capillaries to >the colon begin to pick up the toxins, poisons and noxious debris as it >seeps through the bowel wall. All tissues and organs of the body are now >taking on toxic substances. Here is the beginning of true autointoxication >on a physiological level. " On page 27, he reveals his experience in this >matter. " One autopsy revealed a colon to be 9 inches in diameter with a >passage through it no larger than a pencil. The rest was caked up layer >upon layer of encrusted fecal material. This accumulation can have the >consistency of truck tire rubber. It's that hard and black. Another autopsy >revealed a stagnant colon to weigh in at an incredible 40 pounds. Imagine >carrying around all that morbid accumulated waste. " Well you see, I've read stuff like that for a long time and figured it made perfect sense. Until, like many folks here, I SAW a colonoscopy or two. Now I'm not saying some folks don't have major issues, but the one I witnessed was from someone who WAS having issues and really, there was nothing clinging to anything, even under some major magnification. Now in an autopsy ... well, those are dead people so who knows what killed them or what was going on. I'd love to talk to a coroner though and get his/her take. > " On page 42, Dr. Jensen talks about his old teacher Dr. Harvey Kellogg >at the Battle Creek Sanitarium, who " maintained that 90% of the diseases of >civilization are due to improper functioning of the colon. " Well, you see, I TOTALLY agree with that statement. Except of course I think the dysfunctioning of the colon is from improper food, not lack of enemas. (I'm not against enemas and/or fasting, BTW ... if in fact a lot of people are finding marbles etc. lodged in their colons then it's probably a good idea to get them out!) were constipated. The autopsies showed the opposite to be the case, >however, and only 15 were found not to have been constipated, while 285 >were found to have been constipated. OK, but the autopsies are on dead people. People who die are usually very old or very sick, and constipation wouldn't be a weird thing in that case. One thing about this " encrusted lining " ... the bowel works via peristalsis, same as your esophagus. Now, you CAN get mucous encrusting your esophagus, in which case you get very hoarse and sick. But usually it's pretty clean. Waves of spasms push food down, and if something gets stuck you can feel it (and it generally gets pushed down eventually). If there was a really thick crust on your colon, nothing could get pushed down, and you'd probably be majorly impacted. Impactions do happen, but I wouldn't say they are common. > > >I really don't know. So, I'm very unclear on the discrepancy in reports of >encrusted impacted fecal matter and squeaky clean colons? > >I also wonder if food gets stuck in the small intestine? Has anyone >autopsied small intestines to check? Certainly colonoscopies don't reach >that far up. Stuff in the small intestines isn't " fecal matter " though. It's more liquid for starters ... it stays liquid until it reaches the large intestine, which starts absorbing water from it. Food DOES get stuck. I know this from cow stomachs, but it happens in human stomachs too, because the valve at the end is designed to only let digested stuff thru. Which is one reason cats throw up hairballs. Ranchers routinely have cows swallow " cow magnets " which stay in their stomachs for life, causing small bits of metal (like nails, barbed wire bits) to stick to them and not go into the intestine where they might cause damage. And small intestines ARE routinely autopsied ... by med students, for starters. Any doctor could tell you the results on their personal corpse. >In the case of my " mucoid plaque " poop, I didn't get the impression that it >was impacted material, what concerned me about it was the odd shape. Mine >was even more sharply disc shaped than any of the photos I saw online. ><scratching head...> Your intestine produces a lot of mucous, and from the personal account that was posted, possibly mucous secretion goes up during the fast. If there is no food pushing it down ... -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2005 Report Share Posted August 24, 2005 > > >But ya know what? You are a thinker, a seeker, a solver. I don't know >what that mucoid plaque is either, but the fact that you make damn good >educated guesses (from whence?) ... and how you obsess about particular >problems until they solved or all channels exhausted ... well, I'm >married to someone kinda like that! :-) > >Goddess if I had your way of thinking... So do tell your secrets in >this regard. Pray tell, what connections went through your mind from >mucoid plaque to myconium? > >merci, >Deanna Huh. Do you mean to imply, perhaps, that there are in fact human beings who can look at the given factoids: 1. Clean gut walls in colonoscopies in lots of people. 2. Weird stuff getting expelled in lots of people. 3. Weird stuff getting expelled in newly born babes (own experience) and NOT obsess constantly? I mean someone could look at those facts and NOT start Googling, noticing " subthoughts " all day while cooking, cleaning, and programming? Ok, those are like, like, those people who can pass by a library and get to work on time? Right? Yeah, I have read such people exist. :-) Answer: I don't know. I expect it's the way my odd brain works. It's ALWAYS obsessing on something, otherwise it gets very unhappy. Best I can do is obsess on something that won't get too many people torqued with me. Or better, obsess on something that causes someone to want to pay me some amount of money! -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2005 Report Share Posted August 24, 2005 Oh, Deanna, let me tell you this. You know, my wife is still breastfeeding our 3-y-old boy, but when I kiss her breasts, I never dare to suck (or suckle?) her nipples. Not that she wouldn't allow, but I simply can't do that. I'd feel very strange doing it, as if that were a kind of psychlogical regression, you see. Well, maybe I'm too straight a guy as far as sex is concerned. JC --- In , Deanna Wagner <hl@s...> wrote: .... > Drink from several breasts and report back. It is the only > way to be sure <weg>. > > > Moo, > Deanna > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2005 Report Share Posted August 24, 2005 Deanna- >Have you no recollection of breast milk? Though I supposedly nursed a long time, no. (Hmm, now that I think about it, I don't think I could possibly have nursed as long as I've been told, because I have some memories from when I was two and three, and they don't include nursing or even the memory of nursing. Not that that's necessarily reliable...) >It is sweet. Maybe it's a >species driven taste, I don't know. But for you to say based on your >carb fears that an NT formula is better, well, please do look for >general human milk constituents before jumping on that bandwagon. My carb fears? That's a bad assumption. Kwasniewski (creator of the Optimal Diet) asserts that the protein:fat:carb ratio of human milk is 1:3.5:0.3. The WAPF disagrees, and though I forget what their figures are, I do remember that they state that human milk is moderately more carby and less fatty -- but still quite fatty. My suspicion is that Kwasniewski and WAPF arrived at their moderately different figures because they recommend different amounts of dietary carbs and fat, though without further information it's hard to know for sure. > Your >friend didn't measure fat content, but it is thin, I will agree. , >you don't know what you're missing! It is sweet and thin, but that is >how it is. Drink from several breasts and report back. It is the only >way to be sure <weg>. I'd also add that lactose tastes less sweet than other sugars, so milk that is very sweet suggests one of two things to me: WAY too much lactose in the milk, or too much in the way of other, sweeter-tasting sugars. I'm sorry, but your suggestion that I drink from several breasts is absurd. Women eating SAD and then nursing are not going to produce anything remotely resembling ideal milk. Now, if you want to cough up some milk from several women who are nursing and following an adequately high-fat NN-style diet (and have been for a good long while, since well before becoming pregnant) then you might have something worth analyzing. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2005 Report Share Posted August 24, 2005 Suzanne- >Getting too >much foremilk creates gas and unhappy babies. Nursing on one side one >session and the other side the next session gives a better balance of >fore and hind milk and better satiation. Very interesting! Thanks for the info! - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2005 Report Share Posted August 24, 2005 , >I'm sorry, >but your suggestion that I drink from several breasts is absurd. > Yes it was. But is was meant to be funny. I need a break, I think. Sorry for getting fuzzy. Suzanne has offered highly valuable tidbits. Perhaps she will comment on the milk constituents. Deanna 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.