RE: Milk was another weird fasting poop

[Guest guest]

Could you show me the article you peeked at? I went back in the

thread and wasn't sure I was looking at the same one.

But even without knowing if we're talking about the same study - if

Right you are that my blanket condemnation was wrongly applied to

this study, for the reasons you mention, However I might turn around

and do a preemptive pooh-pooh at the idea of comparisons of singular

endpoints being useful. Depends how singular. Most real world

outcomes I'm interested in are multi variate also.

Connie

>

> > 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

[Guest guest]

-

>Why do you assume this pessimistic view?

I don't know for sure, but I have two general reasons for suspecting it.

First, in my view, WAPF is too accommodating when it comes to refined and

dense carbs, including sugars. Rapadura and maple syrup are promoted as if

they're meaningfully better than table sugar when in fact the differences

are small. Also, grains are promoted as healthy foods, at least when

prepared properly, but AFAIK " properly " is a lot more strict than NT and WT

generally let on. (Have you looked at the recipes in _Eat Fat, Lose

Fat_? Lots of plain old flour there. And IIRC, Sally Fallon has said that

even true sourdough is a " compromise " food.) Even when prepared properly

in the strictest sense, I question the value of grains for people whose

starting health has inevitably been compromised by devitalized soils and

bad modern foods. Heck, declining soil fertility and resulting declines in

food nutrition were an issue back in Price's day! Imagine how much worse

it's gotten by now.

And second, most people just don't obsess that much over diet. Even among

people who care enough to try low-carb diets, NT-type diets, etc.,

compliance is typically quite dodgy. I don't know that I agree with Ron

that people like us (not even all of us on this list at that, just some of

us) are the 0.0000000000000001 percenters (or whatever exact number he

used; I'm sure I'm overstating what he said, but he was just making up a

number anyway) but we are, unfortunately, very rare.

>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.

Eating the right foods is a big deal. I don't want to understate it. But

organic and grass-fed and high-fat aren't enough. The number of farms with

_really_ good soil is probably minuscule, and unfortunately, those of us in

the northeast are particularly screwed -- and until a couple months ago,

you were here in the northeast.

>*Your* purist

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

>AMAZING diets should attempt to breastfeed.

No, far from that.

However, I am extremely suspicious of the milk quality of mothers eating

SAD. ly, I expect that at the very least, such mothers should be

supplementing their milk either with an NT-type milk replacement mixture or

with some of the key ingredients in said mixture -- except of course that

SAD mothers aren't going to know or care about such things. I know someone

who just had a mildly underweight, mildly premature baby. (6#2oz, 2-3

weeks premature, IIRC.) A friend of hers gave her a LLL book and urged her

to breastfeed. I don't actually know whether she intends to use formula or

to breastfeed (or some combination, or what, and for how long) but she has

no interest whatsoever in reading the book, and as she is interested in

keeping up with her career, I'd say the odds are poor. But even if she

nurses her baby, her milk is bound to be awful because her diet sucks

rotten roadkill ass.

Obviously the better the diet of the mother, the better her milk will be,

and the less supplementation will be necessary or desirable. Where's the

boundary between completely undesirable milk and partially useful milk, and

where's the boundary between partially useful milk and milk that is

sufficient unto itself? I don't know. I'd love for someone to do some

serious research on exactly that subject, but the odds of that happening in

the near term at least are pretty slim, to say the least.

But regardless of where those thresholds lie, the fact is that virtually

all the soil on which our food is grown is awful by any absolute standard

(yes, even the food you and I and other people like us are eating) and that

gives me serious pause. And the fact that even the mother's early

childhood -- even the intrauterine environment she first developed in as a

fetus! -- dramatically shapes the health of her child convinces me that

there's a lot more involved with the quality of her milk than a few food

choices made during and immediately prior to nursing. My mom told me about

a study she read awhile back which determined that children of mothers who

were fed formula have dramatically greater problems with insulin resistance

and excess fat gain than other children, even when the children themselves

are breastfed. This certainly fits with my experience. My grandmother

gave my mother formula. My mother nursed me for a couple years at

least. Nonetheless (and also despite being fed a fair number of relatively

nutritious foods as a tot, including liver and brain and plenty of beef)

I've struggled with insulin resistance all my life.

>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?

That's a very good point, but IIRC, raw liver is part of that recipe. How

many mothers, even those who are influenced by WAPF doctrine, eat much

liver, let alone raw liver? Liver, even from crummy soil, is still very

nutritious. It's not nearly as nutritious as liver from really good soil,

obviously, but it's still more nutritious than just about anything else.

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

>primitives on our earth?

I doubt it, actually. It's a good thing he acted when he did.

>Mike , perhaps...

Doubtful. He believes in calorie restriction and avoiding too much

nutrition. (That latter part sounds absurd, but I think it's a fair

characterization of what he's said.)

>How

>ARE the Masai doing these days?

Not nearly as well. They've been eating grains for awhile now.

>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?

Well, again, I haven't read this issue yet, so for all I know I'll agree

that it's slanted in the wrong direction, but I think my point about liver

neatly encapsulates my view on this matter.

-

[Guest guest]

-

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

>more milk than their well-endowed sisters.

I don't mean to pick on you with the two posts I have time to write at the

moment, but I wish people wouldn't look at volume as a prime indicator of

worth. Holsteins generate the most milk among cows, but it's also the

worst milk, all else being equal! A surfeit or even an adequate volume of

milk is no assurance at all that the milk is worth drinking.

-

[Guest guest]

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

> My mom told me about

> a study she read awhile back which determined that children of mothers who

> were fed formula have dramatically greater problems with insulin resistance

> and excess fat gain than other children, even when the children themselves

> are breastfed. This certainly fits with my experience. My grandmother

> gave my mother formula. My mother nursed me for a couple years at

> least. Nonetheless (and also despite being fed a fair number of relatively

> nutritious foods as a tot, including liver and brain and plenty of beef)

> I've struggled with insulin resistance all my life.

Interesting. When I was doing my Alzheimer's research, I found a

study that was repeatedly referenced in a couple DHA studies that

found that it took three generations of DHA-depleted diets to produce

mice whose brains were massively DHA-deficient, whereas

first-generation dietary DHA-depletion caused only a modest (~15%)

brain depletion (although this depletion was still significantly

harmful).

I find the generational effect very intriguing. I also think it's

interesting that it is confirmed by some obscure modern research, yet

it's significance is probably lost on 90% or more of the research

community and 99.99999999999999% of the public.

I was breastfed for just under a year, yet I couldn't tolerate any

foods or milk substitutes except apple juice when I was weaned. I

think my grandmother had difficulty breastfeeding and formula fed, but

can't remember. I think they also dumped feeding the kids CLO by the

time my mom was born, and started eating margarine. I was even

allergic to most fruits and veggies as an infant, until chiropractic

treatment helped resolve *some* of my allergies.

Unfortunately, I have a strong desire to give my future children as

perfect diets as I can, but it is depressing that it will probably

take generations to recover true good health. It's also depressing

that the odds of finding a mate who shares my other interests and

tastes AND shares THIS interest are probably infinitely approaching

zero. And that's yet more magnified by my age, where anyone I can

find my own age to date is probably not thinking too much about

child-rearing at all, which therefore makes it impossible for me to

make a judgment about how wise it is to get involved in a long-term

relationship.

So I mostly don't bother.

> Doubtful. He believes in calorie restriction and avoiding too much

> nutrition. (That latter part sounds absurd, but I think it's a fair

> characterization of what he's said.)

But he also seems to have started out with a much better constitution

than most of us, and has a more nutrient-dense diet than nearly

anyone, despite his theoretical musings about the possibility of a

need to avoid excessive nutrition, which it doesn't appear he'd acted

upon by the last time he was around.

> Not nearly as well. They've been eating grains for awhile now.

Fascinating! Dr. T. Colin was just telling me recently that

he had a friend who visited them recently and reported that their

health was not all it was cracked up to be by earlier researchers. I

didn't realize their diet had changed. If we resume our exchange at

some point I will have to inform him of this. Are there articles on

the 'net on it?

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]

Hi Connie,

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

> Could you show me the article you peeked at? I went back in the

> thread and wasn't sure I was looking at the same one.

The very article that you quoted. Deanna posted the link to it,

preceding the latter half of it that you had quoted.

> But even without knowing if we're talking about the same study - if

> Right you are that my blanket condemnation was wrongly applied to

> this study, for the reasons you mention, However I might turn around

> and do a preemptive pooh-pooh at the idea of comparisons of singular

> endpoints being useful. Depends how singular. Most real world

> outcomes I'm interested in are multi variate also.

That's not even sensible. There is no way to measure a complex of

endpoints (or " dependent variables " ). Any attempt to assimilate them

into a single " multivariate endpoint " would be a meaningless

abstraction. How on earth would you propose to invent such a

measurement?

In any case, the article that you quoted and commented on cited

numerous studies that measured different endpoints, not a single

study.

I'm not sure whether or not the above constitutes your " preemptive

pooh-pooh, " though perhaps you could look at the article you're

criticizing before the pooh-pooh? Since I can't conceive of any

possible alternative to the method of analysis that you're

pooh-poohing, it would help me understand your position if you offered

specific criticisms.

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]

>It's also depressing

>that the odds of finding a mate who shares my other interests and

>tastes AND shares THIS interest are probably infinitely approaching

>zero. And that's yet more magnified by my age, where anyone I can

>find my own age to date is probably not thinking too much about

>child-rearing at all, which therefore makes it impossible for me to

>make a judgment about how wise it is to get involved in a long-term

>relationship.

Chis:

One of the reasons, I've read, for the " generational " issue is that

a woman's eggs are all *formed* while the woman is herself a baby

in gestation. That is, a woman is born with all the eggs she'll ever

have. So it's not just YOUR diet that matters, it's your mate's,

and more specifically, your mate's mother's diet.

So maybe you could marry one of Sally Fallon's kids ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

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

> -

>

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

> >more milk than their well-endowed sisters.

>

> I don't mean to pick on you with the two posts I have time to write at the

> moment, but I wish people wouldn't look at volume as a prime indicator of

> worth. Holsteins generate the most milk among cows, but it's also the

> worst milk, all else being equal! A surfeit or even an adequate volume of

> milk is no assurance at all that the milk is worth drinking.

>

>

>

> -

Agreed! I was just quoting my insane mil, who declared that I would

probably be a good lactator (is that a word???) b/c my breasts are not

particularly large. She apparently had trouble nursing all four of

her kids and has largish breasts. Since the woman has a pathological

fear of fat and is in abysmal health now I would have to guess that

her diet was FAR from adequate back then and that poor nutrition, not

the size of her breasts, was responsible for nursing failure.

Breastmilk quantity is much easier to determine than the quality, so

perhaps many folks just use that as an indication of how good the milk

is. I agree with you completely and didn't mean to imply that

quantity should be any mother's goal.

[Guest guest]

> First, in my view, WAPF is too accommodating when it comes to refined and

> dense carbs, including sugars. Rapadura and maple syrup are promoted as if

> they're meaningfully better than table sugar when in fact the differences

> are small.

Agreed. BUT....I think this is in part due to the fact that WAP/NT way

of thinking and eating requires a huge about face for most folks. The

dietary philosophy of the foundation is in direct opposition to most

of the information we get from newspapers, doctors, etc. In fact, my

mil just said to me yesterday: " I don't care what you say, saturated

fat is bad for you--everybody says so. " I think the transition period

is important and that in order for people to successfully convert to a

better diet, they might need to use maple syrup for awhile while they

wean themselves off of a corn syrup diet. I certainly did that. I

don't use sweeteners much at all now, unless I'm making dessert for

dinner guests.

> Also, grains are promoted as healthy foods, at least when

> prepared properly, but AFAIK " properly " is a lot more strict than NT and WT

> generally let on. (Have you looked at the recipes in _Eat Fat, Lose

> Fat_? Lots of plain old flour there. And IIRC, Sally Fallon has said that

> even true sourdough is a " compromise " food.)

Also agreed. They need to address this issue for sure. Haven't read

EFLF but I'll take your word for it.

>

> Eating the right foods is a big deal. I don't want to understate it. But

> organic and grass-fed and high-fat aren't enough. The number of farms with

> _really_ good soil is probably minuscule, and unfortunately, those of us in

> the northeast are particularly screwed -- and until a couple months ago,

> you were here in the northeast.

True. I guess I just do my best and try not to worry about it too

much. Naive, perhaps, but allows me to function.

> I know someone

> who just had a mildly underweight, mildly premature baby. (6#2oz, 2-3

> weeks premature, IIRC.) A friend of hers gave her a LLL book and urged her

> to breastfeed. I don't actually know whether she intends to use formula or

> to breastfeed (or some combination, or what, and for how long) but she has

> no interest whatsoever in reading the book, and as she is interested in

> keeping up with her career, I'd say the odds are poor. But even if she

> nurses her baby, her milk is bound to be awful because her diet sucks

> rotten roadkill ass.

Will her breastmilk suck worse than Enfamil? I highly doubt it.

> That's a very good point, but IIRC, raw liver is part of that recipe.

There are two formula recipes in NT. One is milk based and has no

liver and the other is broth and cooked liver based. Personally, I'm

not sure if a baby would take the liver based recipe. I'll bet most

folks would try the milk formula first, if only due to ick factor.

> >Mike , perhaps...

>

> Doubtful. He believes in calorie restriction and avoiding too much

> nutrition. (That latter part sounds absurd, but I think it's a fair

> characterization of what he's said.)

I was thinking of his grub-eating days...

[Guest guest]

>

>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 it's been pretty well established that diet influences the

milk. I vaguely remember years ago when egg protein was found in the

secretions of mom's who ate eggs. And much more along these lines has

been determined since then. I am not saying nutrition doesn't matter.

Most parents I know, when they get pregnant, eat a healthy diet, give up

unhealthy habits, etc. Once I did see a pregnant woman smoking and

drinking in a restaurant. It so upset me that I had to get up and

leave. But that kind of behavior is rare. Even if her diet isn't the

greatest, every pregnant woman I have ever personally known did what

they thought was best for the growing fetus. A vegan parent with strong

ideological convictions would be a exception. But then, there are

probably many exceptions - not everyone can or should have a baby. And

it goes far beyond nutrition.

>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.

>

For any young, confused mother coming to read this issue of Wise

Traditions, the information is not very helpful in terms of encouraging

the choice to breastfeed her baby. Stories about nursing failure

abound, but there is not one instance of a successfully nursed baby

story. In terms of survival, breast milk is a nearby source of food and

is vastly more convenient than formula, and filled with such entities

with which we are just now becoming aware. Also, I always have a source

of food for my babies when I nursed them. No mixing, no plastic

bottles, no fear of freshness or safety or availability. And when you

think of our long term survival as a species, I think it's obvious that

most women historically nursed their young. Price's work bears this

out. Not all cultures even had other dairy sources to make a substitute

milk for their babies! If so many women really have such a hard time

nursing (and yes, some do have problems, but not to the extent WAPF

suggests), then cultures without dairy animals would not have survived

well. If we can even support the idea of modern day WAPF babies, then

why not celebrate and encourage a natural diet of high nutrient breast

food whenever possible? Price found special diets for reproduction in

general. Why not teach that mainly?

Smoking for asthma was a weird comment. But the foundation policy on

nutrition for the most important time of life is emotionally charged and

confusing. I don't know if it comes from Sally's personal experience or

what. I have poured over the literature on infant nutrition and come to

the conclusion that I can't support or recommend it to others.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>>Could you show me the article you peeked at? I went back in the

>>thread and wasn't sure I was looking at the same one.

>>

>>

>

>The very article that you quoted. Deanna posted the link to it,

>preceding the latter half of it that you had quoted.

>

Here it is, with another quote between the lines:

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

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

" Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. "

Behind the simple mantra " breastfeeding is best, " gliding easily off the

tongues of lactation consultants, sales reps, government officials and

pediatricians, lurk several gross deceptions that usher millions of

women into the arms of the formula industry. First is the deception that

insufficient milk is rare. Yes, it is rare in a society of truly healthy

people but the western nations are not inhabited by truly healthy

people. The production and release of milk is governed by a complex

interaction of hormones, involving the hypothalamus, pituitary gland and

thyroid gland. There are plenty of places where it can go wrong and

given the high levels of thyroid and endocrine problems in western

women, it's a wonder that so many nurse successfully at all.

Insufficient milk supply is a problem more common than the medical

profession wants to admit, as many a valiant breastfeeding mother,

starting off with the best of intentions, has learned to her sorrow.

Second is the deception that " Almost all mothers can produce good milk,

even if their diet is not perfect. " With this statement we turn our

backs on the accumulated wisdom of traditional people throughout the

globe, most of whom recognized that nursing mothers need special diets

to meet the special needs of the growing infant. As early as the 1940s,

Weston Price observed a decline in the quality of human breast milk, as

evidenced by the extensive dental problems he found in his breastfed

patients.^34 <http://www.westonaprice.org/children/breastfeed.html#34>

The recent poor showing of breastfed infants in comparison trials

indicates that modern human milk is not better--and possibly worse--than

it was in Price's day.

The final deception is that babies should not be given homemade formula

made with cow or goat milk. Early books on infant feeding recognized

that milk from a cow (or goat, water buffalo, camel, sheep, reindeer or

llama) was the logical substitute. How wise these early writers seem in

comparison to our modern " experts " :

Nature does not always confer upon a woman the important capacity

for nursing her baby, but the women who are able should do so. Every

pregnant woman should not only be impressed with the importance of

this duty on her part, but with the essential preparation for

accomplishing it. However, there are women who for some reason

cannot perform this natural function--for these, it is necessary to

learn to take advantage of the way now available to them to feed the

infant artificially. The logical substitute for human milk is cow's

milk (or goat's milk).^35

<http://www.westonaprice.org/children/breastfeed.html#35>

A mere fifty years ago, part of the preparation for women during

pregnancy, aside from a diet enriched by special animal foods, was the

scouting out of a cow that would be given the best of pasture and whose

milk would be available to the infant throughout its infancy. Today we

know that we should dilute the milk and add other whole foods, but even

before we knew these things, thousands of babies thrived on rich whole

milk from a variety of animals. Yet some of the strongest words in the

medical literature today are aimed at commercial formula's only

competition--homemade formula based on cow or goat milk.

Today the new mother who finds herself struggling with nursing, and

frantic at the frequent cries of her baby, is first told that she should

have more confidence. When she gives in to the inevitable and switches

to bottle feeding, she is told that formula made in factories is better

than milk produced by living animals. Another formula customer is born.

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

If you want to look in depth at the recommendations for children's

health, go here and check out all the links at the bottom:

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

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Heidi ,

>One of the reasons, I've read, for the " generational " issue is that

>a woman's eggs are all *formed* while the woman is herself a baby

>in gestation. That is, a woman is born with all the eggs she'll ever

>have. So it's not just YOUR diet that matters, it's your mate's,

>and more specifically, your mate's mother's diet.

>

Good thing my maternal Grandfather was a butcher. My Mom ate high and

the hog. She taught me to enjoy things like liver from a very young age.

And that makes me think of prenatal cravings. For me it was often

sardines with mustard or chicken livers fried in butter with mushrooms

and onions. I wonder how many women get NT cravings, whether or not

they normally eat that way.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Hi

As often is the case, I may not be speaking to the point, but please

don't be such a pessimist.

Do you know what? Can you dance? If you still don't know how to

dance, why don't you enrol at a dance school? I mean it. A dance

school is perhaps the best place for you to find a partner - for

life. Of course, you've to fall in love in the first place.

Why is it so? It's because a good partner is someone with whom you

have body harmony, so to say. That's essential. Soul harmony or

understanding comes later. So does talking about children. If you can

dance well with someone and if you're lucky enough to fall in love

with that person, that's maybe your ideal partner. Forget about your

fears of the future.

Ok, dancing doesn't guarantee that you'll always be together, but at

least that as far as you're together, you're likely to have fun.

Isn't fun the fuel for an ongoing relationship?

By the way, dancing is perhaps a lot more stimulating than eating

comfort foods, such as chocolate.

Cheers

JC

....

> It's also depressing

> that the odds of finding a mate who shares my other interests and

> tastes AND shares THIS interest are probably infinitely approaching

> zero. And that's yet more magnified by my age, where anyone I can

> find my own age to date is probably not thinking too much about

> child-rearing at all, which therefore makes it impossible for me to

> make a judgment about how wise it is to get involved in a long-term

> relationship.

>

> So I mostly don't bother.

....

> Chris

[Guest guest]

>This has been disproven. ran across a study last year in which

>researchers found that women continue to develop eggs into adulthood,

>although I don't recall for how long. Perhaps until menopause? I brought it

>up to Singer (Fertility book author) at the WAPF conference last year,

>and she later confirmed it.

>

From the American Society of Reproductive Medicine's Infertility website:

http://www.protectyourfertility.org/femalerisks.html#age

" It is a biological fact that fertility decreases with age. The

decreased odds of getting pregnant are due to normal changes that occur

with aging. Women are born with a limited number of eggs. Since no new

ones are formed throughout a woman's life, the number of eggs steadily

declines over time. As women age the quality of their eggs declines as

well. This doesn't mean that you should run out and get pregnant, or

resolve to never have kids. But you should understand the facts. Bottom

line: every woman's body ages at a different rate and there is no way of

knowing for sure what your fertility will be like, say 10 years from now. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Suzanne-

>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.

If you're going to characterize my posts, please provide quotes. I didn't

say that because it didn't look and taste like cow's milk it's no good. I

said that because it was extremely sweet and very, very thin (i.e. low-fat)

it's lousy. Every datum I've seen indicates that human milk should be rich

and fatty, not thin and sugary. Now, the information about the difference

between foremilk and hindmilk you've provided does make for an interesting

complication, but IIRC, the friend I'm talking about tasted the

hindmilk. Furthermore, I'd like to know whether the thinness and sweetness

you say is normal and proper for foremilk (even though a baby fed too much

foremilk gets sick!!!) are really good and natural, or whether they just

characterize the foremilk from moms eating a crappy modern diet.

>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.

See above. And I'd like to point out that MY FRIEND made this comparison

to cow's milk (I assume that this is the comparison you were referring to),

not I.

>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.

Yes, but they're also based on the toxic-waste formulas you can buy in the

store, which I'm sure nobody on this list and no article in Wise Traditions

would ever recommend for anyone.

Has anyone compared inadequate SAD-based human milk to the best-possible

NT-style replacement? I think not. And that means we don't know exactly

how they compare.

>Of course, she should eat optimally

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

" Eating responsibly " means different things to different people.

> >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?

Clearly this is a matter of religious-type faith. As I've said before, we

know that the milk of other species can range in quality from absolute

garbage to wonderfully nutritious depending on the animals' feed and soil

fertility. Garbage in, garbage out -- and quality in, quality out. It is

axiomatic that the same is true of human milk. Garbage in, garbage out.

A list member forwarded me this quote from NAPD. He didn't want to post it

himself because he's gotten bogged down in these arguments before. I don't

blame him, but I don't have that kind of wisdom myself. <g>

>>Chapter 10:

>>

>>An interesting incident was brought to my attention in one of the

>>Australian reservations where the food was practically all supplied by

>>the government. I was told by the director in charge, and in further

>>detail by the other officials, that a number of native babies had become

>>ill while nursing from their mothers. Some had died. By changing the

>>nutrition to a condensed whole milk product, the babies recovered. When

>>placed back on their mother's breast food they again became ill. The

>>problem was: Why was not their mothers' milk adequate? I was later told

>>by the director of a condition that had developed in the pen of the

>>reservation's hogs which were kept to use up the scraps and garbage from

>>the reservation's kitchens. He reported that one after another the hogs

>>went down with a type of paralysis and could not get up. The symptoms

>>were suggestively like vitamin A deficiency in both the babies and the

>>hogs, and indicated the treatment.

I think that's a pretty thunderous rebuttal to your position.

>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?

The NT formula would inevitably be more nutritious than the milk produced

by some women. Heck, the NT formula would be far more nutritious than the

" condensed whole milk product " described above, and yet even THAT was

dramatically healthier for some babies than their mothers' milk! Is it

going to provide all the necessary growth factors and bacteria and whatnot

that good human milk would? Of course not. But as you can see, sometimes

the relative benefits dramatically outweigh the drawbacks.

>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.

I don't have a list of everything that's missing from garbage human

milk. Nobody's studying it. At best, it's an infant field. However, look

at the milk of other species, and see what's missing when GIGO is the

active principle: fat, omega 3s, carotenes, vitamins, enzymes, proteins,

etc. etc. etc.

-

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>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.

Output sounds like volume. I wonder whether size and _quality_ are related

at all.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>When I was doing my Alzheimer's research, I found a

>study that was repeatedly referenced in a couple DHA studies that

>found that it took three generations of DHA-depleted diets to produce

>mice whose brains were massively DHA-deficient, whereas

>first-generation dietary DHA-depletion caused only a modest (~15%)

>brain depletion (although this depletion was still significantly

>harmful).

Interesting -- and depressing for those who are aware of these issues and

want to have the healthiest possible children.

>I find the generational effect very intriguing. I also think it's

>interesting that it is confirmed by some obscure modern research, yet

>it's significance is probably lost on 90% or more of the research

>community and 99.99999999999999% of the public.

Yeah. My mom also mentioned that BARF-type dog breeders have found that it

takes several generations (three or four; I forget which) to fully repair

the damage from crappy modern diets.

>I was breastfed for just under a year, yet I couldn't tolerate any

>foods or milk substitutes except apple juice when I was weaned. I

>think my grandmother had difficulty breastfeeding and formula fed, but

>can't remember. I think they also dumped feeding the kids CLO by the

>time my mom was born, and started eating margarine. I was even

>allergic to most fruits and veggies as an infant, until chiropractic

>treatment helped resolve *some* of my allergies.

Yikes. It sounds like you were a lot worse off than I was. My mom

followed Adelle upon becoming pregnant and for a few years after I

was born, though my understanding is that my grandparents fed her godawful

crap as a kid, starting with formula and progressing to mountains of sugar

and hydrogenated oils.

>Unfortunately, I have a strong desire to give my future children as

>perfect diets as I can, but it is depressing that it will probably

>take generations to recover true good health. It's also depressing

>that the odds of finding a mate who shares my other interests and

>tastes AND shares THIS interest are probably infinitely approaching

>zero. And that's yet more magnified by my age, where anyone I can

>find my own age to date is probably not thinking too much about

>child-rearing at all, which therefore makes it impossible for me to

>make a judgment about how wise it is to get involved in a long-term

>relationship.

>

>So I mostly don't bother.

I know what you mean. If I decided tomorrow that the time had come to have

kids, I expect the whole thing would turn into a farce practically

overnight since the very last thing I'd ever want would be to have

unhealthy kids. You might have a slightly easier time, though, being

religious and sort of on the conservative end of the political spectrum.

Maybe WAPF should start a dating service. <g>

>But he also seems to have started out with a much better constitution

>than most of us,

That's true.

> and has a more nutrient-dense diet than nearly

>anyone, despite his theoretical musings about the possibility of a

>need to avoid excessive nutrition, which it doesn't appear he'd acted

>upon by the last time he was around.

Oh? He thought I was crazy for eating liver regularly (let alone as

frequently as I do) and he did seem to practice some measure of calorie

restriction, so I got the impression that his diet left something to be

desired despite generally being sourced extremely well.

>Fascinating! Dr. T. Colin was just telling me recently that

>he had a friend who visited them recently and reported that their

>health was not all it was cracked up to be by earlier researchers. I

>didn't realize their diet had changed. If we resume our exchange at

>some point I will have to inform him of this. Are there articles on

>the 'net on it?

I don't remember where I first read about it, but here's what a quick

googling turned up.

From http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/units/byrnes-africa/meland/

>>What they eat

>>Their main diet consists heavily of meat and milk, but it is forbidden to

>>mix the two. So the meat products are eaten first, then the milk. Along

>>with meat, Masai prepare a variety of corn, sorghum, and other grains.

>>The Masai drink a mixture of wine, cow's blood, and milk. One of the most

>>popular meals is ugali, a porridge made with corn. Fish is an important

>>diet of the Tanzanians who live on the islands and along the coasts.

I'm sure further research would uncover more detail.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I think the transition period

>is important and that in order for people to successfully convert to a

>better diet, they might need to use maple syrup for awhile while they

>wean themselves off of a corn syrup diet. I certainly did that. I

>don't use sweeteners much at all now, unless I'm making dessert for

>dinner guests.

I understand that argument, but Atkins achieved pretty dramatic success

getting people to do an about face. I think the two things that killed the

low-carb movement were his death (he was a fantastic evangelist) and his

previous decision to start screwing people over with fake foods. I know

lots of people who gobbled down his " low-carb " bars and whatnot and decided

that low-carbing just didn't work because they weren't losing weight and

felt like crap. He used to really push healthy, natural foods -- not as

much as we would, sure, but until he decided to start selling branded fake

foods, he warned people against the very kinds of products and the

ingredients used to make them that he later sold.

>Also agreed. They need to address this issue for sure. Haven't read

>EFLF but I'll take your word for it.

I reviewed EFLF here awhile back. It has some useful information, but I

found a lot of it appalling.

>True. I guess I just do my best and try not to worry about it too

>much. Naive, perhaps, but allows me to function.

Well, what can you do? I get the best food I can and hope for a day when I

can get better, but that's it.

>Will her breastmilk suck worse than Enfamil? I highly doubt it.

Well, sure, but that's like saying her breastmilk will be better than

radioactive pus. Big surprise, but nobody's recommending Enfamil.

>There are two formula recipes in NT. One is milk based and has no

>liver and the other is broth and cooked liver based. Personally, I'm

>not sure if a baby would take the liver based recipe. I'll bet most

>folks would try the milk formula first, if only due to ick factor.

Cooked liver? Hmm... Then again there might be liability issues in

recommending raw meat.

-

[Guest guest]

On 8/25/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> >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 it's been pretty well established that diet influences the

> milk. I vaguely remember years ago when egg protein was found in the

> secretions of mom's who ate eggs. And much more along these lines has

> been determined since then. I am not saying nutrition doesn't matter.

Oh, I'm not saying *you* are saying that. But the last time this same

discussion came up, there were several people on the list *insisting*

upon the obviously absurd anti-fact that diet plays no role in the

quality of milk. I'm not sure what the LLL's stance on this is, but

from what I recall they seem to downplay this significantly so that

women won't feel " guilted " into using formula.

> Most parents I know, when they get pregnant, eat a healthy diet, give up

> unhealthy habits, etc.

Umm, yeah, but what the hell is their idea of a " healthy diet " ? There

are people out there, who even clamor that babies get too much

cholesterol. The healthy diet for a lactating mother and an infant is

in many ways the opposite of what is considered the standard " healthy

diet " for an adult.

> Once I did see a pregnant woman smoking and

> drinking in a restaurant. It so upset me that I had to get up and

> leave. But that kind of behavior is rare. Even if her diet isn't the

> greatest, every pregnant woman I have ever personally known did what

> they thought was best for the growing fetus.

There are probably hormonal things going on that elicit that instinct.

> A vegan parent with strong

> ideological convictions would be a exception. But then, there are

> probably many exceptions - not everyone can or should have a baby. And

> it goes far beyond nutrition.

True. But if someone's idea of a " healthy diet " is a turkey sandwhich

on whole wheat bread with lettuce, tomato, and no butter or mayo or

fat of any kind, then they're going to have relatively poor pre-natal,

natal, and post-natal nutrition.

Also, don't most women get junk food cravings when pregnant? Honestly

I only perceive this from TV, I think, which might just play on an

invalid stereotype. But even now awareness of the harms of trans fats

is probably limited to a fairly well-educated segment of the

population.

> For any young, confused mother coming to read this issue of Wise

> Traditions, the information is not very helpful in terms of encouraging

> the choice to breastfeed her baby. Stories about nursing failure

> abound, but there is not one instance of a successfully nursed baby

> story.

Hmm. That probably does indicate a very misplaced emphasis then. I

suggest, still, that my former comments are the root of their

misperception of where the emphasis should be placed.

> In terms of survival, breast milk is a nearby source of food and

> is vastly more convenient than formula, and filled with such entities

> with which we are just now becoming aware. Also, I always have a source

> of food for my babies when I nursed them. No mixing, no plastic

> bottles, no fear of freshness or safety or availability. And when you

> think of our long term survival as a species, I think it's obvious that

> most women historically nursed their young. Price's work bears this

> out. Not all cultures even had other dairy sources to make a substitute

> milk for their babies! If so many women really have such a hard time

> nursing (and yes, some do have problems, but not to the extent WAPF

> suggests), then cultures without dairy animals would not have survived

> well. If we can even support the idea of modern day WAPF babies, then

> why not celebrate and encourage a natural diet of high nutrient breast

> food whenever possible? Price found special diets for reproduction in

> general. Why not teach that mainly?

True. But even Price found early supplementation with pre-chewed raw

liver, no? I wonder if, given the general decline in nutrition,

something like this might be indicated as a supplement to improve

nutrient density?

> Smoking for asthma was a weird comment. But the foundation policy on

> nutrition for the most important time of life is emotionally charged and

> confusing. I don't know if it comes from Sally's personal experience or

> what. I have poured over the literature on infant nutrition and come to

> the conclusion that I can't support or recommend it to others.

Ok. I haven't really looked at it, so I can't comment.

If it focuses on formula, I probably wouldn't recommend it to someone

unless I knew that they'd exhausted their options and would have to

rely on formula.

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]

On 8/25/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> This just makes no sense to me. Babies don't make antibodies until 3

> months, iirc, so one month nursing is not enough. If a woman is *able*

> to nurse for a month, then why not 12+ months?

I agree in theory, but I was exclusively (I think) breast fed for 12

months, and what did it do me? I mean maybe I'd have been worse off

otherwise-- and given what my mom knew about formula, then surely--

but something was insufficient, because I had lots of problems and was

allergic to nearly all foods.

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]

On 8/25/05, José- s Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> Hi

>

> As often is the case, I may not be speaking to the point, but please

> don't be such a pessimist.

>

> Do you know what? Can you dance? If you still don't know how to

> dance, why don't you enrol at a dance school? I mean it. A dance

> school is perhaps the best place for you to find a partner - for

> life. Of course, you've to fall in love in the first place.

Oh yes, I love to dance. Hmm. Dance school. Probably more likely to

run into someone there than in my house ;-)

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]

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>

>

>Suze-

>

>>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.

>

>Output sounds like volume. I wonder whether size and _quality_

>are related

>at all.

I don't know, but I thought you were postulating a correlation between size

and volume of output (having nothing to do with quality). But I probably

remembered wrong.

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-

>I don't know, but I thought you were postulating a correlation between size

>and volume of output (having nothing to do with quality). But I probably

>remembered wrong.

Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear, but no, my question is about size and

quality. Volume is relatively meaningless. (And one reason I wonder about

that is simple enough: I don't think a breast attraction would have evolved

if there's no reason whatsoever for breasts to be more than tiny when a

woman isn't nursing. OTOH, said attraction does seem a lot more prevalent

in clothed societies, so who knows.)

-

[Guest guest]

>

>Oh, I'm not saying *you* are saying that. But the last time this same

>discussion came up, there were several people on the list *insisting*

>upon the obviously absurd anti-fact that diet plays no role in the

>quality of milk. I'm not sure what the LLL's stance on this is, but

>from what I recall they seem to downplay this significantly so that

>women won't feel " guilted " into using formula.

>

>

I don't know much about LLL honestly. And please remember it's been 12

years since I gave birth last. Diet does play an important role in

health, as we know. But there are things, as Connie and Suzanne pointed

out, that we are just learning about, that can only come from the source

of mother's milk to the individual child. So it is the best policy to

advocate healthy diets, traditional lifestyles and exercise to everyone,

but especially reproducing people.

>

>

>Umm, yeah, but what the hell is their idea of a " healthy diet " ? There

>are people out there, who even clamor that babies get too much

>cholesterol. The healthy diet for a lactating mother and an infant is

>in many ways the opposite of what is considered the standard " healthy

>diet " for an adult.

>

>

Ya know, maybe the lowfat diet has infiltrated the diet books recently.

But when I was reading them way back in the dark ages, lol, they

advocated whole milk, lots of food and all that. Actually, it was

always written, iirc, that lactating women needed even more food,

nutrients, etc than pregnant women, which makes sense. Maybe I was able

to nurse for nearly five years of my life because I look like a sturdy

native. I am not changed by pregnancy and since I had kids young, I am

able to play with them and really enjoy the ride.

>

>

>There are probably hormonal things going on that elicit that instinct.

>

>

Yes, and in the spirit of conservation of posts, it is this very thing

that keeps a mother from rolling on her child at night. Instinct. When

will we go back to living like Price's natives? Maybe pretty soon when

oil hits $100 at the end of the year. I don't think you can get as

healthy by downing nutrients and living a modern life. He only looked

at nutrition, but their lifestyles were much less complicated, weren't they?

>True. But if someone's idea of a " healthy diet " is a turkey sandwhich

>on whole wheat bread with lettuce, tomato, and no butter or mayo or

>fat of any kind, then they're going to have relatively poor pre-natal,

>natal, and post-natal nutrition.

>

>

Most pregnant women throw lowfat caution to the breeze and go with their

inner native as far as food goes. I think the OB community at least

preaches no dieting, even for overweight women. It's a license to eat.

>Also, don't most women get junk food cravings when pregnant? Honestly

>I only perceive this from TV, I think, which might just play on an

>invalid stereotype. But even now awareness of the harms of trans fats

>is probably limited to a fairly well-educated segment of the

>population.

>

>

I never did, but then I haven't eaten junk food much since preteen

years. If anything, it's pickles and ice cream right? <g> Very NT, if

you ask me. :-)

>Ok. I haven't really looked at it, so I can't comment.

>

>If it focuses on formula, I probably wouldn't recommend it to someone

>unless I knew that they'd exhausted their options and would have to

>rely on formula.

>

Well look at the WT. Tell me what you think. My husband tells me I

often read more into things lol, so it could be me. They really should

fix up the web offerings though. Vague, confusing and emotionally charged.

Oh, btw, I am glad is doing well breastfeeding Arianna. Maybe

she feels pressure to formula feed in public? Again, with all due

respect to those who have not been able to nurse, society has some weird

rules on boobs and women need positive support even to attempt it.

Deanna.

[Guest guest]

,

>A list member forwarded me this quote from NAPD. He didn't want to post it

>himself because he's gotten bogged down in these arguments before. I don't

>blame him, but I don't have that kind of wisdom myself. <g>

>

>

>

>>>Chapter 10:

>>>

>>>An interesting incident was brought to my attention in one of the

>>>Australian reservations where the food was practically all supplied by

>>>the government. I was told by the director in charge, and in further

>>>detail by the other officials, that a number of native babies had become

>>>ill while nursing from their mothers. Some had died. By changing the

>>>nutrition to a condensed whole milk product, the babies recovered. When

>>>placed back on their mother's breast food they again became ill. The

>>>problem was: Why was not their mothers' milk adequate? I was later told

>>>by the director of a condition that had developed in the pen of the

>>>reservation's hogs which were kept to use up the scraps and garbage from

>>>the reservation's kitchens. He reported that one after another the hogs

>>>went down with a type of paralysis and could not get up. The symptoms

>>>were suggestively like vitamin A deficiency in both the babies and the

>>>hogs, and indicated the treatment.

>>>

>>>

>

>I think that's a pretty thunderous rebuttal to your position.

>

I just read chapter 10 of NAPD. This excerpt is found right before the

one I cited on the grandma native stimulating lactation without

pregnancy, as she was doing the native thing. Basically, the situation

referred to above was indicative of many reservations Price visited. He

found lots of deaths of adults too at these concentration camps. These

poor natives were forced to live and eat government foods. I don't

think the foods were meant to optimize their health, and in fact they

may have deprived the natives of their vitality on purpose.

So I don't think it is a fair representation of the population at large,

maybe only the prison population at large.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 8/25/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> I don't know much about LLL honestly. And please remember it's been 12

> years since I gave birth last. Diet does play an important role in

> health, as we know. But there are things, as Connie and Suzanne pointed

> out, that we are just learning about, that can only come from the source

> of mother's milk to the individual child. So it is the best policy to

> advocate healthy diets, traditional lifestyles and exercise to everyone,

> but especially reproducing people.

Right, I don't think anyone is questioning that. It's just that

there's an unknown-- the point at which the decreasing nutrient

density including density of these unique factors makes a large jump

in nutrient density forsaking some of the unique factors justified.

> >Umm, yeah, but what the hell is their idea of a " healthy diet " ? There

> >are people out there, who even clamor that babies get too much

> >cholesterol. The healthy diet for a lactating mother and an infant is

> >in many ways the opposite of what is considered the standard " healthy

> >diet " for an adult.

> Ya know, maybe the lowfat diet has infiltrated the diet books recently.

> But when I was reading them way back in the dark ages, lol, they

> advocated whole milk, lots of food and all that. Actually, it was

> always written, iirc, that lactating women needed even more food,

> nutrients, etc than pregnant women, which makes sense. Maybe I was able

> to nurse for nearly five years of my life because I look like a sturdy

> native. I am not changed by pregnancy and since I had kids young, I am

> able to play with them and really enjoy the ride.

As far as I have been aware of such advice, the advice has been that

pregnant women should fight the urge to eat more, and have " debunked "

the " myth " that pregnant women eat for two, when in fact the mother

and baby " share " nutrients (which is obviously painfully absurd). I'm

not sure how new this is, since others have said that back in the day

doctor's told them personally to smoke to prevent weight gain.

While it's true that OLD books recommend things like whole milk, I'm

quite sure that the current emphasis is on small children eating

low-fat diets. The elementary schools are repeatedly in a craze over

the unconscionable amount of fat in food, which is why school

hamburgers are laced with increasing soy, a fact which apparently

doesn't bother the conscience of anyone. When I was in elementary

school, whole milk was not even on option. It was skim, or 1%, I

think. I'm not sure if 2% was available, but I know the " regular "

milk definitely was NOT whole milk.

Of course, there was plenty of fat available in the nachos.

> >There are probably hormonal things going on that elicit that instinct.

> Yes, and in the spirit of conservation of posts, it is this very thing

> that keeps a mother from rolling on her child at night. Instinct.

Well what about the father?

> When

> will we go back to living like Price's natives? Maybe pretty soon when

> oil hits $100 at the end of the year. I don't think you can get as

> healthy by downing nutrients and living a modern life. He only looked

> at nutrition, but their lifestyles were much less complicated, weren't

> they?

Sure.

> Most pregnant women throw lowfat caution to the breeze and go with their

> inner native as far as food goes. I think the OB community at least

> preaches no dieting, even for overweight women. It's a license to eat.

Yeah, but obviously it isn't a license to eat raw cream and liver for

most. For many it's probably a license to eat cake.

> Oh, btw, I am glad is doing well breastfeeding Arianna. Maybe

> she feels pressure to formula feed in public? Again, with all due

> respect to those who have not been able to nurse, society has some weird

> rules on boobs and women need positive support even to attempt it.

Well there is definitely a conflict within society about what the

appropriate level of visibility is for nursing women.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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