Re: Breast Milk (was Digest Number 3869)

[Guest guest]

On 8/25/05, E. Nuss <ka_lanu@...> wrote:

> http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/milkcomp.html

> Scroll down on the page links above and there is a

> handy dandy little chart showing the milk composition

> of varying species of animals. Humans are humans,

> descended from monkeys. We are not cows, our diets are

> not like cows, our nursing patterns are not like cows.

> You could say the same thing for goats, camels, sheep,

> or any other ruminant. That said, those milks have

> worked for many people. So that proves there is some

> amount of flexibility in the system, NOT that more fat

> is better.

Hi ,

As I suspected, this chart is primarily showing the variation of total

solids, which is irrelevant, and in fact the data from it completely

destroy the point you've been making and support the point that 's

been making.

The human milk is claimed to be 4.5% fat. Thus, human milk should

have 4.5 times as much fat as 1% milk!

The weight ratio of fat to total caloric components is 36%. This

translates to 56% of calories as fat.

The one percentage point variation that discusses is, relative to

this data for human milk, a 22% relative difference by weight. If 1%

fat by weight were substituted for 1% carb by weight, the fat content

by calorie would become 64%.

As you can see from the chart, both the percentage fat by weight and

the percentage total solids by weight are similar between humans and

cows. So I don't see how the point you've been trying to make about

human milk being naturally lower-fat than cow milk and a comparison

being invalid carries any validity at all.

Human total solids are closest to Holsteins, although there is no

evidence whatsoever that that is ideal and that they aren't closer to

Jerseys with a healthy mother eating a healthy diet.

But just assuming that this IS the ideal, let's consider 's

friend's observation:

Since a Holstein has similar total solids, we can essentially make a

valid comparison of fat by weight and assume it to roughly indicate

fat by proportion without making more complicated calculations.

Therefore, if 's friend's observation was accurate, milk with the

consistency of 1% cow milk would represent human milk with 1% fat. In

that case, the milk is SEVERELY DEFICIENT in fat, and has only 22% of

the amount of fat it should have. In other words, by weight, it is

78% deficient in fat.

So, I think the chart you posted quite clearly supports 's

position in this matter, and not yours.

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]

Well, word-twisting aside, my major points were:

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

protein content, not fat content.

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

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

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. The COMPOSITION (solids content ratio, and fat

composition), as you twisted " content " around to mean, DOES, but not

TOTAL CONTENT on a wet-weight basis, which is what I understood

to be saying is deficient because of the appearance of SAD milk as

" thin and watery. " 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?

My points were not shot down at all by that chart, and data on the

milk composition of those species listed on that chart correlate

extremely well with what data is available on nursing frequency of

those species, some details of which I mentioned in my previous post.

If my understanding of what was saying is wrong and he was

talking about solids composition, not total fat content and

appearance, then there is little conflict here.

-

>

> > http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/milkcomp.html

> > Scroll down on the page links above and there is a

> > handy dandy little chart showing the milk composition

> > of varying species of animals. Humans are humans,

> > descended from monkeys. We are not cows, our diets are

> > not like cows, our nursing patterns are not like cows.

> > You could say the same thing for goats, camels, sheep,

> > or any other ruminant. That said, those milks have

> > worked for many people. So that proves there is some

> > amount of flexibility in the system, NOT that more fat

> > is better.

>

> Hi ,

>

> As I suspected, this chart is primarily showing the variation of total

> solids, which is irrelevant, and in fact the data from it completely

> destroy the point you've been making and support the point that 's

> been making.

>

> The human milk is claimed to be 4.5% fat. Thus, human milk should

> have 4.5 times as much fat as 1% milk!

>

> The weight ratio of fat to total caloric components is 36%. This

> translates to 56% of calories as fat.

>

> The one percentage point variation that discusses is, relative to

> this data for human milk, a 22% relative difference by weight. If 1%

> fat by weight were substituted for 1% carb by weight, the fat content

> by calorie would become 64%.

>

> As you can see from the chart, both the percentage fat by weight and

> the percentage total solids by weight are similar between humans and

> cows. So I don't see how the point you've been trying to make about

> human milk being naturally lower-fat than cow milk and a comparison

> being invalid carries any validity at all.

>

> Human total solids are closest to Holsteins, although there is no

> evidence whatsoever that that is ideal and that they aren't closer to

> Jerseys with a healthy mother eating a healthy diet.

>

> But just assuming that this IS the ideal, let's consider 's

> friend's observation:

>

> Since a Holstein has similar total solids, we can essentially make a

> valid comparison of fat by weight and assume it to roughly indicate

> fat by proportion without making more complicated calculations.

> Therefore, if 's friend's observation was accurate, milk with the

> consistency of 1% cow milk would represent human milk with 1% fat. In

> that case, the milk is SEVERELY DEFICIENT in fat, and has only 22% of

> the amount of fat it should have. In other words, by weight, it is

> 78% deficient in fat.

>

> So, I think the chart you posted quite clearly supports 's

> position in this matter, and not yours.

>

> 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 ,

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

> Well, word-twisting aside, my major points were:

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

> protein content, not fat content.

How do you figure? The variation in protein is going to tend to

correlate with the variation in fat, is it not? And certainly the

taste, which is responsible for perceived " richness, " is a reflection

of the fat content. I also don't recall you making this point

previously.

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

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

Which is not supported by your data. There's no indication that

species that nurse frequently have a lower proportion of fat, and your

explanation is not a sensible explanation for such a phenomenon

either. Your explanation is, on the other hand, a sensible

explanation for why a species would have a lower proportion of solids

to water. It appears you are, still, looking at absolute fat

percentage, or the ratio of fat weight to total weight, which is just

a reflection of the ratio of solid weight to total weight, instead of

the ratio of fat to other solids.

> 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.

Now you are even acknolwedging the irrelevancy of this point. The fat

variation to which you are referring is just an indicator of the solid

variation, and, as such, totally besides the point. The interspecies

variation is also not very important, considering the data you posted

clearly show that human milk should be very rich in fat, and have a

richer consistency than whole cow's milk.

> The COMPOSITION (solids content ratio, and fat

> composition), as you twisted " content " around to mean, DOES, but not

> TOTAL CONTENT on a wet-weight basis, which is what I understood

> to be saying is deficient because of the appearance of SAD milk as

> " thin and watery. "

I didn't intend to " twist " anything, although I think I wrote enough

that it's pretty clear what I meant by any of the words I was using,

but he did make reference to the very carby nature of the milk as

well, so I think he was at least in part referring to the proportion

of fat versus carbs.

> 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?

Thin and watery are both relative. The data you provided show that

human milk should be 4.5% fat by weight, which is 4.5 times as rich in

total fat by weight as is milk of the consistency of 1% fat by weight.

Differences in total solids, to which you keep repeatedly referring,

are not relevant here, because human milk and Holstein milk have

virtually the exact same percentage total solids, according to the

data you provided.

> My points were not shot down at all by that chart, and data on the

> milk composition of those species listed on that chart correlate

> extremely well with what data is available on nursing frequency of

> those species, some details of which I mentioned in my previous post.

That point, again, isn't relevant. You made that point and referenced

that table with the intention of showing that the inter-species

variation in total solids accounted for 's friend's observation,

when, in fact, that table clearly shows that it doesn't. The table

quite clearly shows that the percentage total solids of humans and

Holstein cows are virtually identical. Thus, 's friend's

observation based on Holstein milk as a comparative standard, 1) did,

in fact, give a decent estimation of fat percentage by weight, and 2)

does indicate that the milk was much lower in fat than the typical

human milk, according to the data you provided.

> If my understanding of what was saying is wrong and he was

> talking about solids composition, not total fat content and

> appearance, then there is little conflict here.

I'm confused. By " solids composition " are you referring to the

relative composition of the various solids-- i.e. fat, protein, and

carbohydrate-- or are you referring to proportion of the milk that is

composed of solids? Your distinction between " composition " and

" content " doesn't make sense to me, which is why I'm not so sure your

judgment that I am " twisting " words is accurate. " Composition " is

what something is composed of, and " content " is what something

contains. In general, it is roughly equivalent to refer to what

something is composed of and what it contains.

The proper distinction is between the proportion the total milk that

is solids, and the proportion the total solids that is fat. The first

is the composition (or content) of the milk as a whole, while the

second is the composition (or content) of the solid fraction.

I think whether or not he was referring to total proportion of milk as

fat or total proportion of solids as fat, or a combination thereof,

the data you supplied still contradict your assertion that the

judgment of his friend is invalid, because 1) the total solids of

humans and Holsteins are similar, and 2) both the proportion of solids

as fat and the proportion of total milk as fat are higher, not lower,

in humans than Holsteins.

I'm sorry if any of what I've been saying is muddled, but I hope I'm

coming across increasingly clearly by writing my point repeatedly ;-)

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

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