Re: another weird fasting poop

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>-----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>

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

[Guest guest]

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?

-

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

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!

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

,

>>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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

>

>

>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

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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!

-

[Guest guest]

,

>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