Re: Re: Breast Milk (was Digest Number 3869)

[Guest guest]

-

>A) Milk opacity and perceived " richness " is a function mostly of

>protein content, not fat content.

How on earth do you figure that? The protein percentage of cow's milk

according to the chart you yourself posted varies from a low of 3.1% for

Holstein milk to a high of 3.9% for Jersey and Zebu milk. That's not a

trivial difference, but the fat percentage varies much more widely, from

3.5% for Holstein milk to 5.5% for Jersey milk. The difference in fat

content seems like a much more likely explanation for the difference in the

perceived richness of taste of the two milks, particularly because Jersey

milk is also considered to be much richer than Brown Swiss milk, at 4% fat

and 3.6% protein, and because fat is the determining factor behind richness

in all other foods that I know of. A rich pudding is a fatty one. A rich

ice cream is a creamy one. A rich cake is one made with lots of butter. A

rich pie crust is one made with lots of butter or lard. A rich sauce is a

heavy cream sauce. Etc. etc. etc. I'm not aware of any basis in fact for

your assertion that protein, not fat, determines the experience of richness.

> Higher fat content (to the point of making milk appear " rich and

>creamy " ) is not necessarily better in a species that nurses frequently.

Wouldn't frequency of nursing (controlling for other factors) only affect

the percentage of total solids in the milk rather than the percentage of

fat in the solids? What basis do you have for assuming that increased

nursing frequency = increased consumption of sugar as a percentage of

calories? And as out, given that the chart you yourself posted

indicates that human milk is (a) fattier than Holstein milk and ( has a

similar though slightly higher level of total dissolved solids than human

milk, it's quite clear that human milk which resembles skimmed Holstein

milk is in fact seriously fat-deficient!

>C) The overall fat (or solids) content of the milk of any given

>species is a function of how often the neonates nurse - not their

>diets as adults.

This may be true of total solids content, but you've provided no plausible

explanation of why frequency of nursing should affect macronutrient ratios.

>I understood him to be saying that thin milk is

>bad, which is obviously not the case if the young are nursing

>frequently. Maybe I was thinking about someone else?

Yes, I believe that thin, low-fat human milk is not good for human

babies. The chart you yourself posted indicates that human milk contains

4.5% fat. I suspect ideal human milk contains more fat than that, but even

accepting 4.5% as the proper percentage, human milk which has fat levels

comparable to skimmed Holstein milk is clearly deficient even by measures

you yourself offer.

-