RE: Milk was another weird fasting poop

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

>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,

>

Actually, honey, there's none.

>but I think my hunch makes

>more sense.

>

>

>

LOL! Who doesn't?

>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.

>

Let's rethink some paradigms. " Not good milk " comes from a mentality

where cow milk is the standard to which other infant nutrition is

compared. Milk is species specific. Cow's milk is designed to grow

baby cows bones, human milk is designed to grow human babies brains.

This is why they are recently adding EFA's to formula, because, as I

mentioned in a previous post, formula shaves an average of 5 points--one

study said 11--off of a child's IQ score. The impairment from prenatal

cocaine exposure is 3 and juvenile lead exposure is 10, btw. No one

questions anymore that cow milk is inferior to breast milk in nourishing

a human baby. We have too much longitudinal data that supports this.

(See the list of hyperlinks at the bottom.) This is why every swinging

formula company out there is mandated to declare that 'breastfeeding is

best' before they start touting how close their stuff comes to the

biological standard.

The supposed " thin-ness " of milk was used two or three generations back

as the reason that particular women " had " to bottlefeed. Countless

scores of women were erroneously told that their milk was " bad " because

it *looked* different than cow's milk. Um...maybe--and this is just

wild supposition, you understand <wink,wink> --maybe it is *supposed* to

look different, because the biological needs of a cow and a human are

*different*.

>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.

>

" Doubtless " ??? <blink>

Yes, at some point, a baby needs " external " nutrition, ie nutrients

beyond what breastmilk can provide, and liver would be a great baby

food, but during the first half of the baby's life, there is nothing

beyond breastmilk that is necessary.

Goat's milk is for *baby goats.* Yes, it can be tweaked to adequately

nourish a human baby, but that's not the biological design and there's

no way that it is going to come up to par....regardless how many times

one channels Weston in the process.

WRT the fat content, that's where the foremilk/hindmilk dance comes into

play. From almost a decade of continuous personal experience in

lactating, I can assure you that foremilk looks very thin and is very

sugary--which is why too much causes intestinal distress, as I mentioned

in a previous post. Hindmilk can have the consistency of cream,

especially when the infant is younger. As the child ages, the

consistency and make up of the milk changes to meet the changing

metabolic needs of the nursling. The nutritional constituency actually

condenses to compensate for the fact that a toddler nurses less

frequently than an infant. No amount of organic raw cow's milk can

match that. There is science now that indicates that there are

receptors in the nipple that detect the presence of infectious bacteria

in the baby's mouth, like a cold, and in the intervening time between

nursing sessions, the mother's body will begin producing antibodies to

deliver to the nursling at the next feeding. Scraped raw liver blended

into even the most gourmet goat's milk isn't going to begin to approach

that capacity.

If one is worried about the constituency of breastmilk or the nutrients

the infant is receiving, then tweak it at the source....the mother.

Our family doctor expressed the routine schpeall about iron stores

declining in the second half of the first year (which usually applies to

a) formula fed babies and babies whose cord was cut immediately upon

birth, which is most of the population) and my response was to make sure

that I was consuming enough iron. Her iron count tested fine. I know

one nursing mom whose baby tested slightly low in iron counts (there's

celiac in that family, btw) so the mom began taking an iron tonic. Next

visit, the baby's iron count had risen.

>I don't know that anyone's done a proper survey of mother's

>milk to discover how common that sort of problem is,

>

" Problem " ???

<sigh> This statement makes me sad, because it reveals how little

progress we've made in education in the last decade. I feel like we're

having a 1950's flashback, where the doctor comes in and holds up a test

card next to a cup of the mother's milk to see if it matches the color

of " good " milk to determine if he'll give her " permission " to attempt

breastfeeding.....

>but given the modern

>diet just about everyone eats, I suspect milk in general sucks.

>

>

Okay, I'll grant you that nutrition *does* impact the quality of a

woman's breastmilk, as I've mentioned above. But even lousy breastmilk

is still going to trump stellar cow's milk, if for no other reason that

it is what we were biologically designed to consume as infants. The

bottom line is that you've got it backwards....breastmilk is the

standard by which we measure all other forms of infant nutrition, not

the other way around. Breast *isn't* best. Cow's milk is *inferior*

for nourshing anything but baby cows. Ditto for goats and any other

lactational mammalia out there.

The milk doesn't suck. Clearly the general understanding of it does.

We are only now in recent years discovering how complex human milk is

and the learning, in some quarters, goes on. We really don't know how

much we don't know.

--s, blowing kisses and taking off the lactivist gloves.....

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2594.htm

http://www.arc4life.com/site/615058/page/384611

http://www.breastfeeding.com/reading_room/iq_study.html

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/34/1728_87853?src=Inktomi & condition=Home%20 & \

%20Top%20Stories

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2002/nichd-20.htm

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/343/349843.html

http://www.bygpub.com/natural/breastfeeding.htm

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Suzanne Noakes

>>>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,

>>

>Actually, honey, there's none.

>

>>but I think my hunch makes

>>more sense.

>>

>>

>>

>LOL! Who doesn't?

Suzanne,

Isn't that why breasts swell when pregnant? You're not saying that women

with small and medium breasts don't produce enough milk for their infants,

are you?

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 Fisher wrote:

>Isn't that why breasts swell when pregnant? You're not saying that women

>with small and medium breasts don't produce enough milk for their infants,

>are you?

>

>

>

No, I'm *not* saying that! Maybe I'm mis-remembering the breast size

thread--I checked out quickly, since it started squicking me out and the

tone started feeling less than academic--but I thought that the posited

theory by the original poster was that breast size mattered and I was

saying that there is *no* science to support that theory.

Anecdotally, I personally have less than almost every woman in the

population and I've always had an oversupply problem....LOL!

--s

[Guest guest]

Suzanne,

Bravo!

>WRT the fat content, that's where the foremilk/hindmilk dance comes into

>play. From almost a decade of continuous personal experience in

>lactating, I can assure you that foremilk looks very thin and is very

>sugary--which is why too much causes intestinal distress, as I mentioned

>in a previous post. Hindmilk can have the consistency of cream,

>especially when the infant is younger. As the child ages, the

>consistency and make up of the milk changes to meet the changing

>metabolic needs of the nursling. The nutritional constituency actually

>condenses to compensate for the fact that a toddler nurses less

>frequently than an infant. No amount of organic raw cow's milk can

>match that. There is science now that indicates that there are

>receptors in the nipple that detect the presence of infectious bacteria

>in the baby's mouth, like a cold, and in the intervening time between

>nursing sessions, the mother's body will begin producing antibodies to

>deliver to the nursling at the next feeding. Scraped raw liver blended

>into even the most gourmet goat's milk isn't going to begin to approach

>that capacity.

>

This is just fascinating! Thank you so much for all of this

information. And I can't help but wonder why we don't have any files on

the importance of good infant nutrition in the NN files section <hint,

hint>. So many young parents come on board, and I just can't help but

think that this information should be readily available for easy

reference. I personally don't need it anymore, but an anxious mom

trying to learn the nursing two-step with her newborn child needs all

the support and encouragement to breastfeed that she can get. I think

anything less than teaching good nutrition for lactation is not sound,

especially after reading these convincing arguments you've made.

It just goes to show you that nature knows best, and that the

traditional way holds great promise for us, even though we can't always

explain completely why that is. The scientific community (especially in

the 50s and 60s) did much harm by thinking we improve on nature. Time

to swing back.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Suzanne-

>Let's rethink some paradigms. " Not good milk " comes from a mentality

>where cow milk is the standard to which other infant nutrition is

>compared.

Not in my case.

>Um...maybe--and this is just

>wild supposition, you understand <wink,wink> --maybe it is *supposed* to

>look different, because the biological needs of a cow and a human are

>*different*.

Of course, but this has nothing to do with anything I've said.

>Goat's milk is for *baby goats.* Yes, it can be tweaked to adequately

>nourish a human baby, but that's not the biological design and there's

>no way that it is going to come up to par....regardless how many times

>one channels Weston in the process.

Nobody's saying that it's possible to perfectly replicate ideal mother's milk.

>There is science now that indicates that there are

>receptors in the nipple that detect the presence of infectious bacteria

>in the baby's mouth, like a cold, and in the intervening time between

>nursing sessions, the mother's body will begin producing antibodies to

>deliver to the nursling at the next feeding. Scraped raw liver blended

>into even the most gourmet goat's milk isn't going to begin to approach

>that capacity.

Again, you're arguing against straw men. I would never argue that any kind

of formula, including an NT-based one, could possibly be better than good

human milk. That's not the issue.

>If one is worried about the constituency of breastmilk or the nutrients

>the infant is receiving, then tweak it at the source....the mother.

Yes, I agree this should be done.

> >I don't know that anyone's done a proper survey of mother's

> >milk to discover how common that sort of problem is,

> >

> " Problem " ???

>

><sigh> This statement makes me sad, because it reveals how little

>progress we've made in education in the last decade. I feel like we're

>having a 1950's flashback, where the doctor comes in and holds up a test

>card next to a cup of the mother's milk to see if it matches the color

>of " good " milk to determine if he'll give her " permission " to attempt

>breastfeeding.....

Now I think we're getting to the root of our disagreement.

>But even lousy breastmilk

>is still going to trump stellar cow's milk, if for no other reason that

>it is what we were biologically designed to consume as infants. The

>bottom line is that you've got it backwards....breastmilk is the

>standard by which we measure all other forms of infant nutrition, not

>the other way around. Breast *isn't* best. Cow's milk is *inferior*

>for nourshing anything but baby cows. Ditto for goats and any other

>lactational mammalia out there.

Perhaps our thresholds for " lousy " are different, but I seriously doubt

that lousy breast milk is superior to an NT-type formula.

>The milk doesn't suck. Clearly the general understanding of it does.

So your position is that, no matter how poor the nutrition and health of

the mother, her milk is going to be at least adequate, and superior to any

possible replacement? That makes no sense whatsoever. There's abundant

data on how diet affects the nutrient quality of the milks of other

species, and the differences in quality can be extreme. Why would humans

being unique in being able to produce healthful milk regardless of

diet? There's no conceivable physical explanation for such a thing.

I'm not arguing that our priorities should be on improving formulas and on

persuading mothers to use an NT-style formula. Obviously mothers should

eat an extremely nutritious diet for a good long time before even becoming

pregnant in the first place, and pregnancy and nutrition demand the highest

possible levels of nutrition from the mother. If I were to have kids, I'd

want to do so with a woman motivated to do her absolute best to eat right.

But that's not what we're talking about. I'm talking about the basic

principle of garbage in, garbage out, and you seem to be disagreeing with me.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>

>I'm not arguing that our priorities should be on improving formulas and on

>persuading mothers to use an NT-style formula. Obviously mothers should

>eat an extremely nutritious diet for a good long time before even becoming

>pregnant in the first place, and pregnancy and nutrition demand the highest

>possible levels of nutrition from the mother. If I were to have kids, I'd

>want to do so with a woman motivated to do her absolute best to eat right.

>

I would think that any problems with adequate milk supply would be

caused by poor nutrition, effects of aging on the ova (they do fizzle

out and change starting at about 35 according to what I heard on NPR

recently) and perhaps health problems. Reproduction needs building

blocks, and lactation needs are really high for nutrients.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4809662

Wise Tradition seems to be advocating formula and modern lifestyles.

They say " breast is best " and then go on with a huge formula article.

The food feature makes breast feeding look somewhat controversial:

" Hands down, healthy breast milk is perfectly designed for baby's

physical and mental development, but this is only true when mom supplies

her body with the right nutrients. "

Yeah, no kidding. So women should eat well and build up first, then

breast feed. Where is the pro breast milk article in this issue? Where

are the pictures of nursing moms? They do offer a comparison of mom

milk to the NT formulas on page 25, fyi, but they are from standard

tables. I bet NT moms make even better milk. The protein, calcium and

sodium contents in formula are much higher than (standard) breast milk.

Most nutrients are similar it seems. But as Suzanne notes, antibodies

and other protective factors are just becoming understood better. These

things are not even considered in the comparison

So I am really saddened by the approach WAPF takes. I can't support it

in good faith. Infant nutrition from before conception is the most

important good start we can offer our kids. Caving in to modern

lifestyle choices is not the answer. Many of us are prime examples of

what happens when early nutrition is not optimal.

Boo hoo,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>Wise Tradition seems to be advocating formula and modern lifestyles.

>They say " breast is best " and then go on with a huge formula article.

>The food feature makes breast feeding look somewhat controversial:

>

> " Hands down, healthy breast milk is perfectly designed for baby's

>physical and mental development, but this is only true when mom supplies

>her body with the right nutrients. "

>

>Yeah, no kidding. So women should eat well and build up first, then

>breast feed. Where is the pro breast milk article in this issue?

I haven't read this issue yet (being all about baby food, it's less

interesting to me than most, at least for the time being) but since the

whole emphasis of Wise Traditions is always about eating right, I'm not

sure what your problem is. The above statement strikes me as perfectly

accurate.

Like I said, though, I haven't read it yet. Maybe an article on prenatal,

pre-conception and during-nursing nutrition would've been advised.

>Infant nutrition from before conception is the most

>important good start we can offer our kids.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

>Caving in to modern

>lifestyle choices is not the answer. Many of us are prime examples of

>what happens when early nutrition is not optimal.

What exactly do you mean when you say that this issue advocates modern

lifestyles...? That would seem to fly in the face of the whole purpose of

WT/WAPF, which is all about traditional foods, traditional food

preparation, nutrient-dense foods, etc.

-

[Guest guest]

I dunno. I for one am really glad NT formula was there. Whether it be my

age or health status or whatever, nothing I did helped my milk supply. I

was very grateful that I had a alternative to commercial formula.

Irene

At 10:49 AM 8/24/2005, you wrote:

>,

>

> >

> >I'm not arguing that our priorities should be on improving formulas and on

> >persuading mothers to use an NT-style formula. Obviously mothers should

> >eat an extremely nutritious diet for a good long time before even becoming

> >pregnant in the first place, and pregnancy and nutrition demand the highest

> >possible levels of nutrition from the mother. If I were to have kids, I'd

> >want to do so with a woman motivated to do her absolute best to eat right.

> >

>I would think that any problems with adequate milk supply would be

>caused by poor nutrition, effects of aging on the ova (they do fizzle

>out and change starting at about 35 according to what I heard on NPR

>recently) and perhaps health problems. Reproduction needs building

>blocks, and lactation needs are really high for nutrients.

>

><http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4809662>http://www.npr.or\

g/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4809662

>

>Wise Tradition seems to be advocating formula and modern lifestyles.

>They say " breast is best " and then go on with a huge formula article.

>The food feature makes breast feeding look somewhat controversial:

>

> " Hands down, healthy breast milk is perfectly designed for baby's

>physical and mental development, but this is only true when mom supplies

>her body with the right nutrients. "

>

>Yeah, no kidding. So women should eat well and build up first, then

>breast feed. Where is the pro breast milk article in this issue? Where

>are the pictures of nursing moms? They do offer a comparison of mom

>milk to the NT formulas on page 25, fyi, but they are from standard

>tables. I bet NT moms make even better milk. The protein, calcium and

>sodium contents in formula are much higher than (standard) breast milk.

>Most nutrients are similar it seems. But as Suzanne notes, antibodies

>and other protective factors are just becoming understood better. These

>things are not even considered in the comparison

>

>So I am really saddened by the approach WAPF takes. I can't support it

>in good faith. Infant nutrition from before conception is the most

>important good start we can offer our kids. Caving in to modern

>lifestyle choices is not the answer. Many of us are prime examples of

>what happens when early nutrition is not optimal.

>

>

>Boo hoo,

>Deanna

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

>

>What exactly do you mean when you say that this issue advocates modern

>lifestyles...? That would seem to fly in the face of the whole purpose of

>WT/WAPF, which is all about traditional foods, traditional food

>preparation, nutrient-dense foods, etc.

>

I am tired, sorry. In a nutshell: breast milk is a traditional food,

formula is not. I bet Price's natives never had any substitute for it.

In the rare event one woman couldn't nurse, another undoubtedly would

step in. If WAPF is really going to be advocating the work of Dr.

Price, then this would include pushing breast food for infants in the

vast majority of cases, imho. The preaching of formula to the WAPF

audience just seems strange. I think having a recipe for the formula is

fine, but the emphasis should really be on helping women nurse.

From NAPD, by Price

" The women are characterized by the abundance of breast-food which

almost always develops normally and is maintained without difficulty for

a year. " p. 66

" In my observations of the infant's care among primitive races I have

been continually impressed with the great infrequency with which we

ever hear a primitive child cry or express any discomfort from the

treatment it receives. Of course, when hunger they make their wants

known. The primitive mother is usually very prompt, if possible, to

feed her child. " p. 399

" A mother died and her nursing infant was taken care of by its maternal

grandmother, who had not recently given birth to a child. She proceeded

to carry out the primitive formula for providing breast food by

artificial means. Her method was to make an ointment of the fresh

bodies of an insect which made its nest in the leaves of a certain

tree. This she rubbed on her breasts and in a short time produced milk

liberally for this foster child. " p. 183-184

Note this last quote does not mean " formula " as in food, but rather a

method to stimulate breast milk. And this is the short list of a few

that I saw in a five minute search. The chapter " Practical Applications

of Primitive Wisdom " has all sorts of information on foods to give

mothers good milk and good milk flow.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>The preaching of formula to the WAPF

>audience just seems strange. I think having a recipe for the formula is

>fine, but the emphasis should really be on helping women nurse.

I see your point, but at the same time, I think a lot of readers of Wise

Traditions probably don't eat particularly well and probably produce

questionable breast milk. At that point it becomes a pragmatic question:

do you stick with the purist point of view, knowing that many babies will

suffer from it, or do you recommend the best possible

replacement/supplement for breast milk?

(I think it's unintentionally misleading, actually, to call an NT-type

recipe for breast milk supplement " formula " , since " formula " has come to

denote those awful grocery store atrocities.)

>Note this last quote does not mean " formula " as in food, but rather a

>method to stimulate breast milk. And this is the short list of a few

>that I saw in a five minute search. The chapter " Practical Applications

>of Primitive Wisdom " has all sorts of information on foods to give

>mothers good milk and good milk flow.

This is all well and good, but how many mothers out there, even in the WAPF

community, are in the vibrant state of health of Price's healthy

natives? My guess, frankly, is that virtually none are, because even those

of us who are really dedicated to getting the best possible food are

hampered by soil quality. I seriously doubt I'll be able to eat a _truly_

optimal diet until and unless I have enough money to buy a farm and hire

people to run it who will do things right -- and even then it'll doubtless

take years to get the soil into shape.

At the moment, even the best foods I can find are, quite frankly, seriously

lacking.

-

[Guest guest]

Deanna Wagner wrote:

>This is just fascinating! Thank you so much for all of this

>information.

>

You're welcome.

>And I can't help but wonder why we don't have any files on

>the importance of good infant nutrition in the NN files section <hint,

>hint>.

>

LOL! <nodding> I guess I just assumed that for people who are

researched-minded and step out of the mainstream to the WAPF type diet,

breastfeeding would be a given. I'm quite startled to see that this

isn't necessarily the case.

>So many young parents come on board, and I just can't help but

>think that this information should be readily available for easy

>reference. I personally don't need it anymore, but an anxious mom

>trying to learn the nursing two-step with her newborn child needs all

>the support and encouragement to breastfeed that she can get. I think

>anything less than teaching good nutrition for lactation is not sound,

>especially after reading these convincing arguments you've made.

>

>

>

I agree with you, as I stated in my first reply to , that nutrition

is clearly important and not all breastmilk is equal. It should,

indeed, be remediated at the source.

I also agree that moms need lots of support. Actually, given that

glandular insufficiency is quite rare, the number of women who were

" unable " to nurse were failed by the people who should have been their

supports. Birthing environments have a great deal to do with

breastfeeding readiness, both on the part of the mother and the infant.

Medications and medical interventions (many of which are for the

professional's convenience rather than any medical necessity) can hinder

the nursing dad's ability to effect a smooth start. In times past,

experienced moms were around the dad, helping with sloppy latches (which

can effect supply), and offering advice based on time-honored wifely

wisdom. Now we have hospital nurseries where professionals will slip

bottles to the baby " so that the mom can get some rest " and thereby

disrupt the nursing relationship. These situations have improved

somewhat, but it is still too ubiquitous for our own good. In the past,

moms knew that the measurement of intake was output, not how much milk a

mom could pump into a bottle. Wet and poopy diapers are the best

yardstick for supply, not how long the baby nurses. Some babies take

longer to get to the chase than others. Some babies have a higher suck

need than others.....Lynn and I have models like that, hence the 8 hour

nursing marathons. Babies weren't weighed against a chart of formula

fed infants and labeled failure to thrive because breastfed infants have

a different growth pattern than formula fed ones. There were moms who

supported and fed the mom while she laid in bed for the first eight

weeks or so, getting that milk supply established, skin to skin, lots of

contact, not a community telling the mom that she was spoiling that baby

by holding it too much. And they were taking care of the baby's

siblings while mom was able to " babymoon. " You're right, we've lost a

great deal.

I'm saddened that we've lost so much that so many moms were forced to

resort to substitutes instead of being helped in establishing a

successful nursing relationship.

>It just goes to show you that nature knows best, and that the

>traditional way holds great promise for us, even though we can't always

>explain completely why that is. The scientific community (especially in

>the 50s and 60s) did much harm by thinking we improve on nature. Time

>to swing back.

>

>

>

<nodding> Lots of moms working in that direction!

--s

[Guest guest]

> I see your point, but at the same time,

> I think a lot of readers of Wise

> Traditions probably don't eat particularly

> well and probably produce

> questionable breast milk. At that point

> it becomes a pragmatic question:

> do you stick with the purist point of view,

> knowing that many babies will

> suffer from it, or do you recommend the best possible

> replacement/supplement for breast milk?

Oh my goodness, what a thought.

If the mother doesn't actually have AIDS or is on drugs,

if you ask me the worst breast milk is still better

than the best formula. That's what I'd want for anyone

in my family anyway. Course I'm in the grandma situation now.

Connie

[Guest guest]

,

>I think a lot of readers of Wise

> Traditions probably don't eat particularly well and probably produce

> questionable breast milk.

Why do you assume this pessimistic view? Certainly, those who donate

money to WAPF are MUCH more likely to eat decently compared to the

general population (duh). I'm far from perfect, but at least I don't

have a litany of health problems and a cabinet full of rx's like many

people my age. The simple fact that I don't view cholesterol and fat

as a pariah makes me grateful for the work of the foundation. This

knowledge, I believe, is saving me from future pain and suffering AND

will improve the quality of my milk even if I do eat out every once in

awhile.

>At that point it becomes a pragmatic question:

> do you stick with the purist point of view, knowing that many babies will

> suffer from it, or do you recommend the best possible

> replacement/supplement for breast milk?

Hmmm.....sounds like the teakettle and coffeepot story. *Your* purist

point of view seems to be that only the few women on the planet with

AMAZING diets should attempt to breastfeed. We have to keep in mind

that the quality of the ingredients of the NT recommended formula will

be just as compromised (or more so) than above-average breast milk

from WAP-influenced mothers. How many of us on this list are getting

A+ quality milk, meat, etc?

> This is all well and good, but how many mothers out there, even in the WAPF

> community, are in the vibrant state of health of Price's healthy

> natives?

And if there was a modern-day Dr. Price, would he find ANY healthy

primitives on our earth? Mike , perhaps...; ) Seriously,

aren't the Inuit having major problems with dioxins and mercury? How

ARE the Masai doing these days? We all know what happened when Nestle

started marketing formula to African tribeswomen...

I guess I just do the best I can and hope that our " movement " will

catch on to some extent so as to influence farmers to improve their

soil. The gas prices right now are certainly making local buying

attractive.

>

> At the moment, even the best foods I can find are, quite frankly, seriously

> lacking.

OK, this speaks perfectly to my point above: even the NT formula will

be sub-par so why promote this option to WAP-influenced mothers?

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

>>wild supposition, you understand <wink,wink> --maybe it is *supposed* to

>>look different, because the biological needs of a cow and a human are

>>*different*.

>>

>>

>

>

>Of course, but this has nothing to do with anything I've said.

>

>

Really? Then I need some clarification, please. I read your post to

Deanna, describing the qualities of the milk produced by your friend's

wife and comparing it to cow's milk. My answer was that milk is species

specific and human milk isn't supposed to be the same consistency as

cow's milk. Was that not what you meant when you quoted him as

comparing it to 1% milk and thereby being " not good milk " for infant

consumption....that it should be thick and creamy like raw whole milk?

Please then elaborate on what you did mean by that.

>

>

>>Goat's milk is for *baby goats.* Yes, it can be tweaked to adequately

>>nourish a human baby, but that's not the biological design and there's

>>no way that it is going to come up to par....regardless how many times

>>one channels Weston in the process.

>>

>>

>

>Nobody's saying that it's possible to perfectly replicate ideal mother's milk.

>

>

>

I'm not even talking about ideal mother's milk. Bear in mind that the

studies that show how far behind breastmilk the substitutes fall are

based on breastmilk produced from crappy SAD diets, yk. And these links

I included were largely having to do with IQ....there's lots of stuff

out there that touch on immune systems and more. All from breastmilk

produced from crappy diets. Does that mean that the mother's diet won't

improve her milk? Absolutely not. Of course, she should eat optimally

and all of the responsible breastfeeding experts I know of encourage it.

But we really are just beginning to scratch the surface on what

breastmilk does, so we don't know what magnitude of other things are

lacking in cow's milk that even crappy breastmilk provides.

Again, I'm *not* saying the diet doesn't matter. This is the crux of

what I'm saying: I'm saying that the species separation is so wide that

even the best brix of cow's milk isn't going to fill in that gap.

>>

>><sigh> This statement makes me sad, because it reveals how little

>>progress we've made in education in the last decade. I feel like we're

>>having a 1950's flashback, where the doctor comes in and holds up a test

>>card next to a cup of the mother's milk to see if it matches the color

>>of " good " milk to determine if he'll give her " permission " to attempt

>>breastfeeding.....

>>

>>

>

>Now I think we're getting to the root of our disagreement.

>

>

>

How so?

Perhaps our thresholds for " lousy " are different, but I seriously doubt

>that lousy breast milk is superior to an NT-type formula.

>

>

<shrug> Doubt all you want. I want to see some hard science to back up

these statements. This sounds a lot like the " by faith " statements made

by gurus of other dietetic religions, yk? It may " feel " good in the

context of the embraced ideology, but that might not mean that it is

actually supported by reality.

>>The milk doesn't suck. Clearly the general understanding of it does.

>>

>>

>

>So your position is that, no matter how poor the nutrition and health of

>the mother, her milk is going to be at least adequate, and superior to any

>possible replacement? That makes no sense whatsoever.

>

Why not?

Here's an example: Why do we prize unpasteurized milk? The enzymatic

action. (Enzymatic action, btw, designed for a baby cow's digestion.)

Well, crappy mother's milk from the source has the enzymatic action

designed for a human baby. Could it be better if the mom's diet was

better? Absolutely.

Please describe for me what benefits you perceive cow's milk providing

that would be lacking in mom. You keep saying that NT formula would be

better. How so?

>There's abundant

>data on how diet affects the nutrient quality of the milks of other

>species, and the differences in quality can be extreme. Why would humans

>being unique in being able to produce healthful milk regardless of

>diet? There's no conceivable physical explanation for such a thing.

>

>

I posted previously:

" I know

one nursing mom whose baby tested slightly low in iron counts (there's

celiac in that family, btw) so the mom began taking an iron tonic. Next

visit, the baby's iron count had risen. "

And:

" Okay, I'll grant you that nutrition *does* impact the quality of a

woman's breastmilk, as I've mentioned above. "

Allow me to clarify. Those two statement may be freely interpreted as

meaning that I acknowledge the role in diet as impacting the quality of

a mother's milk. If one were to measure the constituency of a mom eating

NT and a mom eating SAD, I acknowledge that the NT breastmilk will trump

the SAD breastmilk.

You wrote:

But that's not what we're talking about. I'm talking about the basic

principle of garbage in, garbage out, and you seem to be disagreeing with me.

Let me clarify this again, as well. I'm *not* saying that garbage in,

garbage out is incorrect. I want to know what things are in NT formula

that would trump the multitudinous synergistic constituents of

breastmilk designed for human babies.

--s

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Suzanne Noakes

>

>

>Suze Fisher wrote:

>

>>Isn't that why breasts swell when pregnant? You're not saying that women

>>with small and medium breasts don't produce enough milk for their infants,

>>are you?

>>

>>

>>

>No, I'm *not* saying that! Maybe I'm mis-remembering the breast size

>thread--I checked out quickly, since it started squicking me out and the

>tone started feeling less than academic--but I thought that the posited

>theory by the original poster was that breast size mattered and I was

>saying that there is *no* science to support that theory.

Ah...OK. I may have also misremembered but I thought had said his

hypothesis is that output is related to breast size and I thought you were

agreeing with him.

>

>Anecdotally, I personally have less than almost every woman in the

>population and I've always had an oversupply problem....LOL!

Interesting! Perhaps proper diet makes a difference in this area...

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]

Idol wrote:

>This is all well and good, but how many mothers out there, even in the WAPF

>community, are in the vibrant state of health of Price's healthy

>natives?

>

Well, not even the descendants of his healthy natives, if the WHO is

correct.

>My guess, frankly, is that virtually none are, because even those

>of us who are really dedicated to getting the best possible food are

>hampered by soil quality. I seriously doubt I'll be able to eat a _truly_

>optimal diet until and unless I have enough money to buy a farm and hire

>people to run it who will do things right -- and even then it'll doubtless

>take years to get the soil into shape.

>

>At the moment, even the best foods I can find are, quite frankly, seriously

>lacking.

>

>

>

MWAH, ! You've just proved my point! LOL! Those lovely pastured

cattle are eating from a compromised infrastructure, so even their milk

isn't going to be all that it used to be in times past. We're still

operating on a system where cow's milk isn't going to meet the standard.

This reminds me of the warning a couple of years ago that breastmilk is

dangerous to infants because nursing releases toxins stored in the fat

tissues of the mother and transfers it to the infant. The reply to this

warning was that these toxins are so ubiquitous that the cows are

contaminated, too, so formula is still riskier than breastmilk.

--s

[Guest guest]

,

>

>I see your point, but at the same time, I think a lot of readers of Wise

>Traditions probably don't eat particularly well and probably produce

>questionable breast milk. At that point it becomes a pragmatic question:

>do you stick with the purist point of view, knowing that many babies will

>suffer from it, or do you recommend the best possible

>replacement/supplement for breast milk?

>

>

It seems that you think that some breast milk may be inferior to a

substitute. I disagree with this generally, but especially for those of

us interested in eating well. But I also want to state right now that I

understand that some folks have no other option than formula for

whatever reason. I do not want to appear callous in my advocacy of

breast milk. I was a formula fed baby, for better or worse.

However, allergies and other problems can arise from feeding foreign

milk to an infant too soon. What about the plastic bottles and

nipples? , I am no expert on this subject, but I bet I have a

little more experience than you do, lol. Nursing provides a beautiful

symbiotic bonding experience. It helps the mother just as much as the

child in physiological and psychological ways.

>This is all well and good, but how many mothers out there, even in the WAPF

>community, are in the vibrant state of health of Price's healthy

>natives? My guess, frankly, is that virtually none are, because even those

>of us who are really dedicated to getting the best possible food are

>hampered by soil quality. I seriously doubt I'll be able to eat a _truly_

>optimal diet until and unless I have enough money to buy a farm and hire

>people to run it who will do things right -- and even then it'll doubtless

>take years to get the soil into shape.

>

>

Are you suggesting none of us are as healthy as Price's natives, so

therefore we shouldn't nurse our babies? Then maybe none of us should

have children to begin with! Hey ladies, what do you think of this?

Actually, Price talks about this controversial subject as well.

" Of the many problems on which the experience of the primitive races can

throw light, probably none is more pressing than practical procedures

for improving child life. Since this has been shown to be largely

dependent upon the architectural design, as determined by the health of

the parental germ cells, and by the prenatal environment of the child,

the program that is to be successful must begin early enough to obviate

these various disturbing forces. "

....

" One of the frequent problems brought to my attention has to do with the

responsibility of young men and women in the matter of the danger of

transmitting their personal deformities to their offspring. Many,

indeed, with great reluctance and sense of personal loss decline

marriage because of this fear, a fear growing out of the current

teaching that their children will be marked as they have been. " NAPD, p.

403-404

>At the moment, even the best foods I can find are, quite frankly, seriously

>lacking.

>

Yes, so that goes for infant food choices. The question is which is

best. For the survival of the species, I'd wager breast milk.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Suze Fisher wrote:

>Ah...OK. I may have also misremembered but I thought had said his

>hypothesis is that output is related to breast size and I thought you were

>agreeing with him.

>

>

>

Nope....not I!

>>Anecdotally, I personally have less than almost every woman in the

>>population and I've always had an oversupply problem....LOL!

>>

>>

>

>Interesting! Perhaps proper diet makes a difference in this area...

>

>

Heh. I'd *LOVE* to smarm you and tell you that I eat a WAPF diet. I

had all three of my children before NT came up on my radar. In each

case, my supply was more than overflowing. My crappy diet probably

rendered my milk less optimal than it could have been, but certainly not

less abundant.

I do work to have a balanced diet and I do eat some NT foods, but also

supplement myself and my children since it is clear that we have

malabsorption issues with celiac.

--s

[Guest guest]

> Ah...OK. I may have also misremembered but I thought had said his

> hypothesis is that output is related to breast size and I thought you were

> agreeing with him.

>

> >

> >Anecdotally, I personally have less than almost every woman in the

> >population and I've always had an oversupply problem....LOL!

The old wives' tale I've heard is that smaller-breasted women produced

more milk than their well-endowed sisters.

>

> Interesting! Perhaps proper diet makes a difference in this area...

IIRC, Adelle has a chapter on " Maintaining Breastmilk of High

Quality " in her book " Let's Have Healthy Children. " Basically, to

improve milk quality quickly, one should eat as much liver and raw

milk " pep-up " (raw milk with yeast, raw eggs and other stuff added) as

possible. She claims an adoptive mother who has never been pg. could

lactate on this diet. Although her book is far from perfect (too many

supplements, no citations for the studies she talks about, nothing

about fermenting, etc.) it is definitely worth reading. She stresses

the importance of pre-conception health and has some great ideas for

feeding babies solids. Price is mentioned more than once in the book.

My mother followed some of her recommendations when she was pg. with

me and I have better bone structure and teeth than most Americans, or

so I'm told!

[Guest guest]

>Oh my goodness, what a thought.

>If the mother doesn't actually have AIDS or is on drugs,

>if you ask me the worst breast milk is still better

>than the best formula. That's what I'd want for anyone

>in my family anyway. Course I'm in the grandma situation now.

>

>Connie

>

I second that! I wasn't NT with my pregnancy and nursing diet, but I

was eating whole omnivorous foods, organic whenever possible. Both my

boys were big babies, have nice round faces, straight teeth and are

otherwise in darn good health (except the autism in the older boy). I

probably should have continued past 18 months with nursing, though.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 8/24/05, Suzanne Noakes <snoakes@...> wrote:

> Really? Then I need some clarification, please. I read your post to

> Deanna, describing the qualities of the milk produced by your friend's

> wife and comparing it to cow's milk. My answer was that milk is species

> specific and human milk isn't supposed to be the same consistency as

> cow's milk. Was that not what you meant when you quoted him as

> comparing it to 1% milk and thereby being " not good milk " for infant

> consumption....that it should be thick and creamy like raw whole milk?

> Please then elaborate on what you did mean by that.

I've been following this thread, and my understanding was that

was comparing human milk with an ideal standard of human milk (with

which I agree). He cited to claims of what HUMAN breast milk is under

conditions of ideal nutrition, and compared these to his friend's

partner's milk.

As you yourself said, the hindmilk can have the consistency of cream.

I don't know nearly as much about this as you do, so I'm not even sure

of the exact significance of these terms. But in any case, if a

properly nourished mother is producing milk that has much more fat

than some particular individual on a standard diet, that indicates a

gross insufficiency of the latter.

> I'm not even talking about ideal mother's milk. Bear in mind that the

> studies that show how far behind breastmilk the substitutes fall are

> based on breastmilk produced from crappy SAD diets, yk.

I doubt they represent the worst of the worst, but even if so, that

just means the worst of substitutes (commercial formulas) is worse

than the worst of breast milk. That doesn't mean that the best of

formulas is also worse than the worst of breast milk.

> Again, I'm *not* saying the diet doesn't matter. This is the crux of

> what I'm saying: I'm saying that the species separation is so wide that

> even the best brix of cow's milk isn't going to fill in that gap.

But you don't have any evidence to support this. As far as I know,

this is not something that has been studied, and not something I

expect to be studied in the near future.

By the way, use of the NT formulas doesn't preclude partial breast

feeding, does it? And if the quantity is lower, perhaps a similar

phenomenon to that where the toddler ages occurs, with a corresponding

concentration of factors in the breast milk. Thus, for inferior

breast milk, perhaps partial feeding to make sure human-specific

factors are present, and NT " formula " to ensure nutrient density,

together would make the best combination for that specific situation.

> <shrug> Doubt all you want. I want to see some hard science to back up

> these statements. This sounds a lot like the " by faith " statements made

> by gurus of other dietetic religions, yk? It may " feel " good in the

> context of the embraced ideology, but that might not mean that it is

> actually supported by reality.

Obviously this goes both ways with an unstudied issue. It seems you

are making at least as definitive statements, which are likewise

unsupported by science, simply because science has not studied the

issue.

> Here's an example: Why do we prize unpasteurized milk? The enzymatic

> action. (Enzymatic action, btw, designed for a baby cow's digestion.)

> Well, crappy mother's milk from the source has the enzymatic action

> designed for a human baby. Could it be better if the mom's diet was

> better? Absolutely.

Actually, I think human breast milk has the enzymatic action for human

breast milk, does it not? There might be metabolic enzymes in

addition to digestive enzymes, in which case that *could*, but not

necessarily, differentiate it significantly from the milk of other

species, but I really question how much of these enzymes survive

digestion anyway. If proteins survived digestion that well, all the

protein-based therapies like insulin would simply be administered

orally rather than by injection.

> Please describe for me what benefits you perceive cow's milk providing

> that would be lacking in mom. You keep saying that NT formula would be

> better. How so?

Just off the top of my head, a variety of nutrients, like DHA,

cholesterol, lauric acid, maybe butyric acid, vitamins, etc, will vary

with diet. The best NT formula may exceed the worst breast milk in

these cases. Although as you say, it would be best to change the

mother's nutritional regimen. If it's too late-- the mother didn't

prepare with a good NT prenatal diet, perhaps the best thing is to

breast feed supplemented with a high-quality NT formula.

Then there are other issues. For example, kids who nurse from mothers

that eat trans fats have decreased visual accuity. Is this from lack

of DHA in hydrogenated fats, or from trans fat toxicity? I don't

know, but if the latter, breast milk could be very toxic, in some

respects, in some women who can't get rid of junk food addictions

(despite still having different, superior qualities). This *could* be

a reason to decrease breast milk and supplement with some formula,

though I think it needs a lot more study.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Suzanne and all,

>This reminds me of the warning a couple of years ago that breastmilk is

>dangerous to infants because nursing releases toxins stored in the fat

>tissues of the mother and transfers it to the infant. The reply to this

>warning was that these toxins are so ubiquitous that the cows are

>contaminated, too, so formula is still riskier than breastmilk.

>

Would any of you mind commenting on this article when and if you have

the time? It appears that the WAPF does not advocate breastfeeding.

Since my youngest is preteen and I am new to WAPF, I probably never

really looked into their stance on infant nutrition. However, the new

Wise Traditions seemed very pro NT formula to my eyes, and doesn't seem

to have much positive on breastfeeding. The Real Milk article *seems*

to imply, and I could be mistaken, that all mammals' milk has protective

factors and is equally valid for feeding to human babies. So I just

jumped to the website and what I am reading appears to be somewhat anti

breastfeeding. But then, it's kind of a sleepy weird day, so maybe I'm

just hallucinating again. They sure do lash out at lactation consultants.

What do y'all think? Are they making the same argument that is?

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

" Breastfeeding is best. . . in a perfect world. But the world is not

perfect and self-evident statements are not always true. Breastfeeding

advocates argue that breast-fed children have lower mortality rates and

better levels of health than formulafed children. In third world

countries, where the cleanliness needed for safe bottle-feeding is

lacking, this is undoubtedly true. But a perusal of recent studies

comparing breastfed and formula-fed infants presents a real dilemma for

breastfeeding advocates because the research does not provide a clear

case of benefit. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 8/24/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Would any of you mind commenting on this article when and if you have

> the time? It appears that the WAPF does not advocate breastfeeding.

> Since my youngest is preteen and I am new to WAPF, I probably never

> really looked into their stance on infant nutrition. However, the new

> Wise Traditions seemed very pro NT formula to my eyes, and doesn't seem

> to have much positive on breastfeeding. The Real Milk article *seems*

> to imply, and I could be mistaken, that all mammals' milk has protective

> factors and is equally valid for feeding to human babies. So I just

> jumped to the website and what I am reading appears to be somewhat anti

> breastfeeding. But then, it's kind of a sleepy weird day, so maybe I'm

> just hallucinating again. They sure do lash out at lactation consultants.

I think it's a reaction against the ideological positions of LLL and a

certain faction that claims (and it's been claimed on this list

adamantly in the past) that nutrition of the mother has NO effect on

quality of breast milk

I think they are assuming that this is the standard that must be

modified, perhaps not realizing that it hasn't fully penetrated the

mainstream. Of course, I don't know whether it's fully penetrated the

mainstream or not. I don't know whether most come to reading _WT_

thinking " breast is best, period " or whether some come entertaining

the idea of using formula, not realizing breast milk is superior. If

the latter is the case, then the WAPF article would be off-target.

But if the former is the case, then their emphasis is reasonable.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> But a perusal of recent studies

> comparing breastfed and formula-fed infants presents a real dilemma

for

> breastfeeding advocates because the research does not provide a clear

> case of benefit. "

When I say I'd like my loved ones to stick with breastfeeding it's

because of how much we still don't know about all the variables in

breast milk and their interractions.

" Scientific studies " that study a single variable, and then another

variable... multiply that by all the variables and ignore data from the

ones we don't know ... then do double blind studies on the interactions

between variable a and b.. and a and c... ... n factorial. Blech.

The whole idea of using " scientific studies " for such a complex

interrelated system... not the right tool for the job unless you want

to spend like a thousand years at it. We need chaos theory or

something.

Connie

[Guest guest]

On 8/24/05, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> When I say I'd like my loved ones to stick with breastfeeding it's

> because of how much we still don't know about all the variables in

> breast milk and their interractions.

>

> " Scientific studies " that study a single variable, and then another

> variable... multiply that by all the variables and ignore data from the

> ones we don't know ... then do double blind studies on the interactions

> between variable a and b.. and a and c... ... n factorial. Blech.

>

> The whole idea of using " scientific studies " for such a complex

> interrelated system... not the right tool for the job unless you want

> to spend like a thousand years at it. We need chaos theory or

> something.

I just took a quick peak at the article being quoted, and your above

representation is a gross distortion of the studies that are cited.

The studies did not compare variables that were isolated beyond

breastmilk and formula. They compared those two variables as holistic

complexes of variables, as you suggest should be done, and measured

singular endpoints.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com