Re: breastmilk was another weird fasting poop

[Guest guest]

Steph wrote:

>You wild hippychick, you! <G>

>

>

>

Yep.

>So, have they ever done studies on the health of people who never had

>any breastmilk?

>

Not that I'm aware of, but you can look at the lion's share of the

population and see what their health looks like, since most people were

not given the opportunity for breastmilk.

>I know they've reported correlations in intelligence,

>etc., but I mean more like celiac and other serious health issues?

>

I can't put my finger on it, but it is tickling the back of my mind that

breastmilk has a prophylactic effect on issues such as that. Diabetes

is popping up in my head, too. I'll bet the St. 's celiac list

archives would have that information--they're pretty avid about posting

information like that. That said, studies like this are difficult to

find funding for, since there's no commercial interest in supporting

breastfeeding, yk?

Speaking anecdotally, my oldest child got noticeably worse when 1) I got

pregnant and my milk supply dwindled to next to nothing (I'm a wild

hippychick, so I nursed through all of my pregnancies save the first

) and 2) when he weaned. There was a clear spike in the problematic

stuff concurrent with reduced mother's milk. It is also tickling the

back of my mind about a discussion among nursing moms of allergic kids

and I believe that the consensus was that nursing tended to push back

the severity of the health problems....not necessarily eliminating it,

but definitely postponing the " hammer dropping. " While this doesn't

make breastfeeding the complete solution to the problem, it does give

the nursling more time to mature and become better able to cope with

solid food only. Of course, what is impossible to tell is how bad

things *might* have been if breastmilk had not been part of the picture

at all.

It has also been discussed on more Continuum Concept sorts of lists that

biologically we were intended to nurse until our immune systems are

relatively mature....say 5 or 6....

>My 3

>year old adopted son is in considerably worse shape, gut wise, than the

>rest of us. His birthmother's medical issues were roughly the same as

>those in mine and DH's families - pretty common stuff. So, unless his

>birthfather - whom we know absolutely nothing about - had serious

>medical issues, I wonder how much better off my son would be had he at

>least gotten *some* breastmilk.

>

Something is always better. No amount of nursing is to be slighted.

And I have read studies that show that formula can shave off as much as

10 iq points.....pretty dramatic when one thinks that is very similar to

the impairment caused by lead exposure.

>Poor little guy. Of course, it didn't

>help that his doctor didn't recognize his casein allergy, and I didn't

>figure it out until after he'd been solely ingesting casein for 7

>months!

>

This is the crux that really breaks my heart when I see/hear moms

talking so casually about choosing to nurse or use artifical breastmilk

substitutes. Many times moms don't know that their children won't be

able to tolerate formulas, some not even soy formula <shudder>, and are

heartbroken that they didn't choose to breastfeed from the getgo. They

regret taking the decision so lightly and they can't go back and fix it

since once the supply is gone, even herculean efforts may not

reestablish it.

>I do see signs of his health improving lately, though. :-D

>

>

>

That's so great to hear!

--s

[Guest guest]

After catching this thread....I thought you all might enoy this arcticle on

the " virgin gut " in babies.

http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/virgingut.htm

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

Stump wrote:

>After catching this thread....I thought you all might enoy this arcticle on

>the " virgin gut " in babies.

>

>

>http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/virgingut.htm

>

>Blessings,

>

>

>

>

>

Thanks, ! I didn't want to have to go digging up cites to support

my stuff, but I hate to make medical claims without them!

--s

[Guest guest]

>After catching this thread....I thought you all might enoy this arcticle on

>the " virgin gut " in babies.

>

>

><http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/virgingut.htm>http://breastfeed.com/r\

esources/articles/virgingut.htm

>

>Blessings,

>

>

It takes many weeks for the baby's gut to close up the leaks in order to

seal off germs and to develop the ability to shut out allergenic proteins.

If given formula in the early weeks, this closing up is delayed and the

risk of allergies and illness increases. The type of bacteria in the gut

becomes less protective. In other words, Baby is more at risk for illness.

Just one bottle of formula - given for any reason - can sensitize babies

who may be allergic to cow's milk protein or soy protein. This is

especially important to know if you have allergies in your family. Some

studies have indicated that giving cow's milk formulas early may also

increase the risk of some children for developing insulin dependent diabetes.

This jibes with some of the rat studies. When they give tiny rat pups cow

milk, they develop T1 diabetes, which is now known to be associated with

certain allergens. But adult rats fed cow milk are ok. Seems to have to do

with feeding stuff too young, when the gut isn't fully formed.

OTOH the allergens can get to the baby via breastmilk too, esp. if the

mother has " leaky gut " . This happens a fair bit in the celiac groups ...

often the breastfed baby is the first to be diagnosed iwth an allergen

problem, and his little gut is all damaged before he even had a chance to

have any formula even.

Which I guess ties in to the WAPF article too. The Mom has to be healthy also!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Heidi

>This jibes with some of the rat studies. When they give tiny rat pups cow

>milk, they develop T1 diabetes, which is now known to be associated with

>certain allergens. But adult rats fed cow milk are ok. Seems to have to do

>with feeding stuff too young, when the gut isn't fully formed.

I don't suppose the researchers identified whether the milk was A1 or A2?

The researchers in the study I posted yesterday found that only A1 milk

caused diabetes in rats whereas A2 did not.

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:

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

> >From:

> >[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Heidi

>

> >This jibes with some of the rat studies. When they give tiny rat pups cow

> >milk, they develop T1 diabetes, which is now known to be associated with

> >certain allergens. But adult rats fed cow milk are ok. Seems to have

> to do

> >with feeding stuff too young, when the gut isn't fully formed.

>

>

> I don't suppose the researchers identified whether the milk was A1 or A2?

> The researchers in the study I posted yesterday found that only A1 milk

> caused diabetes in rats whereas A2 did not.

>

>

> Suze Fisher

I'd guess the milk was dried cows milk, which would have A2 as I

understand it.

Hydrolyzed milk didn't cause T1 though, nor did it cause problems for

older rats.

One thing is, I'd expect milk WOULD get " hydrolyzed " by good strong

stomach acid, or fermenting, which is another variable to throw into the

mix.

-- Heidi