Re: Breast Milk

August 26, 2005

> -

>

> >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.

Dairies routinely add non-fat milk powder to milk to improve opacity

and percieved richness. That's how I figure that. Go centrifuge the

fat from milk (but not the protein) and tell me what you find. Compare

with human milk, full-fat.

Remove the fat, and milk is still white and fairly thick (though of

course, not as thick as with the fat). Add more protein in the form of

non-fat powder and cunsumers can hardly tell a difference unless

they're epicures. the milk is waterier than full-fat (duh) but the

mouthfeel is still substantial and the color is white. Remove the

opaque, thick protein, and you have crystal clear, watery whey. Add

fat (but not protein) to whey or water and it is still clear and thin.

Ever had a non-emulsified salad dressing? You know, the kind that is

pure fat and water? Make it 4% fat, shake it up for about half an hour

until it's very incorporated and see if its' thick and creamy before

it separates again. Yes, I've done this. Yes, it is thicker than pure

water, but it is NOT as thick as dressing with other solids in it,

like starches or soluble fibers, which help thicken it up by their

solids content, much like protein does in milk.

I never once said milk-fat makes no difference whatsoever. I said

protein is PRIMARILY the cause of perceived richness. This is easily

observable, and easily researchable.

I bit on this because I was offended at the suggestion that thin milk

is " bad " because MY milk was thin, and perfectly adequate, because I

am a human being who carried my baby all day, and not some other

species that leaves its babies in safe places without contact or

nursing for significant periods of time.

> I'm not aware of any basis in fact for

> your assertion that protein, not fat, determines the experience of

richness.

I never stated that ONLY protein is what determines richness IN MILK.

I stated that PRIMARILY protein is involved.

>

> > 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?

Exactly. And percentage of total solids (including fat - AND, mostly,

protein) will determine the apparent richness of milk. Not the solids

COMPOSITION. You can add all the fat or protein you want to the solids

but if the water/solids ratio is low, the milk will be thin. And that

is that.

What basis do you have for assuming that increased

> nursing frequency = increased consumption of sugar as a percentage of

> calories?

I never said any such thing. Don't put words into my mouth.

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!

Again, stop putting words into my mouth. Human milk that superficially

resembles skim milk is not a concern as far as fat content goes when

protein and water-content is PRIMARILY what determines " mouthfeel, "

opacity and percieved richness. The dairy folks know this, that is how

they fool customers into accepting non-fat and low-fat milks at ALL.

Without the addition of more protein (much of which is taken away with

the cream), they taste and look very watery. Notice that jerseys also

have more protein in their milk than holsteins. On that chart human

milk protein is 1.1%. Cows are 3.6%-3.9%. The fat is the same, whether

those human mothers were SAD or not. This jives perfectly with what

I've said.

>

> >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 never intended to, that's why I never provided a plausible

explanation. I heard you say that TOTAL fat content (enough to

increase percieved richness) is important and therefore thin milk is

bad, since according to you fat makes milk thick and rich. I said that

apparently thin milk is not bad if it is high in water because the

neonates nurse a lot. Thin milk can still be high in fat on a solids

ratio basis, as human milk apparently is, whether those mothers were

SAD or not.

>

> >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.

The human milk listed on that chart has fat levels comparable to cow

milk. The human milk listed on that chart BEFORE you actually read it

was accused by you to be from SAD mothers, and therefore deficient,

and you used the description of watery as a back-up to that claim.

Then when you saw for yourself that the human milk on that chart is

comparable in fat content to whole cow's milk, you used that to back

up another claim. Two different things from 1) assumed data and then

2) actual data without correcting yourself for the first mistake.

Nowhere was it mentioned by me or anyone that I am aware of that human

milk fat content would be the same as skim cow milk. It was claimed

that perceived richness is a AGAIN: PRIMARILY (not totally) a function

of protein content, not fat, AND that high water content relative to

total solids (especially protein) will make milk appear thin. Ask any

dairyman, or go do the research yourself.

AGAIN, I say it's water content (especially relative to protein, which

is - AGAIN - what provides most of the opacity and richness=mouthfeel)

that makes women's milk seem thin, because human neonates nurse a lot.

That's all I wanted to clear up.

Oh, and here...

You're talking to a biologist, and this is what this biologist knows

about the species on that chart.

Seal, gray 53.2 - Halichoerus grypus. Aquatic, sub-arctic to

cold-temperate. Leaves pups for long periods.

Whale 34.8 - Aquatic, arctic to tropical (for calving). Too many

species widely differing to make an educated guess on the one used for

the analysis. Leaves calves for long periods.

Bear, polar 31 - Ursus maritimus. Arctic to sub-arctic. Leaves cubs

for long periods to hunt.

Reindeer 22.5 - Arctic to (historically) Idaho, Montana. North Idaho's

climate is mild compared to the Arctic, and comparable to the

northeastern U.S. (like New York - See

http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N47W116 and

http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N40W073 - the

difference is primarily in summertime lows, which are cooler in Idaho,

which makes sense since Idaho is higher in altitude). Leaves young for

in one spot, visiting several times per day for a short nursing session.

Deer 19.7 - NOT arctic, other deer are everywhere except the arctic.

From temperate to very tropical. Probably Odocoileus virginianus,

which ranges from very cold Canada to very warm Florida. Leaves young

in one spot, visiting several times per day for a short nursing session.

Elephant 15.1 - Exclusively tropical. Two species, Elaphus elaphus and

Loxodonta africana. Young follow mother. Nursing frequency unknown by me.

Rat 14.8 - Everywhere, but probaby Rattus norvegicus (lab rat, common

rat), which is cool-temperate natively. Nursing frequency unknown by me.

Dolphin 14.1 - Aquatic, both cold and warm, but probably Tursiops

truncatus (the common bottlenose), which is primarily tropical to

sub-tropical and the easiest species to keep in captivity. Nursing

frequency unknown by me.

Rabbit 12.2 - Probably Oryctolagus cuniculus, the common domestic

rabbit, which is from warm temperate to sub-tropical Europe. They

cannot take a lot of cold being well adapted to warm areas, which is

why they are such a pest in Australia. Rabbits leave young in burrows

while they browse, then return. Frequency unknown by me.

Cat 10.9 - Probably Felis domesticus, which ranges in the wild from

temperate to tropical locations but is probably natively from the

middle-east or north Africa, which are very warm. Cats leave their

kittens in nests, by the way, while they hunt.

Buffalo, Philippine 10.4 - Bubalus sp. Decidedly tropical. I do not

know about bubalus nursing habits.

Dog 8.3 - Canis lupus sp. domesticus, Temperate to tropical. Dogs

leave their babies in dens while they forage for food.

Pig 8.2 - Everywhere except true arctic, but Sus scrofa, the ancestor

of the domestic pig, is known to exist in northern Russia. Piglets

spend 10 days or so in a nest.

Mink 8 - Mustela vison. Sub-arctic to warm temperate. Pups are in

dens, visited frequently.

Opossum 6.1 - Didelphis virginiana. Temperate to tropical. Marsupial,

pups always with mom.

Cow: Jersey 5.5

Sheep 5.3 - Ovis hybrid, probably including mouflon. Wild sheep often

live in the equivalent to sub-arctic due to altitude, being mountain

animals. Wild sheep are known to hide their young, but not as long or

as completely as deer.

Cow: Guernsey 5.0

Camel 4.9

Cow: Zebu 4.9

Human 4.5

Cow: Ayrshire 4.1

Cow: Brown Swiss 4.0

Guinea Pig 3.9 - Cavia porcellus. Widely distributed in south america,

from sub-tropical to extreme mountains. No idea about their nursing

habits.

Monkey 3.9 - Tropical, except a couple species. Babies usually carried

with mom.

Cow: Holstein 3.5

Goat 3.5 Capra aegregarus. Wild goats often live in the equivalent to

sub-arctic due to altitude. Will hide newborns, but in a few days

joins the herd.

Kangaroo 2.1 - Sub-tropical to warm-temperate. Marsupial.

Bison 1.7 - Bison bison. Temperate to near-arctic, as far north as

central Canada and central Alaska, very much sub-arctic places. No

trees, lots of blackflies, permafrost. Calves always with mom.

Antelope 1.3 - Tropical to cold-temperate to sub-arctic (cold plateaus

of Asia, steppes and prairies of North America). If these were

American researchers, they may have likely tested the American

antelope (pronghorn - Antilocapra americana), which ranges on the

prairie into Canada. Calves always with mom after the first day or

two, few places to hide.

Horse 1.6 - Warm-temperate to near-arctic (in Asia: Przewalski's

horse, proposed ancestor of domestic, is from extremely hot/cold

Mongolia and into cold Russia, Norwegian Fjordhorse from far northern

(read: cold, sub-arctic) Europe (the most primitive domestic horse).

Foals always with mom 24/7.

Ass (donkey) 1.2 - Temperate to near-arctic (in Asia: Equus kiang,

from the extremely cold plateaus of the Himalayas. Domestic donkeys,

Equus asinus, range widely from very cold to very hot.) Foals always

with mom 24/7.

Since cows are spread all over this chart I will address them here:

They are descended from Bos primigenius, which ranged all over Europe

but was domesticated in Europe in the north. Calves in the wild were

probably hidden with mothers very close by for a few days before

joining the herd. In domestic situations, the calves rest on the

ground in the open for while, not fully joining the rest of the herd

for a few days. Otherwise, calves with mom nearly 24/7.

Most of these animals range widely, and some are from harsh

environments and some are from hot or mild environments, aquatic or

not. Heat is taxing just like cold, by the way. Sweating or panting

takes energy too, especially if you're a large ungulate in an

environment without a lot of shade. Yes, the top two are aquatic - and

also both known not to nurse very often. Whale calves are left in

estuaries for days or even far longer while the mothers go feed and

then come back with their rich milk. Seals are left on rocky shores

for days while the mothers go hunt. Reindeer and Bison share the same

habitat - but reindeer hide their young and bison do not. Fur/blubber

thickness has a lot more to do with cold tolerance than dietary fat.

Baby seals are born furry, not fat. Again, I am a biologist. My

specialty is ethnobotany, but I know a fair bit about animals because

I studied them with considerable interest, just not as much as plants.

-

August 26, 2005

On 8/26/05, <ka_lanu@...> wrote:

> Dairies routinely add non-fat milk powder to milk to improve opacity

> and percieved richness. That's how I figure that.

They only do this when they remove the fat-- because removing the fat

takes most of the " richness " out. It is still pretty uncontroversial

that whole cow milk is much richer than low-fat milk, despite the

addition of powdered milk, that skim milk is the least rich (and least

opaque), and that full-fat Jersey milk is much more rich than lower

fat milks (although they also have more total solids in general, which

could confound the issue.)

> Go centrifuge the fat from milk (but not the protein) and tell me what you

find. >Compare with human milk, full-fat.

> Remove the fat, and milk is still white and fairly thick (though of

> course, not as thick as with the fat).

Are you serious? Not that I drink it, but when I worked in a dining

hall, I was exposed to the horrid appearance of skim milk when I had

to drain near-empty milk cartons, and skim milk is largely

transparent. The removal of fat (and not protein) results in a thin,

watery milk that has, visually, lost most of its opacity, and, by

taste, is the antithesis of " rich. "

> Add more protein in the form of

> non-fat powder and cunsumers can hardly tell a difference unless

> they're epicures.

If that were true, everyone who believes that low-fat=healthy would

use skim milk. Instead, most compromise on the issue, avoiding skim

milk due to taste issues, and opting for 1 or 2% milk as a compromise

on the (wrongly) perceived polarity between milk that tastes good and

milk that is healthy. People who use whole milk do so because it

tastes so much better, and care less about their health (or don't

share the typical view of what is healthy.)

> the milk is waterier than full-fat (duh) but the

> mouthfeel is still substantial and the color is white.

The color of skim milk is very transparent compared to full-fat milk.

Obviously all of the dissolved solids contribute to the opacity, but

quite clearly the fat, if for no other reason, contributes primarily

to the opacity simply because it is the primary dissolved solid.

At best your point could be that protein makes a significant

contribution to opacity, and therefore human milk is comparatively

less opaque because it is lower in protein than cow milk. But your

current point that opacity is due almost entirely to the protein

content isn't sensible. Moreover, the more conservative first point

in this paragraph is unlikely to be true simply because the total

solids of human milk are slightly higher than whole Holstein milk (but

roughly the same).

But the idea that the taste of " richness " is due to protein and not

fat is baseless, and everything you've suggested violates common

experience.

> Remove the

> opaque, thick protein, and you have crystal clear, watery whey.

I wouldn't consider whey to be crystal clear, but since all of the fat

and most of the protein are taken out of whey, and since the

carbohydrate molecules are smaller than both, and are even smaller in

whey derived from fermentation, obviously the milk will have lost most

of its opacity. But you're suggesting this is due only to the removal

of protein, when it is quite clearly due to the removal of both

protein and fat, which obviously both contribute to opacity.

> Add

> fat (but not protein) to whey or water and it is still clear and thin.

I have no idea. Where have you seen fat mixed into whey?

> Ever had a non-emulsified salad dressing? You know, the kind that is

> pure fat and water? Make it 4% fat, shake it up for about half an hour

> until it's very incorporated and see if its' thick and creamy before

> it separates again. Yes, I've done this. Yes, it is thicker than pure

> water, but it is NOT as thick as dressing with other solids in it,

> like starches or soluble fibers, which help thicken it up by their

> solids content, much like protein does in milk.

Ok, so total dissolved solids all contribute...?

> I never once said milk-fat makes no difference whatsoever. I said

> protein is PRIMARILY the cause of perceived richness. This is easily

> observable, and easily researchable.

I'm not sure why you are conflating opacity and richness. Richness is

a function of taste and texture, at least that is how I conceive of

it, whereas opacity is a visual characteristic. If what you are

suggesting is true, 's friend couldn't have even conceived of the

milk as being thin like 1% milk and not rich like whole milk, because

the difference between 1% and whole milk is a difference of fat, not

protein. The very fact that he made this comparison violates

everything you're suggesting.

> I bit on this because I was offended at the suggestion that thin milk

> is " bad " because MY milk was thin, and perfectly adequate, because I

> am a human being who carried my baby all day, and not some other

> species that leaves its babies in safe places without contact or

> nursing for significant periods of time.

I don't think it helps this discussion to make it personal. I'm not

sure why anyone would claim, aside from emotional reasons, that their

own milk and genes are entirely adequate in terms of a

global/historical perspective, when it is probably true that noones

ova, sperm, or breast milk are fully adequate in this sense. I'm sure

it's certianly true that people like me who have had problems through

life of allergies and tooth decay, etc, are less than adequate or less

than optimal source of sperm, for example, and while this sucks, I'm

not going to make it a personal issue for me. The purpose of the

discussion is to sort out what the best thing we can do now is, given

our resources. It is not to attack people for being inadequate.

> I never stated that ONLY protein is what determines richness IN MILK.

> I stated that PRIMARILY protein is involved.

That similarly lacks basis. If you were claiming that protein

SIGNIFICANTLY is involved, I'd agree. But using the word " primarily "

diminishes the clearly major contribution of fat to richness. Cream,

for example, is much, much, much richer than milk, despite being very

low in protein and high in fat. Mixing a protein isolate in whey, on

the other hand, does not reproduce such an experience of " richness, "

nor does it's thickness come close to approaching that of cream before

it reaches its solubility limit.

And your claims that there is no perceived difference in richness

between skim, 1%, 2% and whole milk are clearly contradicted by common

experience, the very existence of a market for all four forms of milk,

and the very fact that someone could make such a comparison of human

milk to the non-rich 1% milk. If it wasn't common to understand 1%

milk as less rich, he wouldn't have made that comparison in the first

place, and if he did, wouldn't have known what he meant.

> Exactly. And percentage of total solids (including fat - AND, mostly,

> protein) will determine the apparent richness of milk. Not the solids

> COMPOSITION.

This flatly contradicts your earlier statement that it is primarily

protein that determines richness, which implies that the composition

of solids is the primary determinant. That the ratio of solids to

total milk is the primary determinant and not the composition of those

solids implies, instead, that fat and protein contribute equally.

And if you do believe that it is the ratio of solids to total milk

that is the primary determinant of richness, then there is no basis to

claim that human milk should be thinner than whole cow's milk, since

the data you provided show that total solids are similar but slightly

higher in human milk than in whole Holstein milk.

>You can add all the fat or protein you want to the solids

> but if the water/solids ratio is low, the milk will be thin. And that

> is that.

And your data show that human milk is slightly higher than whole

Holstein milk in percentage solids. So I'm not sure what your point

is.

> 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!

>

> Again, stop putting words into my mouth. Human milk that superficially

> resembles skim milk is not a concern as far as fat content goes when

> protein and water-content is PRIMARILY what determines " mouthfeel, "

> opacity and percieved richness.

Now this is another reversal from your claim in the previous

paragraph, in which you stated that total solids were more important

than the composition of those solids. Here you are stating that it is

specifically the protein fraction of those solids, which means that,

solids being equal (as they are between human and Holstein milk,

roughly), it is the proportion of solids that are protein that is

important. Yet whole milk has a lower proportion protein than does

skim milk, and is much richer. Cream has only trace protein, and is

vastly richer than skim milk, and generally richer than any milk. You

could saturated water, on the other hand, with isolated protein (try

it with whey protein), and even at 50% solids there is no significant

perception of " richness. "

The only two reasonable interpretations are that 1) fat is the major

contributor or 2) total solids are the major contributor. I would

guess that total solids is the major contributor with fat playing a

significantly greater role than the other solids.

In any case, the very fact that cream is rich with no significant

protein clearly refutes your assertion that considerable protein is

necessary for richness, which means that the most generous concession

to your argument could be that total solids are the main determinant.

And in that case, human and Holstein total solids are similar, with

humans slightly higher, by your own data.

> The dairy folks know this, that is how

> they fool customers into accepting non-fat and low-fat milks at ALL.

I think your approach here is backwards. The overwhelming orthodoxy

that is not visibly contradicted in the mainstream by anyone, is that

whole milk is very bad for you, and that low-fat versions are much

healthier. Consequently, many people use low-fat milk, probably

mostly 2%. The very fact that whole milk still makes considerable

sales, or even that low-fat milk makes sales, with the much

" healthier " skim milk being universally available, indicates that

there quite clearly IS a perceived difference in richness, and that no

one is being fooled by the milk powder, or else everyone would find

skim milk satisfactory.

The milk powder is somewhat compensatory, but it is obviously inferior

to fat at generating a sensation of richness.

> Without the addition of more protein (much of which is taken away with

> the cream), they taste and look very watery. Notice that jerseys also

> have more protein in their milk than holsteins.

That's true, but whole Holstein milk has a lesser proportion of

protein to the total than does skim Holstein milk, the former of which

is perceived as richer.

> On that chart human

> milk protein is 1.1%. Cows are 3.6%-3.9%. The fat is the same, whether

> those human mothers were SAD or not. This jives perfectly with what

> I've said.

It jives with a small part of what you've said, but is only meaninful

if the rest of what you said is true. In order for your proposition

that protein is the primary determinant, such that low-fat milks are

not perceived as more watery to the general populace, then it would

also have to be true that the general population would not use 1% milk

as a standard of wateriness and non-richness. Yet 's friend made

such a comparison, and understood what he meant, and I understood

what he meant.

> > 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 never intended to, that's why I never provided a plausible

> explanation. I heard you say that TOTAL fat content (enough to

> increase percieved richness) is important and therefore thin milk is

> bad, since according to you fat makes milk thick and rich. I said that

> apparently thin milk is not bad if it is high in water because the

> neonates nurse a lot. Thin milk can still be high in fat on a solids

> ratio basis, as human milk apparently is, whether those mothers were

> SAD or not.

That's what we don't know. 's suggesting that SAD mothers may not

have fatty milk on a solids ratio basis.

> Nowhere was it mentioned by me or anyone that I am aware of that human

> milk fat content would be the same as skim cow milk. It was claimed

> that perceived richness is a AGAIN: PRIMARILY (not totally) a function

> of protein content, not fat, AND that high water content relative to

> total solids (especially protein) will make milk appear thin. Ask any

> dairyman, or go do the research yourself.

All you've offered to support this is 1) the false notion (as far as I

can tell anyway) that no one can tell the difference in richness

between various non-fat, low-fat, and whole milks, and 2) a personal

experiment that showed 4% fat water to be thicker than plain water,

but not as thick as with other ingredients, which proves nothing,

since the total solids in human milk are ~13%, which is more than

three times total dissolved solids than 4% fat water. I would suggest

the counterevidence of another easily conducted personal experiment

where protein isolate is added to water in the absence of fat. Add

this to 40% total solids and compare it to heavy cream, which is in

the area of 40% fat with negligible protein, and compare the richness.

I suggest the cream is generally perceived as richer.

> AGAIN, I say it's water content (especially relative to protein, which

> is - AGAIN - what provides most of the opacity and richness=mouthfeel)

> that makes women's milk seem thin, because human neonates nurse a lot.

> That's all I wanted to clear up.

And now you've changed your position again. The water protein of

human milk is about the same as, but slightly lower than that of,

whole Holstein milk.

>

> Oh, and here...

>

> You're talking to a biologist, and this is what this biologist knows

> about the species on that chart.

[snip]

Interesting, but I take on faith your sensible suggestion that the

nursing frequency determines the proportion of total that is solids.

It's only necessary for this discussion to look at whole Holstein milk

and human milk, which is where the comparison was made.

> Again, I am a biologist. My

> specialty is ethnobotany, but I know a fair bit about animals because

> I studied them with considerable interest, just not as much as plants.

The knowledge you share about animals is very interesting. But this

knowledge has primarily been used in your point about varying total

solids with nursing frequency, which is not an important point in this

discussion, because the comparison you are attempting to show as

invalid was made between two species that have similar total solids.

The primary pivotal point you're making that determines the rightness

or wrongness of your point is the relative contribution of fat,

protein, and total solids to richness. On this point, I don't find

your argument compelling at all.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005

>

> Let my just say that I'm sorry I responded to this in the way that I

> did. Sometimes I let frustration turn into irritability, which is

not to

> my credit. Chris's reponse was much more polite, productive and

frankly

> meaningful, so let me just echo him:

Thanks. I also apologize, and have the same tendencies. I'm working on

NVC with my family but I haven't quite gotten to the point where

that's what I think of in normal conversation yet... Soon, soon..

I'm too angry about words being stuffed into my mouth (again) to

address Chris' post in a civil manner, and I don't want to dirty the

list any more, so I guess the " other side wins. " I stand by my

position, however.

Oh, and I'm new here, nice to meet you. I read the website a long time

ago and when I became pregnant implemented the principles as best as I

was able at the time (and still try). Though I swear her grandparents

are trying to do their best to reverse everything I've done.

Thankfully, we're moving far away soon. Here she is as of a week ago:

http://cermaith.com/deirdre0805.jpg

I came to this list in the hopes of finding others who were finding

ways to help themselves and their children, too..

-

August 26, 2005

--- In , " Stump " <rstump@c...>

wrote:

> Sorry the chart at the bottom didn't come thru correctly...if you

follow the

> second link you can see the chart.

>

> I am coming in late on this thread and am trying to follow. Why is this

> discussion going on?

Because I took offense at the notion that I should have formula-fed

because my milk was thin and barked back.

>

> Is someone saying the breastmilk does not have enough fat content and it

> would be better to feed a child a higher fat content milk...such a

Jersey or

> Guernsey milk?

That was my understanding, yes.

>

> Personally the fat content in milk is created specifically for human

babies.

> I do understand that it would vary based on diet but not to the extremes

> that I feel would cause the need to not breastfeed.

I agree.

> Even with a SAD diet if

> it is not a complete junk food diet. Of course a WAP mother would

have a

> much higher quality breastmilk. BUT I do personally know 2 examples of

> women on very strict raw vegan diets that had infants with failure to

> thrive. They both had to stop nursing and add in a high calorie

formula in

> order to save their babies life. Both of them did not have a " lack " of

> milk. They were making more than enough milk. I believe it was due

to the

> quality of their milk. Which I think would be a direct result of

the lack

> or proper fats in their diets.

Sounds reasonable to me. I've never been vegan for any length of time,

or for any real reason besides lack of finances, but I know I didn't

feel well when I wasn't eating animal foods and I would never want to

put my daughter through anything like that or especially the harm it

could cause for an ideal. That's why I liked WAPF, they seemed to

advocate the common-sense approach of following our ancestors' wisdom.

Though it seems to have gone downhill recently with the formula

recommendations, which is unfortunate. Not that I think it shouldn't

be there when needed, or that formula feeding is " wrong " , I just don't

think emphasizing and glorifying it is in the best interests of babies

or mothers.

-

August 26, 2005

On 8/26/05, <ka_lanu@...> wrote:

> > I am coming in late on this thread and am trying to follow. Why is this

> > discussion going on?

>

> Because I took offense at the notion that I should have formula-fed

> because my milk was thin and barked back.

Pardon me for a moment, but let me point out that no one ever said that.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005

On 8/26/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> I understand that Sally had a hard time nursing but I think her view point

> on this issue is unbalanced. This is not the norm from mothers with proper

> support. God created our body to birth & feed our babies. I feel that WAPF

> continues to portray a VERY negative view of nursing. Basically from

> reading the WAP site it seems that cow/goats milk is better for babies than

> human milk .....which I adamently disagree.

According to a recent comment by a chapter leader, Sally successfully

breast fed three kids, and had trouble with the last one while on

travels in Europe, whom she successfully fed raw Jersey (?) milk and

who apparently is even healthier than his brothers and sisters.

I suspect the issue is a matter of misplaced emphasis, probably

accidental. The reaction on the chapter leaders list seemed to

indicate that none of the chapter leaders understood the Foundation's

position to be the one that many on this list are perceiving it to be.

I've noticed a clear split along gender lines on THIS list. It seems

like a lot of women are taking it personally on either side here,

which I guess is to be expected with people so close personally to the

subject. Being young and male, I have no personal attachment to the

issue.

In any case, it is even more interesting that the reaction on the

chapter leaders list (from women) was one that perceived it to be

obvious that breast feeding is best, that most chapter leaders breast

feed, but that it is important to provide for alternatives, while the

reaction on this list seems to be a perception that the Foundation is

anti-breast-feeding and that it needs to do more to educate that

breast feeding is best.

I suspect this is a simple matter of perception of what is the

standard view. On the chapter leaders list, people seem to perceive

the issue as coming up against a standard that says breast is best

with no awareness of the mother's diet, and here the perception seems

to be that the issue is coming up against a standard that encourages

confusion and no clear direction for a young mother whether to breast

feed or formula feed.

By the way, , I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your comments. I

certainly didn't mean to, but it was quite confusing as you seemed to

be arguing different things at once-- at least to me.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005

On 8/26/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> So as you can see, total dissolved solids doesn't vary even remotely

> linearly with nursing frequency.

>

> Apologies if the tables don't come out right, but I formatted them in a

> monospaced font, so if they look wrong, just display this message in a

> monospaced font like Courier.

No, from that list it doesn't. Still, it has nothing to do with the

issue at all.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005

On 8/26/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> But what makes you think the fact that there was less fat in the milk is

> bad. I don't see why the fat content in breastmilk would need to have the

> same amount of fat content as cows's milk. A cow is meant to grow in MUCH

> larger proportions than an human infant.

First, because every datum that's been presented so far as shown human

milk to be considerably higher in fat than whole Holstein milk (the

fattiest milk the average person comes into contact with), and second,

because fat and cholesterol are what's needed for the rapid brain

developement and myelination that occur at that age. Muscle tissue

and bone tisuse are much lower in fat and cholesterol than is the

brain, so presumably greater body growth would correspond to a greater

need for protein, not fat, and greater neurological development would

correspond to a greater need for lipids, not proteins, which seems to

be consistent with cow versus human milk, assuming human milk to be

very high-fat and low-protein as all data show it to be. And, of

course, it should be expected that a healthier fat-rich diet would

lead to an even greater increase in the fat content of milk.

> Also I highly doubt that any man would get the real content of breastmilk

> as I doubt that a woman would have a " true " letdown relex from having her

> husband try her milk. Yes, breastmilk does normal taste sweet. I don't

> think this has anything to do with nutritional content.

I'm sure it does. Cream, and even butter, has sweetness. But there

is a different taste to something that is rich and sweet (e.g. cream)

versus something that tastes like thin sugar-water (e.g. skim or 1%

milk).

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005

,

I guess I misinterpreted.

Now that you mention it, though I did not consider it formally

" supplementation " at the time, I did chew up liver for Deirdre when

she began showing interest in nibbling solid food, at about 12 months.

I did this to circumvent any harm caused by grandma wanting to feed

her cereals, and partly just because I was sharing with her and knew

it was a healthy thing to share. I also chewed steak and other things

for her. Not grassfed, we didn't have access to that, but I did do it

a few times a week - I couldn't eat liver much more than that, having

a definite " load limit " for liver.

Hmm.

-

> -

>

> >Because I took offense at the notion that I should have formula-fed

> >because my milk was thin and barked back.

>

> I've never said anything like this. Also, " formula " can mean a lot of

> things. Since it usually denotes the toxic garbage you can buy in the

> store, I'd rather not use the word for NT-type milk replacement

recipes. I

> don't actually know where the threshold is between milk that's so

bad it

> should be replaced entirely and milk that has enough virtue that it

should

> just be supplemented, but I do strongly suspect that in light of the

fact

> that virtually all our soil is in a debased state and virtually

everyone's

> health is impaired relative to the ideal to at least some degree, most

> babies would probably benefit if their mothers supplemented their

milk with

> something, even most WAPF babies. How much supplementation (i.e.

> pre-chewed liver and egg yolks) I don't know. But I believe it's

possible

> to make a very strong case in favor of that position.

>

> -

August 26, 2005

On 8/26/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> Please do your research and know your facts before you give this kind of

> advice. This could do severe harm to a infant who was otherwise thriving.

> It is a very different story to offer the advice of supplementation with

> WAP

> homemade formula to a mother who is seeking counsel and looking into

> supplementation with synthetic formulas. I do believe that a WAP formula

> does have many more benefits to an infant that those but it is NO WHERE

> near

> the product that the child's own mother can produce.

The excerpt from _NAPD_ that posted for an anonymous list member

essentially PROVES that it is POSSIBLE for a " foreign " product to be

very superior to breast milk. That is not even up for debate, unless

Price was lying.

What IS up for debate is the THRESHOLD of quality level at which a

foreign substance can match the value of human milk and beyond which

it could be superior.

So, you could argue that this threshold is at an extreme pole and

can't be crossed unless the mother is on a diet that essentially

approximates the nutritional value of cardboard. But you can't argue

that that threshold simply DOESN'T exist. That just isn't arguable.

So, I think it would help out a lot if the absolutes that clearly

don't hold up are dropped, so we could productively discuss where this

threshold is. I also think it would be great if we could drop the

personal offense that a number of people seem to be taking to this

topic. There is quite a bit of difference between discussing

something, and counseling someone on their personal decisions. This

is, after all, a list meant for such discussion.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005

,

Now that I think about it, it started around 9 months, not 12. 12 was

about when she really started eating any significant amount. Before

then, it was just nibbles.

-

> ,

> I guess I misinterpreted.

> Now that you mention it, though I did not consider it formally

> " supplementation " at the time, I did chew up liver for Deirdre when

> she began showing interest in nibbling solid food, at about 12 months.

> I did this to circumvent any harm caused by grandma wanting to feed

> her cereals, and partly just because I was sharing with her and knew

> it was a healthy thing to share. I also chewed steak and other things

> for her. Not grassfed, we didn't have access to that, but I did do it

> a few times a week - I couldn't eat liver much more than that, having

> a definite " load limit " for liver.

> Hmm.

>

> -

>

> --- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> > -

> >

> > >Because I took offense at the notion that I should have formula-fed

> > >because my milk was thin and barked back.

> >

> > I've never said anything like this. Also, " formula " can mean a

lot of

> > things. Since it usually denotes the toxic garbage you can buy in

the

> > store, I'd rather not use the word for NT-type milk replacement

> recipes. I

> > don't actually know where the threshold is between milk that's so

> bad it

> > should be replaced entirely and milk that has enough virtue that it

> should

> > just be supplemented, but I do strongly suspect that in light of the

> fact

> > that virtually all our soil is in a debased state and virtually

> everyone's

> > health is impaired relative to the ideal to at least some degree,

most

> > babies would probably benefit if their mothers supplemented their

> milk with

> > something, even most WAPF babies. How much supplementation (i.e.

> > pre-chewed liver and egg yolks) I don't know. But I believe it's

> possible

> > to make a very strong case in favor of that position.

> >

> > -

August 26, 2005

Dear ,

> As for the perception being different for men/women on this list. I know I

> am not taking this personally because I am a " woman " . I am taking this

> seriously because I am educated on this subject.

Those are two different things: seriously, and personally. I was

referring to personal offense being taken, not the seriousness with

which anyone has been arguing.

And while I absolutely take everyone's arguments seriously regardless

of sex or any other factor, it is quite clear that those who have

taken *personal* offense at suggestions that breast milk could

possibly be inadequate have been women. This is not in any way a

disparagement of any woman's arguments, nor is it a lumping together

of the different arguments presented by the different women, who are

all individuals. It is just a statement of the obvious factor that

some women who have been nursing mothers have that introduce a

personal dimension that cannot be understood or shared by those

without that experience.

> Of course I understand

> that I am probably more educated because I am a mother...yes, I would agree

> with that fact.

Hmm. I didn't mean to suggest that, if I did. I don't think being a

mother would make you any more educated on the subject at all. That's

not to say that you *aren't* highly educated on the subject, but

that's a variable independent from motherhood, for sure.

> I highly doubt there are many men that would spend hours,

> day, years researching this topic to the extent that a mother would.

I'm not so sure that is typical behavior of an expectant mother. I

suspect that most parents, regardless of sex, get information from

their doctor and parenting magazines, some from parenting books.

> This

> is a mother's instinct especially I think a WAP mother. We want to do the

> best for our children (especially in regards to nutrition) therefore we

> research & discuss these issues to a higher degree than most.

Ok, but this is a discussion right here. So rather than insisting on

your opinion being right by virtue of your (speculative assumption of

your) having previously researched it and discussed it more, it would

make more sense to simply present your arguments, and let the points

of view sort themselves out by which is most compelling.

You have made one point repeatedly: foremilk differs from hindmilk. I

think this is certainly a good point, and it's impossible to know *for

sure* whether 's friends have tasted true hind milk, though

says it's most reasonable to believe that they have.

Other points are not convincing. As I pointed out, for example, it is

absolutely sensible to assume human milk should be fatty, and the

differing needs of cows and humans in this respect support a role for

low-protein high-fat human milk, which the data also support, not

low-fat milk. I don't think the quantity of research you've done or

the number of hours you've spent discussing this issue impacts the

fact that this particular argument is less than compelling.

> I am sure there are some " male " issues that if discussed I would have no

> basis of research to speak about. BUT I would not speak to them instead of

> making claims for something I do not know about.

If you had a novel thought or happened to do some research on a topic

that was specifically male, I would certainly like to know your

opinion. And if mine differed, I certainly wouldn't suggest that I

must be right because I am a male.

> I do appreciate that WAP has addressed the idea of proper supplementation

> because there are very few others doing this properly. I just feel the

> emphasis is too much in place of supplementation that it makes it seem that

> supplementation is better than even a WAP mother's milk.

I don't see how the quantity of information about formulas can change

the qualitative fact that this is not the argument presented. WAPF

could publish five books on formulas and it still wouldn't indicate

that formulas are superior to high-quality breastmilk if the opposite

is explicitly stated.

I understand the issue that they don't seem to be giving enough

emphasis to the fact that the best breast milk is better than the best

formula. It appears to me that this is because they perceive this as

a given, and are trying to fill a unique niche for information that

isn't emphasized elsewhere, whereas breast is best is quite widely

emphasized elsewhere.

But I'm not interested in this debate, and it's really a debate that

has long passed without much commotion in this thread. The

overwhelming questions this thread has been toying with for most of

its duration are:

1) can good formula be better than bad breast milk?

2) if so, what is the threshold of poor quality that allows this to be true?

3) can we estimate the quality of breast milk by its taste?

4) should breast milk be fattier than cow milk?

3 and 4 are essentially tangents from 2.

> An example is

> what

> you said about Sally's children...the last child appeared " healthier " than

> his brothers and sisters. Do you see where this places the emphasis and

> causes a healthy nursing mother to begin improper supplementation?

Are you suggesting that we should distort the facts to fit a

preconceived string of facts that are necessary to support our

pre-determined position? I'm simply relaying her own experience,

based on hearsay, in response to the hearsay version you had relayed,

which appeared to be slightly imprecise.

Is this about the truth, or is it a political campaign?

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005

On 8/26/05, Stump <rstump@...> wrote:

> I totally agree that there is a threshhold as I pointed out in my earlier

> post. I personally know 2 infants that were diagnosed with failure to

> thrive. I am talking more about middle of the road SAD dieters to WAP

> moms.

> Not the completely off base junk food junky or vegan mom. I think the

> advice for supplementation should be saved for a mother who is exhaused

> other avenues and is looking to supplement with other synthetic products.

>

> Why not point a mother to articles on improving her personal nutrition? I

> just don't see any evidence that points to where a " foreign " products

> (cow/goat/liver) formula would be provide superior nutrition for an infant

> (under 6 months) than a reasonably healthy mother's breastmilk.

We essentially agree. It is a good point that the Aborigines

mentioned in _NAPD_ had no choice but the diet they were on, and

perhaps it is impossible for someone to have such a poor diet by

choice, or such a poor diet with the current degree of fortification.

But I think it remains undetermined where exactly that threshold is,

and what exactly is the operative definition of " reasonably healthy "

here. 's comments about friend's milk were intended to make a

conjecture about the prevalency of the crossing of that threshold.

I agree it seems ideal to advocate bettering the mother's nutrition.

Nevertheless, I think it is an open question about where the threshold

is, and something that hasn't been researched (in any way that should

be satisfactory to us), and deserves more discussion.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005

On 8/26/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Nor do you or will you ever have experience with it. So this is the

> more precise line up: women with experience and single men without

> experience, for JC has expressed a preference with the ladies as his

> wife is nursing. But I bet that you would want a healthy woman to feed

> your child a natural diet. I'd bet money on that.

I think I've made that quite clear. For example, when you asked if I

forwarded the NT formula to my cousin and his wife, I responded that I

would think that should be saved until all alternatives are exhausted

by trying to fix the source and improve the breast milk. That seems

to be the opinion of the women, so it seems that I am quite clearly,

in the big picture sense, on the side of all of the women.

However, there are a few points that are interesting to discuss here,

and taking the issue personally has caused some miscommunication and

some unwillingness to even entertain alternative views and THAT is

what I was referring to. It is quite different to discuss something

onlist than to publish something counseling women what to do. The

reaction that the notion of formula possibly being superior to breast

milk in some cases, at some threhold, shouldn't be entertained, is

something I'm strongly opposed to. I strongly oppose any type of

inhibition of an alternative viewpoint being entertained.

> But that's because Sally is on *that* list. If the guru worship

> (eggshells, what have you) were here, it would be different I am sure.

That's a good point. I don't think it's quite fair to accuse people

of guru worship, but in a general sense you are probably right that

criticism of the Foundation's positions is less likely to occur there

than here.

> Diet or not, a baby can't get antibodies without breast milk until at

> least 3 months. Also, freshness and safety are assured. Any other

> source will not be as fresh and may be contaminated with pathogens. It

> does happen depending on the source. An infant will be much more

> severely compromised in such an instance.

True, but these are all matters of magnitude, not absolutes. There is

UNQUESTIONABLY a threshold of quality beyond which a formula is

superior to breast milk. It's just a matter of where it is. So why

not discuss it?

> How would you feel if an

> infant were sickened possibly by contaminants in raw milk substitute

> that you recommended, as happened to a toddler with the very bad e. coli

> strain on chapter leaders list.

There's no conclusive evidence that that was due to raw milk, and that

person was already aware of the issues with that farm, if that was the

case. With her knowledge of the operation, I don't think she would

have used that farm for an infant's milk.

> Can you say law suit? Her mom was

> upset that no one could possibly consider that raw milk was the source,

> being the sacred cow it is in WAPF circles.

It was only true of a couple chapter leaders that reacted that way. I

don't think this matter of ideology is monolithic among chapter

leaders at all.

And yes, I agree, she was right to be angry at the one or two chapter

leaders who did react in that way.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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

August 26, 2005