# Question about nutrition & BF.



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

How good is your diet? I struggle so much with eating healthy. I eat WAYYY too much sugar but can't seem to stop; it's really like an addiction. I take probiotics, calcium and DHA - and occasionally a multivite/prenatal and flaxseed oil - and I avoid trans fats, but that's about as good as I can do.







I don't get enough fruits & veggies. Too much caffeine (does not seem to bother DD though).

I read (on Kellymom I think) that breastmilk will be pretty much the same no matter what your diet. But then Dr. Sears says trans fats can harm baby's brain?? What is the deal? Am I giving DD substandard BM?

Would type more but this is 1-handed 'cause DD is on the other arm & I have to take a break...

anyone else willing to admit to being a junk food junkie (or at least not a health nut) while bf? anyone think I need to shape up ASAP? Don't be afraid to be harsh on me. But I do know that this is important - it's just that I have struggled w/ food issues for a long time and right now I find it incredibly difficult to eat as well as I should.

~Elizabeth


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

I never watch what i eat







I eat what I want when I want. It isnt something I even worry about really. I have never had a balanced diet as far back as I can remember. I do avoid caffien tho i stopped all intake of caffien when I started ttc my first child. I do have a bit of pop now with ds but only rarely and not much at a time. I couldnt even tell u what trans fat is really :LOL. So dont feel bad at least you r trying


----------



## jocmtl (Nov 13, 2002)

Hey Elizabeth,

First of all, our babies were born 1 day apart! Hooray for little pisces babies!

Second, I'm no expert. By far. I'm bfing my first.

From what I understand, traces of what we ingest end up in our breastmilk, which I suppose means the more nutrients there are in your diet, the more there are in your milk. Case in point, you must avoid most medications while you bf because they wind up in your milk. Or when my ds had a cold, my naturopath told me to take extra vitamin c so he would get some.

Whether that means that your diet so bad that your baby's milk is of poor quality, I can't say, though I really doubt it. Hopefully, someone better qualified than I am can answer that.

As for sugar, I do wonder whether it affects my ds. Last night, for instance, I totally pigged out and had 4 chocolate chip cookies before bed and I wondered if this is why he had awakened. I haven't checked for responses yet. But the thing about sugar that is bad for you, mama, is that it inhibits the absorption of nutrients, including vital calcium.

I eat pretty healthy, but I have to admit, during my pregnancy I developed a sweet tooth that is still hard to kick, and now, more than ever, I crave fast food; this is made worst by the fact that I often have no time to cook, and no time to make a decent meal for myself during the day! Golden Arches? Bring it on! To heck with my principals, I want those fries! Sigh...

Oh, and something else I wanted to mention. My naturopath goes on an on about the evils of sugar, particularly because I have hypoglycemic tendencies. According to her, and so far it's been true for me, if you eat protein regularly, sugar cravings diminish. I don't know if this applies to you, but you might want to think about whether or not you are getting enough protein.

I hope this helps!


----------



## jocmtl (Nov 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jocmtl*
Hey Elizabeth

Uh, make that Melissa... blame it on sleep deprivation









No, I got it right the first time, didn't I? Yay, I'm not crazy!


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Jo, you got it right the first time! :LOL

You're right on about the protein thing. I had a dx of GD during pregnancy and eating protein CONSTANTLY was the only thing that helped my sugar cravings (but I was still not perfect diet-wise by any means!).

Part of it is that while I had not been drinking caffeine while TTC and during pregnancy (with rare exceptions), I was so tired in the first few weeks postpartum that I started drinking a Coke a day (coffee was too strong). It seems like once soda becomes part of my life it's all downhill from there!

Pisces babies rock, by the way! DH was so scared I was going to go late and have a Gemini, apparently his astrological profile doesn't go well w/ Geminis...

CatLvr (I am too!) - thanks, it's good to know I'm not alone.

nak - gotta go


----------



## delaneymom (Jul 20, 2005)

Another mama who struggles with the sugar here. I didn't know that about protein-I should find out more about that and apply it to my diet. Like a pp though-I wouldn't know a trans fat if it bit me in my butt. I did cut out caffeine when I found out I was pregnant and have managed not to add that back into my diet, and I try to think about getting all the big nutrient groups, but most days I'm sure I don't and I know I eat way too much sugar.

Do any of you worry about your habits and passing them onto your babies? That's my concern-I've struggled with my weight and eating habits for pretty much the last 20 years and I know some of it comes from watching my mom's habits (not blaming her, but it's the truth). I hate the thought of passing my bad habits to my daughter. I've started thinking about it a lot and I hope I can improve my habits now while she's still young to give her a little bit better of an example.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Nah, you're fine! Given that breastmilk is made from what is in our blood and not in our stomachs, most of what we eat gets metabolized down to the cellular level anyhow. Well, it's more complicated than that but suffice it to say that there is relatively little in our diets that makes it into our blood and back into our breastmilk. (I'm sure that someone will come along and explain it, lol).

Substandard breastmilk? Never heard of it!







You're doing great - keep it up!

P.S. I don't eat all that great myself.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

re: protein and sugar cravings...totally true.

My friend has serious liver problems and sees endocrinologists and other specialists all the time, and she's known for years (wish she'd told me earlier!) that a sugar craving is usually/often/always? the way your body cries out for energy, and the sugar thing is quick energy, but to truly feed your body, give it long-term energy in the form of protein. When I do it, eat cheese or something when all I want is CHOCOLATE, is almost always shushes that craving.

re: diet? I try to eat well for the bulk of my diet, eating whole grains and such, but don't worry if I indulge in other things. And that's b/c I worry about MY health...I figure the babe is getting best of the best and leaving me the rest.


----------



## wendy1221 (Feb 9, 2004)

I personally think it's very important to at least try to avoid trans fats and eat a variety of healthy foods. Water soluble vitamins definitely depend on your diet. The baby will get some no matter what you eat, but the better you eat, the better your milk. Why settle for good enough? KWIM? And trans fats will replace the good fats in your milk, including the EFA's so important for brain growth. I can find references if anyone really wants them.

Again, that's just how I personally feel about it. I don't think my friends who snack on ho ho's or whatever are hurting their babies or making them dumb by eating all that trans fat, I just choose not to do it myself. KWIM?


----------



## heket (Nov 18, 2003)

First, this is







but you guys have got Taurean babies, not Pisces. (Says the stubborn, bull-headed Taurean mama... :LOL )

Second, thanks for posting this! I've been feeling the same way lately. I did notice that I was slipping into the world of diet soda and have since started to cut that out. But I am a caffeine addict. I drink half-caf in the morning and I'll have a cup at work. I try to keep it at the 2 cup limit (although some days I'll push it to 3). Having 2 at and under 2 y.o. makes it hard for me to not start my working days without it.









I've been listening to my body and have decided it's time to start adding more veggies back into the diet. I was doing pretty well when pregnant, but somewhere after ds was born I slipped off the wagon. I noticed that I use to eat more than I am right now -- or at least found more ways to incorporate it into our meals. So I'm working on that.

In an attempt to be proactive for this winter's flu season, I've started taking priobiotics and upping my Vit. C, besides my Calcium & multivit. I need to add in an oil supplement, but $$ has been tight so it's slow going at the moment. I'd like to keep my immune system up so that if I do get sick or it's going around the house, I won't be down and out for long.

As for sugar cravings, definitely keep some nuts handy! I did this while pregnant because I had the same issues with junk food. Then I had read how it's your body's attempt to say it's hungry. We keep all kinds around now, which makes it easy to make your own mixes. I also treat myself to a Trader Joe's trail mix from time to time (I usually get one that has raisins and carobs if I want to be kinda, sorta good in a bad way, KWIM?







)


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Heket, my DH would laugh so hard at me if he knew I forgot Nora was a Taurus! :LOL --after talking about it so much! When is Pisces? March?

Wendy, I knew I had read that somewhere about transfats. If you have links, I'd love to check them out. A friend of mine is a PhD in biological anthropology; she studies the fat composition of primate milk! (Monkeys & humans!) She told me that the fat makeup of milk is a major contributor to brain growth. But I would really like to know how this all works. And so many people in the past 50 years have eaten trans-fat-laden diets...yet I don't think the collective American IQ has suffered as a result...(well, then I look at our president and think, maybe! - but I digress) so it just seems odd to me that it would make THAT much of a difference. But like I said, I do avoid them as much as possible.

Molly, I dunno...nothing seems to shut down the sugar jones for me except soda and/or candy! I don't eat an all-junk-food diet by any means. I usually eat a bagel for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch (healthy sandwich) and a pasta dish with protein for dinner (this is where I get my meager veggies). I snack on nuts. I drink almond milk and some organic cow's milk. But I ALSO eat a candy bar every day and at least one soda and a latte from Starbucks.







If I could just replace these things with fresh fruit...or nuts, or cheese...but it ain't happening.

Mona, thanks for the support! I want to think that her milk is the best I can give her. But I can't squelch the guilt.









Delaneymom, yes, I often worry about DD picking up my poor eating habits (and DH's). I hope I can learn to eat healthier and at least hide my junk from her. I know if I drink Coke in front of her she will want some, and I'm not about to start that cycle.


----------



## MamaTara (Dec 29, 2002)

Ummm...well, I hate to disagree, but I really, really do. Honest opinion? Well, as a holistic/sport nutritionist, I would have to say that our diets have a huge impact on the quality of our milk. Sorry, but saying that the food we consume is all broken down to be similar on a cellular level is simply not true. Everything we eat and drink has an effect on our bodies - all systems of our bodies on all levels. That being said, I'd rather see a baby enjoying breast milk from a Twinkies eating mama, than one with a bottle of formula in its mouth.

OT:
Sugar addiction is a very real phenomena - I too have struggled with this. It's a terrible cycle of craving and temporary relief, followed by more cravings. Just like any other addiction, consuming the substance and finding that the craving has gone away (only for it to return again) is a sure-fire way of recognizing it as an addiction. It's hard for people to hear, but the only way to stop the cravings is to remove the addictive substance - entirely. If that makes you break out in a sweat... well, you may have just confirmed that you have a problem. Eating smaller meals, 5-6 times a day with protein, fresh veggies and good fats will really help to normalize your blood sugar levels.

Sorry to go on, but I do believe that a healthy beginning is a God-given right of each child sent our way.

All the best,
Tara


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Tara, that makes 100% sense to me, but then I think about it in evolutionary terms, and it seems that if the quality of our BM was so dependent on our diet many fewer individuals would have thrived (because there have always been times and places where mothers' diets could not have adequate nutrition for whatever reason) and our species would not have done so well, KWIM? Let me know if that doesn't make sense, I'm typing too fast.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Tara, do you have suggestions for the "mini-meals" you recommend to help w/ the sugar problem? part of my problem is I am not at all creative in planning my meals. Thank you!


----------



## MamaTara (Dec 29, 2002)

Hi Nora's Mama,

But never in the history of our world have humans been introduced to so many UNfoods. Yes, there's times when people have been able to nurse their children when certain nutrients etc. are scarce and everyone survived, but did they THRIVE? Were they truly healthy with strong, functioning immune systems? It's a fact that native cultures following their native diets of non-processed, whole foods are incredibly healthy, but as soon as sugars and other refined products are introduced to their diets...wow! Rotting teeth, skeletal malformations, acne, decreased immunity equaling increased disease. Yes, of course breastfeeding your daughter is a wonderful thing. I encourage every mother to do so regardless of their diet. But, if you're asking me about achieving a vibrant, healthy child and whether or not our diets have any relation to our breast milk, well, I think we all inately know the answer to that question.

All of the foods that are plaguing the health of our industrialized nations (sugar, refined flours, trans fats etc...) are all very new when you consider how long we have lived without them in our diets. We are the experiments, and sadly, so are our children. Sugar depresses our immune system, some experts estimate that decrease to be over 90%, for hours after we eat it. I'm not saying a cookie is going to knock your baby out, I'm just saying that to think it doesn't affect the milk we're passing on may be more hopeful than realistic.

But, like most of the Mamas I talk to, I think you already know this deep down. Maybe that's why you asked the question in the first place?? Maybe it's not guilt you're feeling, but rather a little voice in your head/heart trying to be heard???

All the best to you and Nora.

Tara


----------



## MamaTara (Dec 29, 2002)

Well sure, but it would help to know if you're a vegetarian and what kind of foods you like. I stick to simple, whole, organic foods. Maybe snacks consisting of home-made hummus on manna bread with some cut up vegetables/a protein shake (made with plain whey ISOLATE/hemp protein pdr, fresh berries, flax seed/oil, greens), a poached egg(or two) with a slice of dark, flourless bread (whole grain), some fruit with raw nuts, roasted veggies (I make a large pan at a time) with a piece of chicken breast, etc. If you're having a really bad sugar craving, try substituting an unsweetened protein supplement mixed with a tablespoon of organic, plain cocoa, a teaspoon of stevia, some water (or coconut/almond/rice milk), vanilla, and ice. Honestly, it's delicious!

Hope this helps out a bit.


----------



## melissa_honeybee (May 20, 2005)

I try to eat healthy, and I'm alot more conscious of what I eat when pregnant and breastfeeding. I'm lucky enough to be able to stay home, I just quit my part time job to spend the last month of my pregnancy preparing. This gives me alot more time to prepare meals from scratch. Since we are on a tight budget we really don't buy many snacks, if I feel like eating cookies, I have to make them! This helps me eat less sweets. I don't know if this is feasible for you, though. If there aren't any twinkies in the house, you are more likely to eat some fruit!

I am a huge sweets fan, it doesn't really make sense but I find that eating chunks of block cheese helps my cravings!!

When you want to indulge in sweets, go all out- get something decadent and set aside a time to enjoy it. That's better than snakcing on junk all day, because in the long run that makes you feel gross.

Hope some of these tips help!


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

If you eat trans fats they show up in your milk.
http://www.infactcanada.ca/fats.htm

Humans do not possess the ability to break the double hydrogen bond of hydrogenated oil. Crisco, solid at room temp, stays solid in your body! It is the real reason for plaque that accumulates in arteries and the current epidemic of heart disease.

The healthy fats are olive, coconut, walnut, cod liver, and flax oil. Avocado. Butter, cream, eggs (also good sources of vitamin A, omega 3 fatty acids and CLA if from free range, pasture fed animals).

Canola, corn and safflower oil are not healthy.
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/

I disagree that our modern brains have not suffered in recent years. The AAP and CDC says 1 in 6 children has a neurodevelopmental disorder. Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and Multiple Sclerosis are common.

It really bothers me that the research studies are done on IQ points. I guess they are easily quantifiable. And safe. Not like a study correlating MS and formula feeding (although I swear I heard there was one.)

But that's not what BM is "known" for, building healthy brains. For life. No, we talk about a few IQ points. I really could care less about IQ. I don't think a few points will make a difference in my child's life. I've seen so many messages from FF mamas who just say, "Oh, I will play Mozart CDs and read to my child instead of BFing."

So easily dismissed.

But it's all about the proper fats at a critical time in the brain development (something like over 60% of brain is fat). The myelin sheath around the nerves which carry the impulses are made of fats. Let's talk about that, and then maybe the artificially dried and rancid fats in a can will be seen as the dangers they truly are. Who wants their babies brains built on that?

I firmly believe all disease is rooted in improper nutrition.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

JaneS: *All* disease? What about environmental toxins? Genetic disorders?

I appreciate your post, however, and you make good points. Just to be clear, I AVOID TRANS FATS!! Although I have not been perfect. Now I will be!

Could someone give me some links so I can read more?? I am fascinated, and slightly shamed.







:


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Oh, I also wanted to say that I talked about IQ as a shorthand for problems in brain development due to transfat consumption...ITA that the focus on "IQ points" is unhelpful.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Ok, so I first wrote, "Using the word *all* is maybe pushing it."









But then I thought about it some more. I don't think that is overstating it, I really don't.









Yes, environment and genetics are causes, absolutely. However, excellent nutrition does play a role in keeping the detox pathways of the body open and functioning to mitigate the damage toxins can do. And there are many genetic illnesses that can be effected with extraordinary nutrition.

So, yes, that is my belief right now.









I do believe in the harm of environmental toxins, especially now in this day and age, we are completely bombarded from every direction as no other time in history. Got my mercury fillings out for that very reason. And I'm on the path to healing the damage with nutrition. And cured myself of an autoimmune condition, which may or may not have had its root in mercury poisoning.

(The theories on causes of autism show this for example. Deficiencies in liver glutathione levels prevent a lot of ASD kids from excreting mercury and other metal toxins properly, thus damaging the brain. Is this really genetic though, since vitamin C raises glutathione levels? Perhaps a combination, we don't know for sure.)

I'm currently on a Weston Price kick. His research on the diets of native populations and their low incidence of disease is startling. It is a must read for anyone interested in nutrition.









http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/21/weston_price.htm

www.westonaprice.org

Also, the modern cookbook based his findings, "Nourishing Traditions", which is only half cookbook and the other half fascinating excerpts from books and research on nutrition.

http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/8/no...traditions.htm

And regarding genetics. Weston Price found that poor nutrition carried on to the next generation. I think it plays much more of a role than modern medicine is willing to study.

For ex., if all the children in a family (mine) needed glasses and braces, is it genetics? Or because my mom believed in a lowfat diet, and didn't eat enough preformed vitamin A in butter, eggs, cream and fish?
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...aminasaga.html

And we were all formula fed, which the recent article in Mothering showed changes to the dental arch as a result of the hard bottle nipple vs. the soft breast. Interestingly enough, Price found changes in the dental arch, tooth crowding, changes in facial shape as well from poor nutrition. So again, are narrowed nostrils and faces genetic to a family or are they the results of lack of nutrients in the diet as Price's pictures so obviously show?

This is very interesting to me to research and think about. Don't feel shamed. We are all on a path of learning. No mama can know or do everything.







I've done some things I regret too, but they only spurred me on to to learn more, and in the long run, our health will be even that much better.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:

Sorry, but saying that the food we consume is all broken down to be similar on a cellular level is simply not true.
Not sure if you were talking about something I said but I suspect you are since I'm the one who used that term, "cellular". Let me be more specific.

From Kellymom.com in speaking about certain "gassy" foods:

Quote:

"...breastmilk is made from what passes into mom's blood, not what is in her stomach or digestive track. Neither the gas nor the undigested carbohydrates (whose breakdown can cause gas in mom) pass into mom's blood, so it is impossible for these things to pass into your milk..."
This is what I was speaking about. Of course certain proteins (such as soy and dairy) are capable of passing into mom's milk.

Also from Kellymom.com:

Quote:

"you do not need to maintain a perfect diet in order to provide quality milk for your baby. In fact, research tells us that the quality of a mother's diet has little influence on her milk. Nature is very forgiving - mother's milk is designed to provide for and protect baby even in times of hardship and famine. A poor diet is more likely to affect the mother than her breastfed baby."
Kelly goes on to say

Quote:

"Are healthy eating habits recommended for mom? Absolutely! You will be healthier and feel better if you eat well. It is best for anyone to eat a variety of foods, in close to their naturally-occurring state, but this is not necessary for providing quality milk or for maintaining milk supply. Although it is certainly not recommended, a breastfeeding mother could live on a diet of junk food - mom would not thrive on that diet, but her milk would still meet her baby's needs."
I'd love to see some professional research published in scholarly journals that compares the quality of breast milk in a mother who eats "perfectly" compared to one who does not.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

whoops wrong post in this thread ... sorry!!!


----------



## henhao (Dec 17, 2004)

I agree with a pp that all disease is rooted in nutrition and I also believe it's all rooted in the colon (related to nutrition).

That said, I'm not a perfect eater. During pg I did SOOOO well. I ate lot sof protein, which did help with sugar cravings.

Now, like many of you, I have a new baby and crave junky sweets. I'm tired and have so little time to make real food. It's nice to know I'm not the only one.

Bfing makes me RAVENOUS. Dh has done a good job of keeping me fed with healthy food, but I could eat even more...am just realizing I need to up my calorie intake.

hh


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

However Kelly Mom does not talk about leaky gut... which is a relatively new concept. Very few lactation professionals even know about it, and studies have not been done on it.

We simply don't know what passes through the bloodstream in a permeable intestine b/c there is no scientific attention paid to this sort of thing. But is seems reasonable to assume since we are now getting reports that a wide range of foods are causing reactions in exclusively BF babes. This has to mean that food is not being broken down on a cellular level as we assume it is "supposed" to happen.

A mom with a damaged gut is not going to break her food down to a cellular level. Further study of what it means to have a leaky gut shows that the digestive enzymes and intestinal villi do not breaking down food adequately. And whole food molecules pass through to the bloodstream and implicated in a wide range of auto immune disorders, fibromyalgia, allergies, etc.

I haven't read the studies adequately re: quality of BM so I don't know the parameters (such as what is classified normal could really not be optimal b/c everyone is on the SAD, Standard American Diet, ykwim?) But I do know in the case of intestinal flora for example, a poor and deficient diet does indeed pass yeasts and bad bacteria as a result on to the child, to effect their intestinal flora balance, it doesn't just hurt the mom.

Also, so many women experience low supply around AF that is resolved with calcium/magnesium supplements... which clearly show that low minerals in your diet effect your milk. Might that be the reason why a lot of women also claim to not have enough milk from the beginning, I don't know.

(Because it's not just about eating foods with calcium, sugar strips minerals out of your body, it's about what you don't eat as well. And we all know sugar consumption is at an all time high in this country.)

So in my mind those two examples that I state prove diet of junk food is not going to produce adequate milk, I'm truly shocked Kelly Mom would say that. It does a serious disservice to both moms and babes to espouse this point of view.









I totally agree with you re: studies! But modern medicine treats nutrition as basically irrelevant. It's so frustrating. We are just not going to know definitively the answers to some of these questions.

Also eating "perfectly" is going to be so hotly debated. My idea of perfect used to be low fat vegetarian. It is completely opposite of that right now and I know and see the difference in my health.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

What is "leaky gut"? I've never heard this term, although I have heard of "virgin gut" as well as read some information regarding "open gut". But, if mom's gut is inadequate to the point that she does not digest her food down to the cellular level then she's not going to pass those undigested foods into her blood and thus, into her breast milk. Her body is simply going to rid itself of those undigested foods, not unlike how the human body rids itself of corn kernels, lol.

The quote I gave from Kellymom regarding a less than desirable diet isn't Kelly's opinion. Kelly's information comes from reputable scholarly journals based on actual research. So if what I quoted was her opinion then I could see how you might disagree. But it's relatively hard to dispute scientific fact if you do not have your own scientific fact(s) to call upon.

I still fail to see any proof that a junk food diet in mom will produce inadequate milk for her baby based on what you say. Because you've seen studies that show that if mom takes calcium/magnesium supplements then her milk supply doesn't decrease during AF and that an imbalance of intestinal flora in mom can cause the same in baby? These ideas seem to be like comparing apples and oranges. Of course it stands to reason that if mom eats crap then her milk will be crap too. But it's just not that simple. Nature has a way of insuring that babies receive what they need.

And by implying that breastfeeding mother's should eat "perfectly" we reinforce the myth that breastfeeding mother's have to somehow be perfect in order to give their baby the best. A great way to turn someone off from breastfeeding









Peace,


----------



## jocmtl (Nov 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heket*
First, this is







but you guys have got Taurean babies, not Pisces. (Says the stubborn, bull-headed Taurean mama... :LOL )

Sorry to chime in when the discussion has moved on, but ds was born March 14, so he is a Pisces; I just misread Nora's dates!! I do that all the time, read numbers wrong....


----------



## heket (Nov 18, 2003)

No apologies! I just didn't want you guys to wonder why your babe's traits weren't quite what you might read. It would get awfully confusing...







:LOL

This is a very interesting thread. JaneS, I can see where you're coming from. It's a shame that money isn't spend on things like this for studies so we could get a bigger picture with more concrete data.

I guess my personal motto in this matter would be "all things in moderation." We are guinea pigs for this post-industralized world but those items are going away. So while I do want to eat healthy to provide the best nutrients for my nursling, he also has to adapt to this world we're in. I'm not saying that we should eat only junk food or only healthy food, but I feel that a balance of both is needed so that his body can learn to respond to the large varieties of bad things out there (for the lack of a better phrase...). Not sure if that makes sense, but maybe someone out there will get my drift...


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me-mona*
I still fail to see any proof that a junk food diet in mom will produce inadequate milk for her baby based on what you say. Because you've seen studies that show that if mom takes calcium/magnesium supplements then her milk supply doesn't decrease during AF and that an imbalance of intestinal flora in mom can cause the same in baby? These ideas seem to be like comparing apples and oranges. Of course it stands to reason that if mom eats crap then her milk will be crap too. But it's just not that simple. Nature has a way of insuring that babies receive what they need.

And by implying that breastfeeding mother's should eat "perfectly" we reinforce the myth that breastfeeding mother's have to somehow be perfect in order to give their baby the best. A great way to turn someone off from breastfeeding

Here is some info for you originally posted by toraji in the Nutrition forum I am posting it here so you don't need to go searching through the thread for it which is long:

Quote:

"Lactation, therefore, appears to be relatively robust in the face of poor nutrition. Maternal diet can, however, affect the breastmilk concentrations of many minor constituents, particularly long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, some vitamins, zinc, selenium, iodine, and fluorine [51]. The profile of fatty acids in the mother's diet and adipose tissue stores is reflected in the fatty acids of breastmilk [5, 47]. The concentrations of two water-soluble vitamins, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C), show rapid, dose-related responses to maternal supplementation [4, 50]. The fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K are less responsive to diet because of the buffering action of maternal stores and carrier proteins, but large supplements can result in increased breastmilk concentrations, occasionally to potentially toxic levels [51]. Maternal zinc supplementation may slow the decline in breastmilk zinc concentration during lactation, although the magnitude of this effect and its significance for the breastfed child are still uncertain [41, 54]." from http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food/8F174e/8F174E04.htm

"The vitamin and mineral content of breast milk can be affected by maternal diet. The amount of thiamin, vitamin C, and vitamin B12 in breast milk, for example, varies based on the types of foods and supplements that the mother ingests. Thiamin deficiency (beriberi), iodine deficiency, cretinism, vitamin D deficiency (rickets), and vitamin B12 deficiency (pernicious anemia) have been diagnosed in infants breast-fed by mothers lacking sufficient nutrient levels." http://my.webmd.com/content/article/4/1680_51733

"Breastfed infants generally receive ample DHA from their mother's milk, although amounts vary considerably depending on maternal intake of omega-3 fatty acids. Vegetarian and vegan mothers have lower concentrations of DHA in their milk (26,27), although infant levels of DHA appear to be only slightly less than that of infants of omnivorous mothers (28). A DHA supplement based on cultured microalgae (under the trademark Neuromins) is now available from natural food stores nationwide." http://www.vegetariannutrition.net/...fatty_acids.htm
Surviving on breastmilk isn't the same as being optimally nourished by breastmilk. In order for a baby to be optimally nourished on it's mother's milk the mother need to have an optimal, nutrient dense diet. Sure a mother doesn't "need" a perfect diet, but I can assure you her baby would be much, much better off with one. We would not have so many children with trashed guts nor would we be seeing the chronic diseases, both physical and mental, we have today, and for the most part our children's mouths would be free of dental caries.

I think we should stress the importance of a good diet for nursing mothers and not sugar coat or even ignore the issue just to get women to nurse their babies regardless of what junk they are eating. This was of such great importance to all the indigenous peoples Weston A Price studied that they or their families would go out of their way to provide pregnant and lactating mothers the most nutrient dense of foods they had access too. These people also understood the importance of the pre-conception diet for both the mother and father.

PS: I am no longer breastfeeding, but all of my children were nursed until they were in their 5th year, so I hope I qualify to post here.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Thank you for posting that. I appreciate the links. I have read all of the articles you posted and I must admit, I have some questions. Please don't get me wrong. I enjoy debating things, especially as they relate to Human Lactation and am always eager to learn something new. I have been known to change my mind about things even if I was a strong supporter of the "other" side of the issue







That said....

Quote:

Lactation, therefore, appears to be relatively robust in the face of poor nutrition.
Or in other words, lactation appears to be unaffected by poor nutrition in the mother. LOL

Quote:

The concentrations of two water-soluble vitamins, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C), show rapid, dose-related responses to maternal supplementation [4, 50]. The fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K are less responsive to diet because of the buffering action of maternal stores and carrier proteins, but large supplements can result in increased breastmilk concentrations, occasionally to potentially toxic levels [51].
Riboflavin/B-12: Full-term infants of adequately nourished women are born with a total body vitamin B12 content of 30 to 40 µg (FAO, 1988). Assuming that 0.10 µg/day is required during infancy (FAO, 1988), these stores would supply an infant's needs for approximately 8 months. The 0.4 µg of vitamin B12 per day usually provided by human milk to the exclusively breastfed infant provides for ample accumulation of stores (FAO, 1988; NRC, 1989). Vitamin B12 concentrations in milk, and thus the infant's intake of this vitamin, are dependent on the mother's B12 intake and stores. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043913/html/157.html

So, we see here that it isn't until about the 8 month mark (in a full-term baby born to a mother who was adequately nourished) that mom's intake of vit b12 isn't much of an issue.

The reference I gave above discusses all of the vitamins and minerals mentioned. It's a really long read though and I have got to get out and get groceries. Unfortunately I just don't have time to link a reference to everything. But I wish I did!

What is an "adequate" diet in a breastfeeding mother though? Who is the one to decide what she needs to eat in order to provide the highest quality breastmilk to her baby? For all we know, those of us who try to get our "10 A Day" in plus the RDA of every vitamin and mineral each and every day could be providing the same quality milk as those who eat 5 A Day (or less) and don't take the RDA of vits/minerals.

To be sure, more research is needed. However, I'm of the opinion that perhaps we should work on getting more mother's to breastfeed in the first place before we start imposing strict dietary restrictions on her


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*

Or in other words, lactation appears to be unaffected by poor nutrition in the mother. LOL

The milk supply may well not be affected by poor nutrition, but the quality of milk I am of no doubt does.

Quote:

What is an "adequate" diet in a breastfeeding mother though? Who is the one to decide what she needs to eat in order to provide the highest quality breastmilk to her baby? For all we know, those of us who try to get our "10 A Day" in plus the RDA of every vitamin and mineral each and every day could be providing the same quality milk as those who eat 5 A Day (or less) and don't take the RDA of vits/minerals.
Here lies the issue. To begin with the RDA for minerals and vitamins is inadequate. Combine this with processed foods, high levels of white sugar, food additives, white flour, hydrogonated oils, GM foods, environmental and chemical (ie pharmaceutical) toxins and depleted soil quality that any person on a mainstream diet is not getting an optimal nutrition. To ensure, as a lactating mother, you are getting a nutrient dense diet you have to really be aware of many issues. I think it is possible, but you are going to have to disregard any goverment dietary advisory, any medical nutritional information and start looking at sources not in the pay of agribusiness.

Quote:

To be sure, more research is needed. However, I'm of the opinion that perhaps we should work on getting more mother's to breastfeed in the first place before we start imposing strict dietary restrictions on her








I personally don't trust research especially when it comes to nutrition there is too much misinformation and too much bias IMO. I do highly recommend you read the work of Weston A Price, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration to understand how important a nutrient dense diet is for everyone, especially pregnant and lactating women.

Here is a link to a great review of the book, so good you almost don't need to read actual book http://soilandhealth.org/02/0203CAT/...ppnf/PPNF.HTML (It isn't opening for me right now though).

I am not suggesting a restrictive diet at all. I am stressing a nutrient dense diet. I think you are doing a mother a diservice by not stressing the importance of diet, but this needs to include pre-conception and prenatal diet as well as lactation nutrition. Why do we have so many breastfed babies with reflux? Why to we have so many breastfed children with allergies; with asthma; with chronic diseases? Why do we have breastfed toddlers as young as 18 months with dental caries? And no it isn't the night nursing! The answer is poor maternal diet.

Obviously, babies need breastmilk and not formula, there is no comparison whatever the nutritional status of the mother. But I honestly think a case could be argued, in terms of health and nutrition, for a baby to be on raw milk formula vs the breastmilk of a mother who is seriously undernourished on an all too typical standard American diet of junk food, MSG laden processed and packaged meals, diet soda, pasteurized dairy products, genetically modified foods (in just about evey package food on the supermarket shelves today) and meats pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, if we are at all concerned about the longterm health of these children.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:

The quote I gave from Kellymom regarding a less than desirable diet isn't Kelly's opinion. Kelly's information comes from reputable scholarly journals based on actual research. So if what I quoted was her opinion then I could see how you might disagree. But it's relatively hard to dispute scientific fact if you do not have your own scientific fact(s) to call upon.
Except we both agree that there is a severe lack of scientific facts on BF'ing do we not? And Kelly Mom completely contradicts itself by my two examples.

1. Kelly Mom does say if you eat trans fats = trans fats end up in your milk.


> The FDA has said there is no safe level of trans fats to consume.
> Therefore a junk food diet produces unhealthy, substandard and potentially dangerous breastmilk. There is your proof.


2. Kelly Mom says if you notice a drop in your supply during AF, take calcium/magnesium. http://www.kellymom.com/herbal/natur...s.html#calcium


> Therefore, we have one concrete example of a lack of minerals in your diet produces low milk supply.


Quote:

And by implying that breastfeeding mother's should eat "perfectly" we reinforce the myth that breastfeeding mother's have to somehow be perfect in order to give their baby the best. A great way to turn someone off from breastfeeding








I didn't say a BF'ing mother had to eat "perfectly". If you reread my post, I was talking about research studies. It was in the context of our talking about studying a perfect diet... the problem is that what "perfect" is, is debatable. Hard to research.

My point is that diet effects your milk pure and simple. The junk you eat effects your milk quality and your supply and it should be discussed in that manner.

And, if the mother has leaky gut, and poor intestinal flora, it sets the child up for food allergies and other autoimmune reactions. (Trust me, I know, I'm living that particular scenario!)

Why do I have to encourage BF'ing by saying you can eat a junk food diet and still BF? Why can't we give mama's the education on nutrition that they deserve and say that your diet effects your child's health? IMO that fits into the whole point of BF'ing in the first place... to positively impact their health for the rest of their lives.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
What is "leaky gut"? I've never heard this term, although I have heard of "virgin gut" as well as read some information regarding "open gut". But, if mom's gut is inadequate to the point that she does not digest her food down to the cellular level then she's not going to pass those undigested foods into her blood and thus, into her breast milk. Her body is simply going to rid itself of those undigested foods, not unlike how the human body rids itself of corn kernels, lol.

Leaky gut is aka instestinal permeability.
http://www.gsdl.com/home/assessments...rmeabilty.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=425

Unfortunately you are using your own powers of deduction here that is not based on science. Obviously a whole corn kernel is not going to make it into the bloodstream. But whole proteins and sugar molecules do, as proved by the above test for intestinal permeability and article by Dr. Leo Galland (author of the most excellent book, "SuperImmunity for Kids").

The fact that leaky gut is wide ranging is indicated by the current examples of so many mamas we have on these boards of seeing a huge range of different food allergies and intolerances in their EBF babes. These proteins are "supposed" to be broken down and non-allergenic. They are obviously not if an EBF babe is showing reactions. So we have both science and anecdotal evidence here that is pointing the way to a very large problem.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

You still haven't proven anything to me though. You are stating a lot of your own opinions and your own powers of deductive reasoning. Perhaps you are unclear as to just what proof is. It is founded on scientific research published in scholarly journals and then peer reviewed. It is not based antecdotal data gathered from a group of breastfeeding women found online.

Case in point (amongst many):

Quote:

The fact that leaky gut is wide ranging is indicated by the current examples of so many mamas we have on these boards of seeing a huge range of different food allergies and intolerances in their EBF babes.
Prove this to me with some sort of scientific fact. How do you know that this huge range of different food allergies and intolerances in their EBF babies is because mom's diet is somehow lacking? I eat a wide variety of foods which I'm sure includes trans fats yet none of my EBF children have allergies or intolerances. I guess that must mean that my breast milk is perfect then? Just how a breastfeeding mother should eat? Should she eat like you? What constitutes a diet in a breastfeeding mother so that she provides 'optimal' breast milk to her child? Should she simply avoid trans fats?

If you choose to believe that we are doing our babies harm by breastfeeding them and eating a less than stellar diet then that is fine. You are obviously free to believe anything you want. But you cannot possibly try to pass it off as absolute truth given the overwhelming amount of data that tells us that breast milk remains stable and nutritious for the baby even if mom's diet is poor.

Peace,


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I have always seen the arguments from the LLL (like the Kelly Mom quotes) as somewhat politically motivated: to increase breastfeeding rates. Research shows that breastmilk is better than formula even in malnourished moms (read: don't worry about your milk, you're doing the best for your baby). It's true and it's better having mom BF even if their diet isn't up-to-snuff that it would be to have all babies on formula. But I haven't seen any research that picks apart the maternal diet issue even further to look at more than a minimal definition of adequate milk. Most MDC moms are not about "adequate" when it comes to feeding their babies.

But something that is addressed even less is what is the impact on the MOM when eating a diet only marginally "adequate" where baby is first in line to get nutrients? So the milk in that case might be better than one would predict given mom's diet because baby is first in line. All the while, mom is getting depleted of important nutrients. Ask me how I know.







So in my opinion, it's important to look not just at the nutritional content of the milk but at the nutrition of the nursing pair and make recommendations from there. If you want two well-nourished people to exit out of this phase of life, you'd better pay attention to what you are doing.

But why won't this issue get discussed at a LLL mtg? Let's not make people think BFing is hard. Fact is, living is hard if you are going to do it in a healthy way. So is parenting. But I am sure we would all agree that they are worth it.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
You still haven't proven anything to me though. You are stating a lot of your own opinions and your own powers of deductive reasoning. Perhaps you are unclear as to just what proof is. It is founded on scientific research published in scholarly journals and then peer reviewed. It is not based antecdotal data gathered from a group of breastfeeding women found online.

Prove this to me with some sort of scientific fact. How do you know that this huge range of different food allergies and intolerances in their EBF babies is because mom's diet is somehow lacking? I eat a wide variety of foods which I'm sure includes trans fats yet none of my EBF children have allergies or intolerances. I guess that must mean that my breast milk is perfect then? Just how a breastfeeding mother should eat? Should she eat like you? What constitutes a diet in a breastfeeding mother so that she provides 'optimal' breast milk to her child? Should she simply avoid trans fats?

If you choose to believe that we are doing our babies harm by breastfeeding them and eating a less than stellar diet then that is fine. You are obviously free to believe anything you want. But you cannot possibly try to pass it off as absolute truth given the overwhelming amount of data that tells us that breast milk remains stable and nutritious for the baby even if mom's diet is poor.

I wasn't proving leaky gut. I was describing it. Those of us who deal with allergies are trying to come to an understanding of the cause and how to fix it. Perhaps it is not the answer, however, my view has helped us and I'm merely trying to help others with the hard knowledge we have gained.

I was suppling proof, with KellyMom's own information, that eating junk food does not ensure quality milk or good supply.

I'm not here to judge perfection I am here to learn and to help with the limited information and limited time we all have access to.

I'm very sorry I seem to have hurt your feelings (your previous, unedited post came through in my email notification). I never accused you or anyone else of harming their children. That is not my style on these boards, in every single one of my many posts, and never has been.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Jane,

Quote:

I'm very sorry I seem to have hurt your feelings (your previous, unedited post came through in my email notification). I never accused you or anyone else of harming their children. That is not my style on these boards, in every single one of my many posts, and never has been.
I edited my post because I had included a comment about what I perceived as defensivness and snarkiness in your replies to me. But then I thought that maybe, just perhaps, I was misreading your tone. So I thought better of including that remark and that is why I edited my post.

However, I never said that you hurt my feelings nor did I mean to imply it. From what I have gathered in your posts, you seem to be saying that if one eats junk food or trans fats (or perhaps other things that you have not mentioned) that you feel that those women are either doing harm to their nurslings or they are not giving them the best by breastfeeding them. This does not hurt my feelings one bit. I do not believe what you believe. I've asked you several times to give me something to work with but you have not. And that is fine. But again, you cannot expect to sell someone on something based on speculation or antedoctes or even opinion. Has this conversation given me something to think about? Sure it has. And I will look into the issue further on my own and I will call upon scientific research to make my final determination, if I'm so able to do that. Sometimes I just do not know about something because I have not been compelled adequately in either direction.

Also, you asked "Why do I have to encourage BF'ing by saying you can eat a junk food diet and still BF?" Well, what are you going to do? Are you going to tell women that if they can't eat some ideal diet that they shouldn't breastfeed at all then? FWIW, since socioeconomic status has a lot to do with whether a mother breastfeeds or not, I would be socioeconomic status probably is a factor in a woman's diet as well. The more educated and financially stable she is may just influence how well she eats









To Gale Force ~ it is still my contention, in the face of inadequate research, that first we should compell women to breastfeed in the first place. I see nothing political about a mother breastfeeding her child. We all know that it is best. As for MDC mom's not being about "adequate"...well, neither am I. However, our choices are to either breastfeed or not and if women feel that they need to eat really well in order to provide high quality breastmilk to their babies then that will be another reason they'll decide to formula feed. In fact, many women choose formula over breast for this very reason alone. They have been told that if they're going to nurse that they have to maintain some sort of diet that they don't feel they'll be able to do. So, what is worse? Poor or low quality breastmilk (if such a thing even exists in someone with an "adequate" diet) or formula?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
So, what is worse? Poor or low quality breastmilk (if such a thing even exists in someone with an "adequate" diet) or formula?

Clearly, formula is worse. But in a community such as MDC where we can easily agree on that conclusion, I see no harm in analyzing this strategy to improve breastfeeding rates. I know why the strategy exists and I don't disagree with it. But here, among you all, we can be even more radical and examine the factors that might affect the quality of mother's milk. And my view is that you can't get blood out of a stone. If it ain't in your body and it ain't in your diet, it ain't in your milk. If we can agree on that, it is a small leap of faith to agree that if I have extreme deficiencies in something, my milk will as well.

For example, in my tests from 2003, I have extremely low levels of lithium and the amino acid taurine. I was quite low in other aminos as well. If I had continued on my diet that was low in lithium and in taurine and if my digestion had continued to be poor and reduced my ability to absorb these nutrients from my food, just how would it have ended up in my breastmilk in anything other than deficient quantities? Sure, my breastmilk would have still been better than formula for a whole lot of reasons, but it would not have been all that it could have been.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

OK, pardon the quick post and lack of using the quote function, 'cause I'm furiously getting my MDC posting in before DD wakes to BF (any time now!).

This has been a really interesting discussion. I briefly looked at some of the websites you posted, JaneS, and I can't say I'm convinced. However, I need to look further - I'm not at all discarding the ideas, they seem very sensible - of course we will thrive on a nutrient-rich diet, although it is clear studying populations all over the world that what constitutes such a diet is variable.

However it also seems to me that the phrase "lactation is robust" does not just refer to milk SUPPLY, but also to QUALITY.

Just some thoughts. OK, gotta go! Much food for thought, and although for me the jury is still out on the importance of a great diet while BF, I will *definitely* be improving my diet, just out of the guilt factor. Stopping the sugar is SO HARD, though.

~Elizabeth


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Oh, JaneS, I was also hoping you could elaborate on your opinion that many babies would be better off on a raw-milk formula than breastfeeding. This really surprised me.







It reminded me of something I read a while back about Scientology...apparently at one point Scientologists were cautioned not to BF and instead to use this very special formula that the head Scientology guy cooked up...anyway, it sounded like a very dangerous idea and so I was shocked when a clearly intelligent person said something similar. I also subscribe to Dr. Mercola's newsletter and I know he has a baby formula recipe (perhaps the one you are thinking of?) but it was always my understanding that it was to be used for babies whose mothers were UTBF...not as a "superior" replacement for breastmilk.

~E


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Oh, JaneS, I was also hoping you could elaborate on your opinion that many babies would be better off on a raw-milk formula than breastfeeding. This really surprised me.

That was not my comment.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Elizabeth,

I'm not sure I would be convinced by the information just contained in the links either. The book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" contains a huge amount of research regarding nutrition and its impact on prenatal nutrition and how it relates to birth defects. And nutritional impact on cavities, disease, bone development, facial structure, mental and behavioral disorders etc. It's quite comprehensive and unique in its focus.

There's an extraordinary amount of information at www.westonaprice.org. I've been reading for a year now and still not finished.

Also, the Price-Pottenger foundation carries ongoing nutritional research based on their work. http://www.price-pottenger.org


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
This has been a really interesting discussion. I briefly looked at some of the websites you posted, JaneS, and I can't say I'm convinced. However, I need to look further - I'm not at all discarding the ideas, they seem very sensible - of course we will thrive on a nutrient-rich diet, although it is clear studying populations all over the world that what constitutes such a diet is variable.

I got your unedited version via email, and was going to address your deleted paragraph, but won't now as you would like to think through it some more.

Anyway, yes we do thrive on a nutrient dense diet because our bodies need those nutrients to live free of disease. Natural cultures live and thrive in all areas of the planet and have access to different nutrient dense foods, so it stands to reason that they will have different diets, but what connects them all is the nutritional value of the foods they consume. The people Weston A Price studied without exception ate foods that were whole fresh, uncontaminated by additives, salt and sugar, grown in soil still rich in essential minerals. When these peoples came in contact with Western foods, ie those high in sugar, white processed flour and other "junk" foods they became sick and the health of their teeth degenerated rapidly. On a poor diet (ie SAD) the offspring of each generation will deteriorate more and more, so if your parents and grandparents diet comprised sub-nutritious foods your child will be more likely to have health issues. Diabetes, arthritis, cancer and other chronic disease are the manifestations of this generational nutritional degeneration. Add to this the fact our soil has been criminally depleted of minerals and our environment is disgustingly polluted, the need for nutritent-dense foods for ourselves and our children is of absolute vital important if we are to remain healthy as a species. Quite frankly, I don't think we a healthy species any longer.

I was the one that commented that it _could_ be argued that a baby would do better on a raw milk formula than breastmilk from a mother who is malnourished on a toxic mainstream diet. Now I am not advocating this at all and certainly not for a baby under 12 months of age. The determining factor is who eats more of balanced diet, the mother or the animal? I need to stress here I am only talking about raw milk for grade A pasture-fed animals.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

From http://www.westonaprice.org/children/recipes.html -

Quote:

The ideal milk for baby, if he cannot be breastfed, is clean, whole raw milk from old-fashioned cows, certified free of disease, that feed on green pasture.
It might be beneficial to know why and how commercial baby formula came to be. In a nutshell, it was "invented" because mother's were giving their babies cow's milk (most likely raw - unpasturized and unhomogenized) because of breastfeeding mismanagement, societial pressures and cultural changes. The infant mortality rate was through the roof. It was a national epidemic and someone needed to do something to save these babies. Unfortuantely what started out as an effort save the lives of babies inadvertantly made artificial milk more accessible and popular.

If you can find it, it is a really interesting read and it discusses the issue of the decline of breastfeeding in the 19th and 20th centuries: _Don't Kill Your Baby: Public Health and the Decline of Breastfeeding in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries_. By Jacqueline H. Wolf. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2001. xviii, 290 pp. Cloth, $65.00, ISBN 0-8142-0877-0. Paper, $24.95, ISBN 0-8142-5077-7.) It is actually a text book used in women's studies classes mainly (too bad it isn't utilized in more medical classes) so that's why it's so expensive and difficult to find in county & city libraries.

Just some more food for thought in this discussion.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
It might be beneficial to know why and how commercial baby formula came to be. In a nutshell, it was "invented" because mother's were giving their babies cow's milk (most likely raw - unpasturized and unhomogenized) because of breastfeeding mismanagement, societial pressures and cultural changes.

Yep, moms were giving their babies canned milk with karo syrup. Most people now in their 50s, 60s, and 70s grew up on that. Why anyone thought that was a good idea is beyond me. Perhaps they thought canned milk was more sanitary.

Thanks for the book recommendation Carol, it sounds very interesting.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
From http://www.westonaprice.org/children/recipes.html -

It might be beneficial to know why and how commercial baby formula came to be. In a nutshell, it was "invented" because mother's were giving their babies cow's milk (most likely raw - unpasturized and unhomogenized) because of breastfeeding mismanagement, societial pressures and cultural changes. The infant mortality rate was through the roof. It was a national epidemic and someone needed to do something to save these babies. Unfortuantely what started out as an effort save the lives of babies inadvertantly made artificial milk more accessible and popular.

It might also be interesting to know why milk was pasteurized in the the first place:

Quote:

120-150 years ago many people died (especially young children) from diseases transmitted in raw milk. In the 1800's, many US dairies began commercially producing low quality raw milk in the inner cities of Boston and New York and others. These Brewery dairies would feed their cows very poor quality "brewer's mash." The resulting milk was very weak and nearly blue from lack of protein, mineral, and fat content. This occurred during the Jamaican rum embargo. During this same time period, the dairy industry did not use or have access to refrigeration, stainless steel, milking machines, rubber hoses, hot water, or chlorine as a sanitizer. TB and Brucellosis was rampant (not to mention horse manure on the streets, flies, and lack of public sanitation and sewage) and the cows were milked by hand with out mechanical machines. The cows stood in manure and there was no access to pasture (sounds like some factory dairy farms of 2005). The resulting unhealthy milk from these sources literally killed millions. The heating of milk to high temperatures eliminated this horrible blight. During this same time period, milk from the country side taken from pasture grazed healthy and clean cows was the best medicine of the day. In fact, the Mayo Clinic used this high quality country raw milk as a basis for many disease curing therapies. This was the untold story of raw milk. Because of pasteurization successes, commercial interests prevailed and all dairies (the good, bad, and the ugly) then began to pool their milk and no body would die even if milk quality was very poor. This was great news for milk mass marketing and creameries created high profits.
http://organicpastures.com/faq/

So you see it was like these city babies likely died from contaminated raw milk or from inappropriate pasteurized milk, not to mention poor sanitation.

Babies can thrive on raw milk, as Francis Pottenger MD has demonstrated with his studies, but not as well as babies fed breastmilk from well nourished mothers, but way better than babies fed formula, pasteurized milk or boiled milk.

Dr A.F. Hess in 1916 wrote in abstracts that pasteurized milk was an incomplete food (obviously we know that now). He proved that infants developed scurvy on a diet of pasteurized milk. The form of scurvy took months to develop and was termed subacute. The infants were cured of scurvy when raw milk was substituted. He also studied infants fed only raw milk and none of those developed scurvy.

I guess these points really address the issue of formula vs raw milk feeding of infants, but it does illustrate that raw milk can be utilized safely to feed infants, not that you would want that.


----------



## chasmyn (Feb 23, 2004)

Don't mind me, just subscribing to this fascinating thread.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama*
I guess these points really address the issue of formula vs raw milk feeding of infants, but it does illustrate that raw milk can be utilized safely to feed infants, not that you would want that.

Thanks T*annu. Your quotes also illustrate the point that junk food in = junk milk out.

Gale Force,
I was fed on canned evaporated milk and Karo syrup. My mom actually wanted to BF but was told by her dr. that it wasn't that good for babies (and her DH wouldn't like it) and provided this "recipe" instead.







:


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Clearly, formula is worse. But in a community such as MDC where we can easily agree on that conclusion, I see no harm in analyzing this strategy to improve breastfeeding rates. I know why the strategy exists and I don't disagree with it. But here, among you all, we can be even more radical and examine the factors that might affect the quality of mother's milk. And my view is that you can't get blood out of a stone. If it ain't in your body and it ain't in your diet, it ain't in your milk.

I've been thinking about what you said... it's been many a health issue that I feel we have made enormous progress on by sharing our knowledge here at MDC. IMO, the community contains an extraordinary amount of wisdom that few have access to.

I think we are pushing the boundaries and finding the essential truths through our own learning, determination and discussion, not waiting for mainstream science to dictate to us. Radical is indeed the word for it, revolution from the roots. Our conclusions may not be applicable to everyone.

But I find that exciting and enormously valuable. It has literally changed my family's life, and for that I will always be grateful.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:

junk food in = junk milk out.
That just isn't true though. There is no scientific, research-based evidence that proves this. In fact, the research that is available points to just the opposite. It tells us that no matter how poor mom's diet is, her breastmilk is still the best food for her baby.

Kelly of Kellymom.com addressed some of the issues in this thread on her message board. You can get to it by going to kellymom.com and clicking on the "message boards" link. Go into the Breastfeeding & Parenting forum and then look for the post entitled "Low Quality Breastmilk or Differing qualities of BM?" thread.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Mona --

There isn't research of this sort on human milk -- no research to confirm the claims nor to disprove them. We all know how woefully inadequate the research in this area is.

But there is a good bit of research on cow's milk. Let me ask this question of anyone who consumes dairy products:

Do you buy organic dairy products? Why?

Amanda


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Amanda,
There is no question that _some_ of the things a breastfeeding mother ingests ends up in her milk. I do not dispute this fact. However, drugs such as antibiotics (this is what I assume you are hinting at when you ask about buying organic milk) are not food. Different substances (food vs. drugs) are metabolized and broken down differently by the body. You and I could both ingest exactly the same drug and it not show up in our breastmilk in the same concentrations (or at all!). As an example, increased iron or calcium supplements in a breastfeeding mother does not make her breastmilk higher in either of those things. And it should go without saying that humans are not cow's. The research done on cow's milk cannot even begin to compare to human breastmilk. Also, the last time I checked, hormones & antibiotics were nearly undetectable in cow's milk. This is an area of debate -- organic cow's milk vs. traditional. I can tell you why I used to buy organic milk -- because I thought that *maybe*, just *maybe* (hopefully!) that the cow's were treated a bit better than their "traditional" counterparts. I'm pretty sure this is not the case though (after hearing what a vet of mine in PA had to say about organic dairy farms).

The point being that while it seems to be common sense that what we ingest ends up in our breastmilk but it just isn't that simple. Again though, I don't disagree that some of what we take in does end up in our breastmilk. But whether this is bad for our breastfeeding babies has yet to be established through research. And yes, I agree that there is a lack of research in this area. My argument here (and it is a friendly one!) is that until we know for certain, it's probably not the best idea in the world to go boasting to would-be-nursing mother's that they should maintain a diet free of trans fats, junk food and sweets. The research that we do have tells us that -- what was the quote used earlier? -- something about breastmilk remaining robust in the face of poor maternal nutrition.

And don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea to think outside the box, push the envelope and explore other options.


----------



## wendy1221 (Feb 9, 2004)

I think a more serious issue of what's in cow's milk (we don't drink it at all) is not the hormones and antibiotics, although they're definitely bad--it's the pesticides. Animals, even dairy cows and animals that are meant for people food, are fed grains, etc, laden w/ pesticides that are not approved for human consumption. Usually b/c they are known to be harmful to people. And while we are not eating these pesticides directly on our veggies and grains like the animals are, these pesticides usually built up in fat, so we are actually getting higher doses of them in cow's milk and in meats than we would if these pesticides were used on our grains, fruits and veggies. I am a chemist and took environmental chemistry, so is my dh (he's in his 4th year in a PhD program--we went to undergrad together, so he took the same excellent enviro chem class I did), and my FIL is a PhD chemist who studied dioxins in chicken for the FDA for years and years--and apparently they're pretty bad in commercial chicken! (Just letting you know where I got my info.) I try to buy free-range meats when possible--will ONLY buy free-range once dh has a real job (or I do, thouh he's more likely. LOL!)--when possible, very hard on out very limited budget and like I said, we don't do dairy, but if we did, it would be all organic. PASTEURIZED organic, I might add, not homogenized, but definitely pasteurized (have you ever heard of the bovine leukemia virus raw milk drinkers???) But that's never going to happen b/c I don't think mammals should drink the milk of another species unless it's a dire situation where it's absolutely necessary. The thought of drinking animal milk is just disgusting to me. If I were ever in a situation where I didn't have enouh bm for my baby, I'd ask my sister or a friend to nurse him. She nursed my ds a few days before ds3 was born, actually. He was sick and only wanted to nurse and I obviously had no milk.

Obviously, I totally agree w/ you that human milk, no matter how poorly nourished the source (as long as the woman doesn't have an incurable communicable disease), is better for babies than any formula or animal milk. Obviously it's better for the baby to have a well-nourished mama feeding him, but her milk is still better than cow's for him even if she eats twinkies all day long. JMO.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
My argument here (and it is a friendly one!) is that until we know for certain, it's probably not the best idea in the world to go boasting to would-be-nursing mother's that they should maintain a diet free of trans fats, junk food and sweets.

Actually, I think that everybody should maintain a diet free of transfats, junk food, sugar, and any other processed foods.

IRL I come into contact with a lot of young moms. I don't discuss these issues as I am discussing these here for the very reason you are resistent to my argument. I don't want them not to BF. I do mention that they should have foods high in nutrients so that they will have the energy to care for their babies (not implying that BFing is depleting them even though it is, again my goal is the same as yours).

I don't think you need a "perfect" diet either to be successful and to nourish your baby. Everyone should look at their diet and make one easy step to add nutrients to their meals. And than make another step. I am still making steps here myself.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
Amanda,
There is no question that _some_ of the things a breastfeeding mother ingests ends up in her milk. I do not dispute this fact. However, drugs such as antibiotics (this is what I assume you are hinting at when you ask about buying organic milk) are not food.

This is why I think it would of great benefit for lactation activists to read Weston Price's book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." Don't worry, he doesn't talk about feeding babies cow's milk (not that I remember anyway). The Weston Price Foundation has taken his work and added complementary research and arguments. Not everyone who is a supporter of WAPF agrees with all of them. Just as in every other group, there is variation in opinions. But I digress.

Read the book. He has fascinating studies on cow milk. He links vitamin content of milk to death rates in a powerful cross-regional, temporal study. He links the vitamin content of the milk to the diet of the cows.

-> Diet of cows affects milk of cows affects drinkers of milk.

You can seen why we might also then believe that:

->Diet of humans affects milk of humans affects drinkers of milk.

Look at the book. Read his milk studies. They are fascinating.

And you've got to understand how Jane and I found WAPF (I've read enough of Jane's posts to know). We learned from the School of Hard Knocks. In my case there was less impact on my son but a huge impact on me. I am still recovering from severe postpartum depression induced by nutritional deficiencies. You'll see in one of my posts above in this thread that a big concern of mine is the nursing pair, not just the nursling. It does no service to either to pretend that junk food doesn't matter. No one should be eating it. Nutrition matters.

Read Weston Price's book. It will change the way you think about things. You will still probably not give egg yolk to your baby, neither do I.

In fact, this is what I'll do. I am about to place an Amazon order. I will order an extra Price book. Anyone who wants to read it can PM me. I'll ship it to the first person who responds and that person can keep it for two weeks and ship it to the next person on the list. Carol, you are first on the list if you would like to read it. No obligation. I am not going to post back here who is reading it and who is not.

Amanda


----------



## justmama (Dec 24, 2002)

this thread is just fascinating!







:


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

:
Okay, as an aside from eating popcorn, I just wanted to say that if a woman's constitution is strong enough that she can eat junk and still have lots of energy while EBF for 9 months, and BFing 99% until 14 or 15 months and then getting pregnant, but still nursing at 21 months . . . all the power to her. I sure couldn't. Had I not done some research into the impact my diet was causing and realized how nutritionally deficient I was (and as a result, how dd was beginning to show signs - I didn't have it in me, so she wasn't getting it either), I don't think we'd still be nursing - I think my state of health would not have allowed it no matter how much I idealize CLW. I think a lot of women give up because of this. So, yeah, diet's important. Diet's definitely important if we want to get extended BF rates up.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Thanks for the offer, Amanda! Tell me the name of the book and I will find it and read it. Although I will admit to you that I have done some research on Weston Price and what I've found has not shown him in a very positive light. I have a hard time finding anything he says to be valid since he recommends giving infants raw cow's milk and eggs - two things that can cause serious damage to a baby. But I am willing to take a look at this book that you are talking about and draw my own conclusions.

It is quite interesting to me though that in this thread so many have been quick to use their own antedotes in coming to a conclusion that maternal diet affects the quality of breastmilk, even when faced with actual scientific research that indicates this is not the case.

As for extended breastfeeding rates: I'm an EBF'er. My diet is less than perfect. I have a difficult time getting my "5 a Day" in (much less the 10 a Day that is currently recommended). I drink coffee and diet soda along with my water. I eat fast food & cookies from time to time (although not often). My diet surely could be better. But I have plenty of energy -- energy to nurse my daughter as much as she wants to. Energy to chase & wrestle my 3 and 5 year olds around. I even have enough energy to get a good 3 mile run in most days. Education and support are the *most* important in not only getting a woman to breastfeed in the first place but to encourage her to continue as well. Telling her to eat better (and again, may I point out that no one in this discussion has been able to tell me just what a nursing mother should be eating) is only going to discourage her from continuing to breastfeed because she'll perceive it as being too difficult.

There is no evidence that suggests that maternal diet negatively affects breastmilk and to tell a nursing mother or would-be nursing mother that is does is irresponsible. It feeds the myth that nursing mothers must some how be 'better' than her FF counterpart.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

I said it on another thread, I'll say it again.

Good science never says "There's no evidence, so that can't be". GOOD SCIENCE ALWAYS ASKS "WHY?"

In this case, why are there so many people who have trouble? Do we find one explanation based on something other than diet and call it a day? Do we ignore the very real FACT that one's own diet impacts one's own energy and overall health, or do we admit to that but decide because there's no research at our fingertips to show otherwise that our own health will not impact our children as well? If a mother's diet affects her unborn child, would it not affect her bairn as well?

GOOD SCIENCE IS ABOUT QUESTIONS/SEEKING ANSWERS, _NOT_ ABOUT DRAWING RIGID CONCLUSIONS. Anecdotal evidence may not be conclusive, but it _should_ lead to more questions - as such, it is never irrelevant.


----------



## natashaccat (Apr 4, 2003)

I didn't have time to read all this thread but has anyone read the book Mother Food? She also claims that maternal diet plays a role in BF quality, in particular regarding trans fats.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Also, any woman who is too selfish to make dietary changes to keep up her breastfeeding relationship would probably not continue if the going got a little rough and her energy started to wane anyway.
If a woman thinks, however, that her diet will not make a difference and that she's so exhausted she can't even get out of bed in the morning, she may not think she has a choice. Would you deny a woman ALL of the avenues to explore to enhance her/her baby's health? I hope not.
When did we decide that women were too stupid to sift through information given and draw their own conclusions?


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

I don't even know what you are talking about HerthElde. I haven't mentioned denying anyone anything. Nor did I use words like stupid or selfish either.

The problem that I'm seeing in this thread is that people disregard things that don't fit their agenda. I'm asking exactly what you touched on, that we all sift through the information and draw our own conclusions. I would hope though that the information that we do sift through is not antedotal and that it is based on real scientific research.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:

In this case, why are there so many people who have trouble? Do we find one explanation based on something other than diet and call it a day? Do we ignore the very real FACT that one's own diet impacts one's own energy and overall health, or do we admit to that but decide because there's no research at our fingertips to show otherwise that our own health will not impact our children as well?
GOOD SCIENCE IS ABOUT QUESTIONS/SEEKING ANSWERS, NOT ABOUT DRAWING RIGID CONCLUSIONS. Anecdotal evidence may not be conclusive, but it should lead to more questions - as such, it is never irrelevant.
Why are there so many people that have trouble? Where are all of these people, I ask you. I've seen three people in this thread come forward and say that they made dietary changes and saw results. Big deal. Like I said, I don't think that I eat all that well myself yet I have not had any problems. So should I then conclude that because I have not had problems that it is okay to eat poorly? NO, of course not. Instead I look to the scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that we have available to us.

If a mother's diet affects her unborn child, would it not affect her bairn as well? I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that if a mother's diet affects her unborn child, would it not affect the unborn child's brain as well? Or the mother's brain? Even still, we are discussing maternal diet & it's effects on breastmilk. Pregnancy and lactation are two completely separate biologicial functions. You cannot compare the effects of one on the other.

"GOOD SCIENCE IS ABOUT QUESTIONS/SEEKING ANSWERS, NOT ABOUT DRAWING RIGID CONCLUSIONS." Yes well at some point we all must arrive at a conclusion for our own self. Did you not arrive at a conclusion regarding your own diet? And who said anything about rigidity? One is free to arrive at one conclusion and then when faced with more evidence, change their mind.

I apologize that you were offended by my disagreement with you.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
If a mother's diet affects her unborn child, would it not affect her bairn as well? I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that if a mother's diet affects her unborn child, would it not affect the unborn child's brain as well?

"Bairn"= child who is already born. I apologize, I should have used language which was, well, modern english.

My second post was mostly in reference to your implication that if we say diet affects nursing, we sabotage the desire of women to nurse.

Quote:

There is no evidence that suggests that maternal diet negatively affects breastmilk and to tell a nursing mother or would-be nursing mother that is does is irresponsible. It feeds the myth that nursing mothers must some how be 'better' than her FF counterpart.
I truly feel that if a woman cares about her child and if she honestly believes that trans-fats negatively impact her baby's brain, she will attempt to cut them out (or almost out) without a second thought. Every (well, most) mother does what she feels is best overall for her children, even if in her past she believed something else was best, even if in the future she'll draw different conclusions about what is best.
I wasn't offended by your post, and hope you weren't offended by mine, although I know I came off a little more aggressive than I had intended to. It's so much easier to have these conversations in real life (easier to see intent when you can see someone's face). It's just that your statement seems to imply that if women think they have to do something different, they just won't be bothered to do so, and I disagree. Parenthood is about change.

Quote:

The problem that I'm seeing in this thread is that people disregard things that don't fit their agenda
Exactly.

(That said, just because you give someone information or references doesn't mean they will come to the same conclusions - I believe transfats have an incredibly negative impact on nursing babies and babies in utero so I try to avoid them. But if I didn't truly believe there was an effect, I probably wouldn't make such an effort, kwim? I'm just trying to get across that I don't believe one is a bad mother for eating that kind of stuff, just that at this moment in time we probably have made different conclusions)-(BTW, totally OT, but I've known about the negative impact of _trans_fatty acids for a few years - learned about it in a biochem class - so the whole use of it as such a buzzword is really starting to grate on me. This statement isn't directed at anyone at all, I just had to get it off my chest







)


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
Thanks for the offer, Amanda! Tell me the name of the book and I will find it and read it. Although I will admit to you that I have done some research on Weston Price and what I've found has not shown him in a very positive light. I have a hard time finding anything he says to be valid since he recommends giving infants raw cow's milk and eggs - two things that can cause serious damage to a baby. But I am willing to take a look at this book that you are talking about and draw my own conclusions.

You are confused with the work of Sally Fallon, author of Nourishing Traditions and the Weston A Price Foundation, and the actual work of Price. Fallon is just one person who has based her work on WAP. She didn't nurse her children, so obviously she has some issues around breastfeed. No where does Weston A Price recommend giving cows milk or egg yoke to babies. However, I and others have already demonstrated how raw cows milk is benefitial for children, not saying babies under 12 months of age here.

Quote:

As for extended breastfeeding rates: I'm an EBF'er. My diet is less than perfect. I have a difficult time getting my "5 a Day" in (much less the 10 a Day that is currently recommended). I drink coffee and diet soda along with my water. I eat fast food & cookies from time to time (although not often). My diet surely could be better. But I have plenty of energy -- energy to nurse my daughter as much as she wants to. Energy to chase & wrestle my 3 and 5 year olds around. I even have enough energy to get a good 3 mile run in most days. Education and support are the *most* important in not only getting a woman to breastfeed in the first place but to encourage her to continue as well. Telling her to eat better (and again, may I point out that no one in this discussion has been able to tell me just what a nursing mother should be eating) is only going to discourage her from continuing to breastfeed because she'll perceive it as being too difficult.
I am afraid your diet does not sound optimal for nourishing both your body and your child's. For a start do you know what you are consuming and passing on to your child by drinking diet soda? Have you any idea what aspartame does to your brain and that of your children? http://dorway.org/

Quote:

There is no evidence that suggests that maternal diet negatively affects breastmilk and to tell a nursing mother or would-be nursing mother that is does is irresponsible. It feeds the myth that nursing mothers must some how be 'better' than her FF counterpart.
There is evidence, it is just you choose not to acknowlege this fact. Stating the obvious that what we eat does impact our bodies is not being irrresponsible, to the contray you can empower mothers to take charge of their own health and that of their children. It is also not feeding the myth that nursing mothers must somehow be better than their ff conterparts. Everyone, if they care about their health and the health of their children needs to take nutrition and diet seriously. I feel you are closed to the issue, maybe to justify your own eating habits?

Diet for Pregnant and Nursing Mothers


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Let's take this journey together:
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309043913/html/

Quote:

Does Maternal Nutritional Status Influence Milk Composition
The composition of human milk is distinct from the milk of other mammals and from infant formulas ordinarily derived from them. Human milk is unique in its physical structure, types and concentrations of macronutrients (protein, fat, and carbohydrate), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), enzymes, hormones, growth factors, host resistance factors, inducers/modulators of the immune system, and anti-inflammatory agents.

A number of generalizations can be made about the effects of maternal nutrition on the composition of milk (see also Table 1-1):

Even if the usual dietary intake of a macronutrient is less than that recommended in Recommended Dietary Allowances (NRC, 1989), there will be little or no effect on the total amount of that nutrient in the milk. However, the proportions of the different fatty acids in human milk vary with maternal dietary intake.

The concentrations of major minerals (calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) in human milk are not affected by the diet. Maternal intakes of selenium and iodine are positively related to their concentrations in human milk, but there is no convincing evidence that the concentrations of other trace elements in human milk are affected by maternal diet.

The vitamin content of human milk is dependent upon the mother's current vitamin intake and her vitamin stores, but the strength of the relationships varies with the vitamin. Chronically low maternal intake of vitamins may result in milk that contains low amounts of these essential nutrients.
TABLE 1-1 Possible Influences of Maternal Intake on the Nutrient Composition of Human Milk and Nutrients for Which Clinical Deficiency Is Recognizable in Infants

Nutrient or Nutrient Class
Effect of Maternal Intake on Milk Compositiona
Recognizable Nutritional Deficiency in Breastfed Infants

Macronutrients

Proteins
+
Unknownb

Lipids
+c
Unknown

Lactose
o
Unknown

Minerals

Calcium
o
Unknown

Phosphorus
o
Unknown

Magnesium
o
Unknown

Sodium
o
Unknown

Potassium
o
Unknown

Chlorine
o
Unknown

Iron
o
Yesd

Copper
o
Unknown

Zinc
+,o
Unknown

Manganese
+
Unknown

Selenium
+
Unknown

Iodine
+
Yes

Fluoride
+
Unknown

Vitamins

Vitamin C
+
Yes

Thiamin
+
Yes

Riboflavin
+
Unknown

Niacin
+
Unknown

Pantothenic acid
+
Unknown

Vitamin B6
+
Yes

Biotin
+
Yes

Folate
+
Yes

Vitamin B12
+
Yes

Vitamin A
+
Yes

Vitamin D
+
Yes

Vitamin E
+
Yes

Vitamin K
+
Yese

a + denotes a positive effect of intake on nutrient content of the milk. The magnitude of the effect varies widely among nutrients. o denotes no known effect of intake on nutrient content of the milk.

b Evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to categorize as ''No."

c Effect appears to be on type of fatty acids present but not on total content of triglycerides or cholesterol in the milk.

d Deficiency is not related to maternal intake.

e Maternal intake is not the primary determinant of the infant's vitamin K status.

The content of at least some nutrients in human milk may be maintained at a satisfactory level at the expense of maternal stores. This applies particularly to folate and calcium.

Increasing the mother's intake of a nutrient to levels above the RDA ordinarily does not result in unusually high levels of the nutrient in her milk; vitamins B6 and D, iodine, and selenium are exceptions. Studies have not been conducted to evaluate the possibility that high levels of nutrients in milk are toxic to the infant.

Some studies suggest that poor maternal nutrition is associated with decreased concentrations of certain host resistance factors in human milk, whereas other studies do not suggest this association.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

T*annu ~

Quote:

You are confused with the work of Sally Fallon
No, I'm not. I quoted earlier in this discussion a homemade baby formula that encourages the use of raw milk. I got it directly from the Weston Price website if I recall correctly.

Quote:

There is evidence, it is just you choose not to acknowlege this fact.
No, I do not refuse to acknowledge this. No one here has shown me any evidence to disprove the evidence that I have provided in this thread. I have acknowledged that I will read this Weston Price book that has been brought up so many times. However, since I have not read a whole lot that has good things to say about Price, at this point I have to consider this information unreliable and not of a scientific nature.

Quote:

I am afraid your diet does not sound optimal for nourishing both your body and your child's. For a start do you know what you are consuming and passing on to your child by drinking diet soda? Have you any idea what aspartame does to your brain and that of your children? http://dorway.org/
I'm glad that you are in a position to judge. Why not gather your information from reliable sources? http://www.kellymom.com/nutrition/mo...tml#sweeteners --

Quote:

Nutrasweet (aspartame)
According to Hale (Medications and Mothers' Milk, 2004), Nutrasweet (aspartame) levels in mother's milk are too low to produce significant side effects in infants who do not have PKU (phenylketonuria). It IS contraindicated in babies with proven PKU. Hale lists aspartame in Lactation Risk Category L1 (safest), but L5 (contraindicated) if baby has PKU.
Do you know who Dr. Thomas Hale is? He is a leader in the field of human lactation, drugs and their effects on breastmilk.

If you want to believe that your breastmilk is better than mine because you don't drink an occasional diet soda then that is fine. I must say though, this is a whole new level of mothering competition that I've ever encountered.

ETA:

Quote:

I feel you are closed to the issue, maybe to justify your own eating habits?
I am not closed to the issue. I simply want someone to show me scientific proof that disproves all of the aboslute scientific proof that I have provided in this discussion. And *again*, I'm not talking about Weston Price. I have yet to see any evidence that his research is sound. If it is, please show me some of his research that has been peer-reviewed.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

HearthElde ~ I'm going to read through what you just posted more closely but from what I skimmed, it looks like that with the exception of a few items, maternal diet has relatively little effect on quality of breastmilk. According to this - http://www.linkagesproject.org/media...QMatNutEng.pdf - a breastfeeding mother's diet need only be "adequate" to provide all of the vitamins and minerals that her nursing baby needs to thrive. But again, I'll look more into what you posted. I'm NAK now









It looks like you are more convinced that trans fats are more of an issue than basic maternal diet though. I will acknowledge that maternal consumption of trans fats can and does make it into her breastmilk (but at what level I'm not sure - I will look more into it), however according to Kelly of Kellymom.com, "I'm not aware of any research that says that the exclusively breastfed babies of mothers who eat transfats are at greater risk."

I apologize for the quick reply. I have bigger fish to fry at the moment


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
GOOD SCIENCE IS ABOUT QUESTIONS/SEEKING ANSWERS, _NOT_ ABOUT DRAWING RIGID CONCLUSIONS.

Whoops - I also realized that I didn't make it clear that this particular statement wasn't directed at anyone here, but was a statement on the state of much modern research which is, unfortunately, agenda-driven and not truly interested in truth.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Sorry for all the posts - I'm not nursing a baby anymore so I can finish a coherent thought, lol.

HealthElde ~ There is lots of evidence that tells us that if women think they'll need to do something outside of what they're normally used to then they won't even pursue breastfeeding in the first place, much less become an EBF'er:
http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/haveitall.htm

I have personally encountered more than my fair share of women who felt that they had to maintain some sort of "special" diet in order to breastfeed. One woman in particular comes to mind. She choose to formula feed her baby because she thought that breastfeeding mother's had to eat special food that she could not afford to buy. To any of us we can see how ridiculous this decision really was. But for her it was a reality and she really thought she was doing better for her child by FF'ing him.

The thing is, the women who frequent this site and other internet parenting sites tend to be different than those who don't. We have read a wealth of information, been exposed to so many different lifestyles and have seen evidence of things that most others have not. You and I and probably everyone else here understands that parenthood is about self-sacrifice and change. So it's one thing for us here to decide that yes, we in fact need to eat better if we are breastfeeding (I'm not saying I believe this - I'm just making a point). It's an entirely different thing for us to tell a pregnant woman that we meet on the street that in order to provide good quality breastmilk to her baby that she must refrain from ever eating trans fats, junk food, soda, sugar, caffeine, etc. This will turn her off from ever breastfeeding in the first place. That said, I have never encountered a reputable breastfeeding site that _encourages_ a poor diet in a breastfeeding mother. Rather they provide information from reputable sources and every ounce of it seems to point at the conclusion that maternal diet has little effect on the quality of her breastmilk and that mom's need not do anything special in order to provide for their baby.

Your posts to me did come off as rather aggressive but I appreciate your explanation. It is terribly difficult to convey your true meaning in this type of environment. And if you are super passionate about something then it's even harder still.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
T*annu ~

No, I'm not. I quoted earlier in this discussion a homemade baby formula that encourages the use of raw milk. I got it directly from the Weston Price website if I recall correctly.

With respect you are confused. The information on the Weston A Price website is Sally Fallon's POV not Weston A Price's who has been dead for more than 50 years. His work is contained in his book only and does NOT go into homemade baby formula. As I said, Fallon could not breastfed so she has some bias there. And even Sally Fallon for all her failings does not recommend raw milk formula over breatfeeding.

Quote:

No, I do not refuse to acknowledge this. No one here has shown me any evidence to disprove the evidence that I have provided in this thread. I have acknowledged that I will read this Weston Price book that has been brought up so many times. However, since I have not read a whole lot that has good things to say about Price, at this point I have to consider this information unreliable and not of a scientific nature.
Well, we will just have to disagree on this one. Francis M Pottenger Jr MD has a paper on the quality of breastmilk entitled, "Milk -- The importance of its source". I will try and find it online for you. He just has a couple of paragraphs alluding to this paper in his book, "Pottenger's Cats. A Study in Nutrition", chapter 9, pg49

QUOTE] The superiority of human milk for human babies is natural. Human milk is rich in structural proteins, fats, hormones, enzymes and vitamins essential for the optimum growth of the human brain as well as body. Its exact formula remains a secret and has not been duplicated in the laboratory.

Alterations in the metabolism of a mother can quickly reflect in the health of her nursing infant. A deficient mother will have deficient milk and when her diet is improved, the improvement will affert her milk.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

I'm glad that you are in a position to judge. Why not gather your information from reliable sources? http://www.kellymom.com/nutrition/mo...tml#sweeteners --

Do you know who Dr. Thomas Hale is? He is a leader in the field of human lactation, drugs and their effects on breastmilk.

If you want to believe that your breastmilk is better than mine because you don't drink an occasional diet soda then that is fine. I must say though, this is a whole new level of mothering competition that I've ever encountered.
The links on kellymom are laughable, Aspartame is posion, end of story. I do know who Hale is and quite frankly and his work is valuable, but I don't believe any pharmaceutical drug is safe to take while breastfeeding whatever the concentrations and especially known excitotoxins like Aspartame and MSG. I know several LLL leaders who have left because of the LLL's very lenient stance on breastfeeding and pharmaceuticals. It is the politics of breast feeding getting in the way of common sense again.

You are getting very defensive here. I did not say my breastmilk was better than yours.







:


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Kellymom is not a scientific source. It _is_ a wonderful source for breastfeeding information for the most part.
Weston Price did his research in the '30s. The Weston Price website is not run by him, the articles were not written by him. He did not say what we and our children should eat, but what healthy traditional societies at the time _did_ eat.
Formula is crap. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that. There are so many factors in breastmilk that we aren't even aware of yet, not to mention the ones that we are can not be replicated in any kitchen or lab, and unless I truly had no choice I would never take the risk of giving my children anything but my milk no matter what my diet was like.
The table in the post lost its formatting, but what it indicates is that maternal intake of specific vitamins and minerals either have and effect in some cases, and in others it is unknown whether they have an effect.
Also the Standard American Diet, as it is referred to here, typically does NOT provide adequate nutrients.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

And right from Kellymom:
http://kellymom.com/nutrition/vitamins/vitamins.html

Quote:

Studies have shown that when a mother is deficient in a certain nutrient, improving the mother's nutrition and/or supplementing her diet (multivitamins, etc.) may be as effective or more effective than giving her baby vitamin supplements.
You know, I just realized something that never struck me before. I bet we have differing views on vitamin pills. I believe that due to bioavailability of natural vitamins (that means obtained from food, not pills), one should be getting ALL nutrients from diet, not supplements. I believe all supplements can lead to problems, especially fat soluble vitamins. Am I right, is this our differing point when it comes to interpreting the research?


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

I would love to read the article that you posted about and I will go and look for it.

The links on kellymom are laughable? Did you even read it? Because it linked to a statement made by Dr. Hale (that I quoted). So you are really saying then that Dr. Hale's work is laughable. If you want to disregard the scientific work of Dr. Hale and trust instead the unscientific work of the Weston Price foundation then that is fine. But I just want people who are reading this thread to know that one is reliable (the former) while the other is not (the latter). You do realize that Dr. Hale's studies are based on consumption of the drug followed by close measurements of the drug in milk, right?

How would you expect me to take a statement of "I am afraid your diet does not sound optimal for nourishing both your body and your child's." Followed by a "For starters...". Should I take it as constructive criticsm? You meant it to be insulting and I duly took it as an insult. So yes, I got a bit defensive.

I'd like to know how many LLL Leader's have left LLL because of LLL's lenient stance on drugs & breastfeeding? How many is "several"? Perhaps these mother's should have realized just what LLL is all about PRIOR to becoming Leaders. You must subscribe to the LLL Philosophies in order to be a Leader. No where in those philosophies does it talk about drugs and breastfeeding. LLL doesn't even take a stance on drugs & breastfeeding other than to endorse Dr. Hale's work. In fact, Leaders may provide drug information verbatim from Hale's but LLL encourages breastfeeding mother's to discuss the issue with their healthcare provider.

And in reference to the information regarding raw milk. So you are saying that the information I got off of the Weston Price website is not the opinion of the Weston Price Foundation? Color me confused then!


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:

Kellymom is not a scientific source.
Check her sources. Her website was developed to provide evidence-based information. I always check where her information comes from and it comes from reputable, scientific sources. So while Kelly herself may not be a scientist or being doing any research herself, she gets her information from those who are.

Regarding our differing interpretations of the research that is available, I don't know that I ever considered taking a vitamin supplement to be just as good as getting those vitamins directly from food. I have always thought that the best way was through food.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
Check her sources. Her website was developed to provide evidence-based information.

As are many of the references on the WAPF website.

Quote:

I always check where her information comes from and it comes from reputable, scientific sources.
But that doesn't mean it's an exhaustive list of all available resources. On top of that, one doesn't get a true indication of the reliability of a scientific study just from reading an abstract. There are a lot of inconsistencies in a lot of studies - it's pretty mind-boggling, actually.
With specific regard to aspartame, what is interesting is on one hand you have studies that show "normal" dosages of aspartame don't cause problems, while "high" dosages do. There are also studies which show that because aspartame is not metabolized by the body, it builds up in the body. *But there are no studies that connect the two!* And it would probably be extremely difficult to set up such a study. So instead there are opinion papers which link the two, but these are disregarded as "unscientific" because there aren't specific studies to back them up. It's bizarre.

Quote:

Regarding our differing interpretations of the research that is available, I don't know that I ever considered taking a vitamin supplement to be just as good as getting those vitamins directly from food. I have always thought that the best way was through food.
In that case, wouldn't you have to conclude that mom's diet would have a direct impact on the micronutrients available in her milk? And isn't the presence or absence of those micronutrients what defines the quality of her milk? So wouldn't you then further have to conclude that diet does have an impact on the quality of mother's milk?


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:

As are many of the references on the WAPF website.
I'm a bit (ok, a lot) unclear about the WAPF website. I found something on that website earlier in this discussion and have since been told that the info on that website is really from a person named Sally Fallon. I haven't looked around the site much to see any references but also, no one in this discussion who wants me to consider the information from there has linked to any either.

Quote:

But that doesn't mean it's an exhaustive list of all available resources.
I never said or even implied that it was. Only that her information is reliable. Again, no one in this discussion has really attempted to provide information outside of the WAPF though. My argument is that maternal diet has relatively little impact on the quality of her breastmilk therefore you'll see me posting evidence that supports this. It is up to those of you on the other side of the fence to post to the contrary









Quote:

In that case, wouldn't you have to conclude that mom's diet would have a direct impact on the micronutrients available in her milk? And isn't the presence or absence of those micronutrients what defines the quality of her milk? So wouldn't you then further have to conclude that diet does have an impact on the quality of mother's milk
What I conclude is that except in the most dire of maternal malnutrition, the quality of her breastmilk is unaffected. I do not believe that there are varying qualities of breastmilk, generally speaking. Again, severe maternal malnutrition aside. And my conclusions come not from what feels like common sense to me but from the research I've read.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*

I'd like to know how many LLL Leader's have left LLL because of LLL's lenient stance on drugs & breastfeeding? How many is "several"? Perhaps these mother's should have realized just what LLL is all about PRIOR to becoming Leaders. You must subscribe to the LLL Philosophies in order to be a Leader. No where in those philosophies does it talk about drugs and breastfeeding. LLL doesn't even take a stance on drugs & breastfeeding other than to endorse Dr. Hale's work. In fact, Leaders may provide drug information verbatim from Hale's but LLL encourages breastfeeding mother's to discuss the issue with their healthcare provider.

I know personally of three leaders. They felt unable to remain leaders because they felt they could not endorse Dr Hale's work.

Quote:

And in reference to the information regarding raw milk. So you are saying that the information I got off of the Weston Price website is not the opinion of the Weston Price Foundation? Color me confused then!
Yes, and No. The information on the Price Foundation is based on the work of Weston A Price. Again, READ THE BOOK which is his work, Gale Force has made you a great offer, take her up on it.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Okay, first of all, why do you no longer wear combat boots? Myself, I traded 'em in for Haflinger clogs, much more comfy








In regards to the Weston Price foundation website: Sally Fallon is the president of the website. She is only one of several people who have articles on the site (and, as a few have stated her, had trouble with breastfeeding (though she did for a short time), and therefore seems to have a personal bias about breastfeeding and does not provide adequate information and in some cases the conclusions she draws are pretty far out in left field). Many of the articles on the site are full of references, some from scientific sources, some not. Here's a link to an article on fats in human milk http://www.westonaprice.org/children/humanmilk.html This article was written by Mary Enig, one of the world's formost lipid biochemists, and contains references from a scientific journal.

Quote:

I never said or even implied that it was. Only that her information is reliable. Again, no one in this discussion has really attempted to provide information outside of the WAPF though.
Ah, but this is part of my point. How reliable is something, really, if the list of references is not all-inclusive? Is it a springboard? Absolutely, but it's not the be all and end all.
I believe I did provide a couple references outside the WAPF. One from kellymom, in fact. Others have as well.

Quote:

What I conclude is that except in the most dire of maternal malnutrition, the quality of her breastmilk is unaffected. I do not believe that there are varying qualities of breastmilk, generally speaking.
Maybe we define quality differently. Macronutrients include carbohydrates, proteins and fats. Micronutrients are everything else (vitamins, minerals, etc). As the references I provided state, many micronutrients in breastmilk vary with mom's diet. IMO, concentrations of these micronutrients are part of how "quality" is defined. There are differences between "good enough" and "optimum".
I'm not saying we have to tell mothers they need to be perfect. I myself am known to eat a doughnut or six from time to time (I'm Canadian, I think it's a national requirement







). But to tell mothers that their diet doesn't affect the quality of their milk is a lie, and I do believe it does a disservice to women and their babies. Now again, I suppose maybe it is a question of how one defines "quality".


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

I just wanted to say that the diet for pregnant and lactating women promoted by that Weston Price website just seems crazy to me. I have other problems with that organization and the things they promote but frankly I'm amazed that anyone would recommend that diet as an ideal guide for pregnancy and breastfeeding.


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta*
I just wanted to say that the diet for pregnant and lactating women promoted by that Weston Price website just seems crazy to me. I have other problems with that organization and the things they promote but frankly I'm amazed that anyone would recommend that diet as an ideal guide for pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Could you elaborate on why you think the diet is crazy?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
There are differences between "good enough" and "optimum".....
Now again, I suppose maybe it is a question of how one defines "quality".

Just jumping in at lightening speed, but I think this is where the issue lies. And I would consider most people to be "severely malnourished."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
I'm not saying we have to tell mothers they need to be perfect. I myself am known to eat a doughnut or six from time to time .

Me too. It's about trying to improve and do better.

Shoot. Got caught. see you all


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

_trans_ fatty acids in mother's milk and other fat composition variations and their effects [note:these are just abstracts, so they in no way tell the whole story]:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...01&query_hl=15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...34&query_hl=15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...00&query_hl=15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...83&query_hl=15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...34&query_hl=15
Interestingly, one of the above studies showed that DHA levels in breastmilk resulted in no long term beneficial health effects. From a reliable scientific source. Hmmmmm.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Not what I was looking for and only slightly relevant, but I am heartbroken that this study was done:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...95&query_hl=27


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

*Multiple micronutrients in pregnancy and lactation: an overview.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...53&query_hl=34
"Iron and vitamin B-12 are included as examples to stress how status at conception affects maternal, fetal, and infant status and health until the child is weaned.... multiple micronutrient deficiencies occur simultaneously when diets are poor. ... In lactation, maternal status or intake of the B vitamins (except folate), vitamin A, selenium and iodine strongly affect the amount of these nutrients secreted in breast milk. This can result in the infant consuming substantially less than the recommended amounts and further depleting stores that were low at birth."

*Maternal micronutrient malnutrition: effects on breast milk and infant nutrition, and priorities for intervention.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...31&query_hl=36
"Lactating women are more likely to experience micronutrient deficiencies than a shortage of dietary energy or protein. Micronutrient deficiencies are also more likely to affect breastmilk composition and the development and nutritional status of breastfeeding infants. Dietary interventions or supplementation can increase the secretion of many of these nutrients in breast milk and improve infant nutritional status.

The author offers a table summarizing how maternal deficiency of specific micronutrients affects their concentration in breast milk"

*Concurrent micronutrient deficiencies in lactating mothers and their infants in Indonesia.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...54&query_hl=36
"CONCLUSIONS: Micronutrient deficiencies were prevalent in West Java. The micronutrient status of lactating mothers and that of their infants were closely related; breast milk was a key connecting factor for vitamin A status. Furthermore, concurrent micronutrient deficiencies appeared to be the norm."

*Micronutrient deficiency in children.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...11&query_hl=36
"Malnutrition increases morbidity and mortality and affects physical growth and development, some of these effects resulting from specific micronutrient deficiencies."

*Fat-soluble vitamins in the maternal diet, influence of cod liver oil supplementation and impact of the maternal diet on human milk composition.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...49&query_hl=36
"There is a relationship between the content of vitamins A and E in human milk and the maternal diet. "

*Diet during lactation associated with infant behavior and caregiver-infant interaction in a semirural Egyptian village.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...65&query_hl=36
"...inadequate diet of the mother was the major risk factor&#8230;Breast milk did not have adequate amounts of vitamin B-6 and, perhaps, not even enough riboflavin and vitamin A."


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

*Lipid content and essential fatty acid (EFA) composition of mature Congolese breast milk are influenced by mothers' nutritional status: impact on infants' EFA supply.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...300&query_hl=6
"Optimum infant growth and development, especially neurodevelopment and visual acuity, require sufficient n-6 and n-3 essential fatty acid supplies from the placenta or breast milk.
CONCLUSIONS: Lipid content and FA composition of Congolese breast milk were dependent on mother's nutritional status."
*
Dietary fat type influences total milk fat content in lean women.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...072&query_hl=6
"Data from a growing literature suggest that some Trans Fatty Acids (TFA) decrease milk fat in lactating animals&#8230;. In summary, consumption of regular margarine, compared with low TFA margarine, decreased milk fat in lean women."

*Milk fat depression in C57Bl/6J mice consuming partially hydrogenated fat.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...791&query_hl=6
"The possible involvement of TFA in the classical milk fat depression phenomenon in ruminants and its potential relevance in human lactation are discussed."

*Lipid content and essential fatty acid (EFA) composition of mature Congolese breast milk are influenced by mothers' nutritional status: impact on infants' EFA supply.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...00&query_hl=15
"CONCLUSIONS: Lipid content and FA composition of Congolese breast milk were dependent on mother's nutritional status&#8230;. Since the essential fatty acid content of traditional complementary foods is lower than that present in breast milk, Congolese mothers should be encouraged to postpone the introduction of such foods until their infant is 4-6 months old."
_(Jane note: ie postpone eating of junk food, doughnuts were mentioned)_
*
Fatty acid composition of human milk in Western Iran.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...08&query_hl=13
"CONCLUSIONS: The milk from Iranian lactating mothers, as compared to that from the American or European mothers, contained high levels of medium-chain and trans fatty acids. This difference may be attributed to the maternal diet with low animal protein and animal fat but with high carbohydrate and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils that carry large amounts of trans fatty acids. _As the detrimental effects of trans fatty acids on blood lipids and cardiovascular diseases have been emphasized in the literature, a reduction of trans fatty acid content in the diet of Iranian mothers is suggested._"

*Trans, n-3, and n-6 fatty acids in Canadian human milk.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...34&query_hl=15
"The presence of trans fatty acids in human milk may be a concern because of their possible adverse nutritional and physiological effects on the recipient infant. The mother's diet is the source of human milk trans fatty acids."

*Trans fatty acids in human milk in Poland and their association with breastfeeding mothers' diets.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...86&query_hl=15
"CONCLUSIONS: Bakery products, confectionery and snacks are a major source of trans fatty acids in maternal diet in Poland. The levels of trans fatty acids in human milk may reflect the current diet of the mother as well as the diet consumed early in pregnancy."

*Fatty acid composition of human milk in Kuwaiti mothers.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...03&query_hl=15
"Mothers reporting a high fish consumption showed significant amounts of C22:6, omega 3 and C20:5, omega 3 fatty acids. _As a general conclusion, breast milk produced by a well nourished mother is better suited to meet the lipid requirements of infants._"


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

I think that diet is crazy because it hardly has mentions any plant/vegetables and for someone like me who is lactose intolerant, it's a recipe for being incredibly sick. It's clear that one can be very healthy while pregnant and lactating and can have very healthy children on a plant based diet. The Price Foundation has a problem with soy basically labelling it as poison but then promotes eating every kind of animal product under the son. Crazy in my opinion.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

WAPF diet for pregnant and bf'ing mamas does mention fruits and veggies. Including lacto fermented veggies. http://www.westonaprice.org/children...ormothers.html

Although it is not stated here specifically, WAPF places a lot of emphasis on *consuming raw food* as a largest part of your diet: including raw and lacto-fermented produce and dairy. This explains a little more about the reasoning behind their recommendations:
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...teristics.html

*RE: vegetarianism*
Weston Price's research on native diets has show that it is not healthy to be on a plant based diet. Not one society that he found that was vegetarian was healthy. And he really tried.
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...ets/index.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstru...tarianism.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...tarianism.html

Price's research of native diets, which contained a great deal of animal products, were the best sources of vital nutrients for building healthy, disease free, bodies and cavity free teeth.

There are specific reasons for warning about *soy*
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html

Before you tar and feather WAPF, you might want to do a little more reading. Many of my previous beliefs about healthy eating (and today's "politically correct" nutritional advice) were completely false.
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstru...nutrition.html

Such as canola oil is quite unhealthy, see "The Great Con-ola" here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html

The only source of true vitamin A is in animal products: butter, eggs, cream, liver, that is why specific fats are especially recommended for pg and bf mamas.
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...aminasaga.html

Very good summation of Price's research
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...ry_wisdom.html


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
Telling her to eat better . . . is only going to discourage her from continuing to breastfeed because she'll perceive it as being too difficult.

I finally figured out why this statement bothers me so much. When dd was about 2 days old, my milk still hadn't come in and she spent much of her time nursing. She fell asleep at the breast, and continued to suckle. You know, normal things newborns do to stimulate breastmilk production. Well, my mother was there for her birth and was staying with us for a few days to help out, and you know what she said? She said "Don't nurse her for more than 10 minutes a side, it's not necessary. You should take her off the breast she's sleeping. Your body will adjust. No wonder so many women don't continue to breastfeed - if they think the baby has to nurse for so long, *they perceive it as being too difficult*."
Well, I listened to her. For the remainder of the day. Then my brain kicked in and I realized that what she said was contrary to my instinct. My milk took a while to come in, and I believe that day's experience was a part of why. I'm still a little irritated with myself that I let her sway me.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Jane S, I'm not tarring and feathering them . . . I'm just saying that in my opinion prescribing that type of diet for pregnant and lactating women is crazy. Fruits and vegetables are at the BOTTOM of that list so even if they do promote eating raw, it seems that it's not for pregnant women. And for people like me who are lactose intolerant, this prescribed diet is almost impossible. So it's crazy to me to say that this is a good way to go about trying to get my nutrients. And yes, you can be very healthy on a plant based diet . . . I can only imagine the kind of constipation one who follows that diet has.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta*
I can only imagine the kind of constipation one who follows that diet has.

Well, personally, I can say because of following this diet, none at all. Finally. After eating a grain-based diet for years. I've now cut my grains down to about 2 servings a day due to Candida problems (I'd cut it out completely but am pregnant so I'm not comfortable doing so). And even then I must soak all my grains or else I get quite gassy. Currently the vast majority of my veggies must be steamed because I don't assimilate the nutrients well otherwise. But I do eat lacto-fermented condiments or drink lacto-fermented drinks at almost every meal. The research on enzymatic-based digestive effects of lacto-fermented condiments is still in its infancy, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the "IT" thing sometime in the next decade or so. Only time will tell. Did I mention that in addition to finally ceasing to experience gas, bloating, constipation or diarrhea all the time, I also have more energy than I have in years? Even though I'm 5 months pregnant and nursing a toddler?

No one diet fits everyone, of course. We all come from different backgrounds and live in different locations. The healthiest diet is a combination of the diet of one's ancestors and the traditional diet of the locals in the area where one lives. The variations within this diet depend on individual makeup. Unfortunately for me, where I live the natives were smart enough to migrate away during the winter, so it's a bit harder for me to figure out exactly what to go by, although I am trying.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta*
Jane S, I'm not tarring and feathering them . . . I'm just saying that in my opinion prescribing that type of diet for pregnant and lactating women is crazy. Fruits and vegetables are at the BOTTOM of that list so even if they do promote eating raw, it seems that it's not for pregnant women. And for people like me who are lactose intolerant, this prescribed diet is almost impossible. So it's crazy to me to say that this is a good way to go about trying to get my nutrients. And yes, you can be very healthy on a plant based diet . . . I can only imagine the kind of constipation one who follows that diet has.

Yes perhaps this particular page should be rewritten. It's just that I know the total recommendations and base my opinon on more than just what you see there, which is why I tried to give you a lot of references to learn more.

The only thing on that list you couldn't have was 2 glasses of whole milk b/c of the lactose issue. Butter contains neglible lactose, cultured butter even less. However, have you tried raw milk, with the enzymes intact? Kind of like the difference between consuming easily digestible breastmilk with enzymes, and formula, which has none. The pasteurization greatly changes milk into a very difficult food to digest for a lot of people, not just those who have issues with lactose.

Lactose intolerance is greatly influenced by your intestinal flora... which produce the enzyme lactase that breaks down lactose. Fermented foods supply those probiotics naturally.

Some ideas here and further study references from a traditional source: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/1/105. However, the one study they quote as not showing results only supplemented acidophilus for 7 days, which is ridiculous to try to correct the problem.... only a week is not going to change your gut flora very much. Plus the fact that food based probiotics are much more potent. Set that study up to fail for sure. OH well, that's modern medicine for you.

Constipation? On a plant based diet? Or the WAPF diet? Nope. Cultured veggies and raw and cultured dairy are excellent for improving digestion, digesting food more thoroughly, and moving things along, trust me, I know!


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
I'm 5 months pregnant

Wheee! I didn't know that ... Congratulations!


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JaneS*
Lactose intolerance is greatly influenced by your intestinal flora... which produce the enzyme lactase that breaks down lactose. Fermented foods supply those probiotics naturally.

Oh good point, I forgot to mention I'm also lactose intolerant, but can drink raw milk with no problems. And trust me, I've actually had that stupid lactose intolerance test where they make you drink a glass of it and test the hydrogen levels in you breath and I was WAAAAAAY of the chart. I went home afterwards and promptly threw up about three times. So, yeah, not a mild case. But, again, raw milk is







and doesn't even give me a twinge of a tummyache


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

No one diet fits everyone, of course. We all come from different backgrounds and live in different locations. The healthiest diet is a combination of the diet of one's ancestors and the traditional diet of the locals in the area where one lives.QUOTE]

I agree . . . I've never tried raw milk but I could always eat yogurt so I see the point about good bacteria. However, most people of color I know are lactose intolerant and milk or cheese just does them in.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JaneS*
Wheee! I didn't know that ... Congratulations!









Thanks! It's pretty exciting. Flip-flopping on the UC possibility though - I don't really feel like cleaning up after the birth (or making dh do it) :LOL


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Ladies,

Thanks for the references. This is very interesting. I can't keep up with this thread and it's a Saturday! I thought no one posted on the weekends.

HerthElde -- Congratulations! Are you following the WAPF diet? How is it going?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta*
And yes, you can be very healthy on a plant based diet . . . I can only imagine the kind of constipation one who follows that diet has.

When I went on a candida diet in the spring of 2003 I did have constipation. I hadn't found WAPF yet but the diet wasn't all that different. I struggled with the constipation. My chiro gave me some sort of nasty fiber product that I couldn't stomach. Finally I mentioned it to my son's chiropractor and he said "constipation in the wake of a major diet change like that? You need more water." If I remember correctly, he had me drink upwards of a gallon of water a day. It worked. It hasn't been a problem since and I consume something like a liter of water. Edited to add: I wasn't consuming home-made fermented or cultured foods at the time. That would have helped too.

I was grain free for about 6 months in 2003 and it's taken me all this time to realize that I shouldn't be eating grains at all. Well, I've really known it for a while, but it is a hard thing to give up. I keep saying to myself "this is a key way you are going to keep yourself healthy, so why wouldn't you do it?" I have been grain-free for about 6 weeks now. I eat mountains of vegetables and so get plenty of carbs. I miss them and, particularly, the opportunity they provide to eat butter. But there really are plenty of butter-eating opportunities out there.







And thankfully, I'm not craving grains. I was eating so little before anyway that it hasn't been the adjustment it was back in 2003 on the candida diet.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
Not what I was looking for and only slightly relevant, but I am heartbroken that this study was done:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...95&query_hl=27

holey moley! how in the heck did they get THAT past human subjects?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta*
The Price Foundation has a problem with soy basically labelling it as poison but then promotes eating every kind of animal product under the son. Crazy in my opinion.

While it promotes eating animal products, they are to be animals that are on natural diets as well, so don't confuse their promotion of animal products with those same products you find in the grocery store and that most Americans eat. We would all agree with you that such animal products are junk.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
The thing is, the women who frequent this site and other internet parenting sites tend to be different than those who don't. We have read a wealth of information, been exposed to so many different lifestyles and have seen evidence of things that most others have not. You and I and probably everyone else here understands that parenthood is about self-sacrifice and change. So it's one thing for us here to decide that yes, we in fact need to eat better if we are breastfeeding (I'm not saying I believe this - I'm just making a point). It's an entirely different thing for us to tell a pregnant woman that we meet on the street that in order to provide good quality breastmilk to her baby that she must refrain from ever eating trans fats, junk food, soda, sugar, caffeine, etc. This will turn her off from ever breastfeeding in the first place. That said, I have never encountered a reputable breastfeeding site that _encourages_ a poor diet in a breastfeeding mother. *Rather they provide information from reputable sources and every ounce of it seems to point at the conclusion that maternal diet has little effect on the quality of her breastmilk and that mom's need not do anything special in order to provide for their baby.*

Carol,

As I said before, I understand why lactivists take this approach. When I meet mothers-to-be I don't hammer them about their diet, I do offer them all of the BFing resources I have.

I bolded part of your statement -- isn't it interesting that they don't provide anything else? It doesn't fit with their strategy. I am not trying to demonize them, but they are wrong in this regard. And as much as you might worry about all of those uninformed women out there, why is it relevant in this discussion? You seek information and you are a BFing mom.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
HerthElde -- Congratulations! Are you following the WAPF diet? How is it going?

I'd say about 80-90% of the time, except that I don't eat beef or lamb every day (we haven't gotten our beef for the year and we're all out of last year's, but even at that I think I might find it a bit boring every single day). For the most part it's going well, but I really need to get better organized and do a meal plan. We recently did the "Healthy Recovery" plan in Eat Fat Lose Fat and it was awesome to not have to think about what to cook every day. But then we had a houseguest for a week and were mostly eating out, and then I had a really wierd energetic experience (metaphysically speaking) and we had to smudge the house, and after that things were a little wierd for a bit so I haven't gotten back into the swing of trying to create a mealplan again. Dd and I are visiting my parents for a week right now, so hopefully I'll be able to do a monthlong plan or something while I'm here.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Wow, I go out to dinner for a couple of hours and look at what I come back too! JaneS - THANK YOU!!! for providing those links! NOW I might be persuaded to change my mind









I have so much reading to do!

And Amanda, yes I'm a breastfeeding mother and I seek information. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't believe that I nor you nor any other woman actively participating in this discussion is your "typical" breastfeeding mother. Very few breastfeeding mother's that I know (and I know a lot of 'em! lol) spend much time online, much less online time researching breastfeeding







We are exceptional









Anyhow, it's late and I don't have time before bed to look at all those links (but I will). Thanks for posting them.

OH, P.S. - HerthElde -- why don't I wear combat boots anymore? Well, to put it simply, I didn't feel that continued military service was compatible with motherhood


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
OH, P.S. - HerthElde -- why don't I wear combat boots anymore? Well, to put it simply, I didn't feel that continued military service was compatible with motherhood









Oh REAL combat boots. Gotcha. I thought it was a fashion statement based on the grunge culture of the 90s







:


----------



## MisfitMama (Sep 4, 2003)

Hello, it would take me HOURS to read through this whole thread thoroughly, and unfortunately I don't have the time, so forgive me. But as I read through the first 4 pages some things occurred to me that I thought I should say before I forget them:

(Oh, and first I would like to point out that I am a Militant Breastfeeding Recruiter AND a Weston A. Price fan. . .)

1. I think the Weston A. Price website is severely lacking. . . mostly just in the fact that it's a website. I was referred to it repeatedly a couple of years ago and it all looked like a bunch of crap. THEN. . . I was finally convinced to read SALLY FALLON's book (she bases her work on WAP's, but is not to be CONFUSED with him) and was scandalized - it was SO GOOD! I didn't agree with her breastfeeding info at all, though. I was appalled by it. I Jumped online and went to a forum for her adherents and argued with people about it, and interestingly, a friend of hers was on there and he said she DID nurse all her children, but that they all "self-weaned" around 10 months or something (Whatever. But I just thought I'd mention that my understanding is that she DID breastfeed.)

Anyway, it was NOT UNTIL I READ WESTON A. PRICE'S BOOK, and then went back and reread all the lactation info on the website, that any of it made sense to me.

My unsolicited advice to anyone on this forum who hasn't read the book: READ THE WAP book before you continue posting. There is no way you can grasp what anyone is talking about until you have read IT, and not just articles. I know, because I tried it for a long time, and it was frustrating. The book is mind-blowing.

2. Anyway - also I don't think anyone pointed out that in the quote someone posted about the raw milk making kids sick in the 1800s - they fed the cows some bad food and it made the cow's milk blue and runny or something - what did it say? Anyway, I found it odd that nobody commented on that, since we're talking about OUR diets affecting OUR milk here. . .

3. As far as convincing women to breastfeed - I totally understand the poster who is getting so upset and worrying that this information will make people not want to breastfeed. It's such a conundrum. I am still thinking about it, but my current feeling is that maybe LLL should just continue the work they are doing, but if people ask, they can refer people to further research and studies, but not stop their mission. . . do you know what I mean? Like LLL is an entry-level organization, really. It's like a bridge between the mainstream and the people "in the know."

4. But. . . what about those of us who were SO SAD to learn that we could have been giving our babies better milk before we found all this WAP stuff out? I wish I'd known all this stuff sooner, and I don't want this information kept from me! It's not fair to keep this "high level" info away from me for fear of scaring the "low level" people off of breastfeeding (and when I say "high" or "low" I don't mean offense, I just mean that some people want MORE INFORMATION, and are MORE CONVINCED and UNSHAKABLE in their determination to breastfeed.)

So, are some of you saying you think this information (should you eventually decide that you believe it) should be SQUELCHED, for fear of scaring off the entry-level breastfeeders?

I don't know the answer. Maybe once you swear your devotion to breastfeeding (pre-baby, in some cases?) you should be "allowed" this secret information??? I don't know. The real enemy here is the American diet and the way society thinks about EVERYTHING in general. I think everyone in this forum is really on the same side. . . there is just mass ignorance in this country. Where should we begin to conquer it? With breastfeeding information? With diet information? Something else?

I used to think I KNEW just exactly where the best place to begin educating people was. I was SURE it was with telling them about evolution and babycare in the third world (as explained by _The Continuum Concept_). I believed this for months and months. Then suddenly I realized that maybe the best place to start was to convince people to treat women really well, all over the world, so they'd have the wherewithall to take care of their kids compassionately. Then I was on a kick for a while where I was sure the answer was to reform the schools before we tell anyone about breastfeeding, continuum parenting, or feminism. . . then as time went on I came up with 10 other places to start that were just as good. Right now I'm on a kick to convince everyone to read _Ishmael_ - yes, THIS is the most important place to start!

You see what I mean?

JaneS and some others are starting with nutrition, and (sorry I forgot your name temporarily) the other adamant poster is starting with breastfeeding.

I think all of us are right!

Sorry for the long post. . .

MisfitMama


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:

So, are some of you saying you think this information (should you eventually decide that you believe it) should be SQUELCHED, for fear of scaring off the entry-level breastfeeders?
No, I'm not saying that at all. _IN THE ABSENCE of sound, scientific, published, peer-reviewed research_ we should not be telling would-be nursing mother's that they must maintain a diet that is different than what they are used to or what formula-feeding mother's are. And up until last night, there were only 1 or 2 links given in support of the notion that poor maternal diet affects her breastmilk quality. Surely you can understand the impact of telling someone that she needs to do something (which will no doubt make her think twice about breastfeeding) when there is no actual data to support the notion, right? Again, it hasn't been until late in this discussion that anyone has offered anything up in support of varying qualities of breastmilk (I must say though that since I have not actually checked that information out, I don't know what it says one way or the other).

As for WAPF and his book, I have never seen it mentioned anywhere other than here. And as I said earlier, any information that I've been able to find in support of the WAPF has been fairly minimal. So for me I have to consider the info from there to be unreliable just as I would consider info from Ezzo or The Baby Whispherer to unreliable.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
As for WAPF and his book, I have never seen it mentioned anywhere other than here. And as I said earlier, any information that I've been able to find in support of the WAPF has been fairly minimal. So for me I have to consider the info from there to be unreliable just as I would consider info from Ezzo or The Baby Whispherer to unreliable.

The book is Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price. It will change you.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
No, I'm not saying that at all. _IN THE ABSENCE of sound, scientific, published, peer-reviewed research_ we should not be telling would-be nursing mother's that they must maintain a diet that is different than what they are used to or what formula-feeding mother's are.

The information is out there even if it's not a double-blind controlled study (though I didn't look through all the links and their designs to see what's in this thread). There's something that I want to say here but don't mean to be snarky. Believe me when I say I have been there, done that.

-->Don't wait until a burning house falls on you to determine that the house is on fire.

Get the book. You have access to my copy, you can procure your own. It will change you. (Don't worry here that the only path to change coming from the book is to become an omnivore, you can make your own decisions on that. The book is powerful.)


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I agree with you MisfitMama.

And just to re-emphasize, the book is

*Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price.*

Everyone needs to read this book.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Carol, your mind seems to be opening and closing at the drop of a hat.
First of all, just because _you_ weren't aware of the research didn't mean that it didn't exist. It was not up to us to provide you with those links, it was your responsibility to gather your facts _before_ you jumped in to say our stance was wrong. If you didn't have the time or ability to seek out those resources, you could have asked nicely for some help from those of us with scientific/research backgrounds instead of being so passive/aggressive.
Secondly, it is irresponsible to call a book "unreliable" without having read it. As you are no doubt unaware, NT is rife with scientific references. IF you read the book and come to the conclusion that it is unreliable, THEN you have the right to come back here and say so and explain why (or not, as is your right). For example, I made good and sure I didn't bash Ezzo's book until I had read it myself - I read it specifically so that I could make my own judgements, and now instead of just saying "it sucks", I can actually make intelligent points as to why it sucks. You would be wise to follow the same philosophy.
I apologize if this comes across as harsh, but I am becoming impatient with your seeming unwillingness to do any of your own legwork (which wouldn't bother me if only you would admit your lack of time or inability).


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:

Carol, your mind seems to be opening and closing at the drop of a hat.
First of all, just because you weren't aware of the research didn't mean that it didn't exist. It was not up to us to provide you with those links, it was your responsibility to gather your facts before you jumped in to say our stance was wrong. If you didn't have the time or ability to seek out those resources, you could have asked nicely for some help from those of us with scientific/research backgrounds instead of being so passive/aggressive.
Wow. I really think you've read my words out of context. I'm not opening and closing my mind on whims. In fact, last night when I came home to see all those links I was so happy! I have 3 children at home, my internet time is limited & I simply don't have the time to go searching for things. I posted links in support of my belief and like any other debate I've engaged in, sat back and waited for a rebuttal. In this whole thread aside from possibly 3 or 4 posts, those rebuttals have been based on hearsay and antedotes. Sorry, but I don't find that type of stuff convincing. If YOU want to persuade ME to see things YOUR way then you have to provide the evidence. That is how a debate works. And I do believe I have asked nicely several times for someone to present me with evidence that conflicts with the evidence that I have found in support of my opinion. But perhaps you've overlooked that. Passive/aggressive? That is ridiculous. I have actually been enjoying this thread right up until about NOW.

Quote:

Secondly, it is irresponsible to call a book "unreliable" without having read it. As you are no doubt unaware, NT is rife with scientific references. IF you read the book and come to the conclusion that it is unreliable, THEN you have the right to come back here and say so and explain why (or not, as is your right). For example, I made good and sure I didn't bash Ezzo's book until I had read it myself - I read it specifically so that I could make my own judgements, and now instead of just saying "it sucks", I can actually make intelligent points as to why it sucks. You would be wise to follow the same philosophy.
First, I will ask you politely to please refrain from patronizing me. I am an educated, intelligent woman. I have said time and again that I have not read this WAPF book and _until_ I do, I have to consider it as not being reliable _especially_ based on the negative information I have read in regards to the WAPF. I have also said that I will get the book and read it. Obviously that is not going to happen overnight though so crikey, back off and give me some time would ya?

Quote:

I apologize if this comes across as harsh, but I am becoming impatient with your seeming unwillingness to do any of your own legwork (which wouldn't bother me if only you would admit your lack of time or inability).
Golly, I'm sorry that I didn't make it explicitly clear that I don't have endless amounts of time to engage in this discussion & go find link after link. If you want me to believe that poor maternal nutrition affects the quality of her breastmilk then YOU have to prove it to me. That is how a debate works. Not one of you have gone out looking for information in support of my opinion so why would you think it would be different for me?

The bottom line? No matter what info I gather for you to try to convince you to see it my way, you won't. I don't know why I'm even wasting my time, really. However, I was and always have been open to the idea that you are right in your beliefs. But being the analytical person that I am, I'm not just going to believe you because you say something is true or not true. I need proof. And if you don't want to provide that proof, then fine. Just say so.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

On page 2 of the thread, Jane provided this argument:

Quote:

And regarding genetics. Weston Price found that poor nutrition carried on to the next generation. I think it plays much more of a role than modern medicine is willing to study.

For ex., if all the children in a family (mine) needed glasses and braces, is it genetics? Or because my mom believed in a lowfat diet, and didn't eat enough preformed vitamin A in butter, eggs, cream and fish?
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnu...taminasaga.html

On page 2 uccomama provides a link to an argument stated by toraji.

Jane recommended Price's book on page 3.

Quote:

The book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" contains a huge amount of research regarding nutrition and its impact on prenatal nutrition and how it relates to birth defects. And nutritional impact on cavities, disease, bone development, facial structure, mental and behavioral disorders etc. It's quite comprehensive and unique in its focus.
And uccomama provides a short book review on the relevant research from the Price book:

Quote:

When these peoples came in contact with Western foods, ie those high in sugar, white processed flour and other "junk" foods they became sick and the health of their teeth degenerated rapidly. On a poor diet (ie SAD) the offspring of each generation will deteriorate more and more, so if your parents and grandparents diet comprised sub-nutritious foods your child will be more likely to have health issues. Diabetes, arthritis, cancer and other chronic disease are the manifestations of this generational nutritional degeneration.
Wendy provides information on how chemicals (pesticides etc) get into the milk on page 3. Obviously junk food has a lot of that.

On page 4 HerthElde lists specific vitamins and minerals classified according to whether their levels in the maternal diet affect levels in breastmilk.

uccomama refers to a Pottenger study on milk.

HerthElde links to Kellymom re: supplementing if maternal diet is deficient

HerthElde links to an Enig article on fats and human milk.

On page 5 HerthElde and Jane make our job easier and find abstracts in PubMed for our perusal.

And on page 6, Carol says:

Quote:

But being the analytical person that I am, I'm not just going to believe you because you say something is true or not true. I need proof. And if you don't want to provide that proof, then fine. Just say so.

The house is burning down. Please don't wait for a controlled double blind study to tell you that it's a fire rather than a really hot day.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

HerthElde -- it sounds like you are doing well. Congratulations again. I love to hear stories like that. My pregnancy was so difficult, I am afraid to try it again even though I now know why it was so difficult.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Just wanted to pop in here really quick to clarify the books that are being discussed...

1) Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Dr. Weston A. Price--the original text written in the 30's-40's that will change your life. Read in-depth book review and view pictures here, by Steve Solomon (Pacific NW gardening guru) http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0203...ppnf/PPNF.HTML

2) Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig. This is the modern book based on Dr. Price's work. These people are behind the WAPF and their website, and the breastfeeding articles that state that nutrition affects the quality of milk.

I have been lurking enjoying this discussion, but it seems like the issues (as well as the books) are getting confused. This is the main issue I see:
Does Nutrition Affect the Quality of Breastmilk?

And the secondary issue:
If it does, then are we responsible for telling women this information even though it may discourage them from breastfeeding?

My personal feeling, having been to "the dark side" of nutritional deficiency during breastfeeding, is that this information should be made available and that promoting the idea that diet does not matter is more damaging in the long run. I decided not to pursue LLL leadership because of their ideas on nutrition, even though my friend (a LLL leader) was really pressuring me to go through with it.

I don't see any shame in disseminating information that diet does indeed matter. We tell pregnant women how important folic acid is, why can't we tell nursing mamas real facts about Vitamin D? About how if you are indoors all the time, and sunscreened outdoors, or live during the winter in northern climes, then your milk will be deficient in vitamin D because YOU are deficient in vitamin D? The prevailing thought I've experienced in our local LLL group is that once you are done with pregnancy, then diet doesn't matter.

Mothering is hard. Lactating is hard. We need more than just emotional support, we need physical/nutritional support as well. How many mamas have I met who are worn out, have brain fog, and depression? Yes, there are plenty of mamas who have lots of energy and feel absolutely fine nursing even into toddlerhood and beyond. But for the rest of us, I'd love to hear the truth rather than a glossing over of my problems, making me feel like I've somehow "failed" to be a good enough mother for not being able to hack it to child-led weaning.

It's really sad though, because I do see and hear about mamas discouraged from breastfeeding because they think it will be too "hard" or too expensive. I read an article about poor women in other countries using formula because pamphlets had been distributed about good foods to eat during breastfeeding like fish, eggs, milk, veggies etc and the women felt that these foods were too expensive, so they opted to use formula.

I'm having a hard time being objective because of my personal experience, but I do understand both sides. We need to encourage mamas to breastfeed, but we need to acknowledge and be truthful about potential pitfalls.

toraji (who still wears combat boots but not for military purposes)


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Everything else aside, Carol, you're right, my post was unnecessarily nasty. It was not my intent, I spoke with exhaustion (up late last night nursing a badly teething toddler), and I apologize.

You are also right about the way debate works, of course, but when you started making accusations of irresponsibility I do believe it became your responsibility to do the research.

Also, it is absolutely your right to make judgements on a book or whatever else without reading/experiencing it. I used to do it all the time. After a very painful personal experience, however, I believe it is a mistake that can at times be very costly and it is one I will never make again. I was hoping to save you from that - I just didn't express myself in a very good manner, and I suppose looking back maybe it really wasn't my place to do so anyway.

I truly did not mean to imply that you were not intelligent, I know a lot of very intelligent people who are not well-versed in finding scientific research. Given that none of your links were from scientific sources, it was not clear to me whether it was something you were used to and I was trying to avoid making an assumption that it was something you were familiar with. I was not making an assumption that you weren't well-versed in research, just making an allowance for the possibility.

I sincerely hope that you can come back to this thread and view it with interest, and I also hope that I have not irreparably damaged our online comraderie.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

You know, maybe there is some confusion going on here. When I responded in this thread this morning I was responding specifically to MisFitMama who asked, "are some of you saying you think this information (should you eventually decide that you believe it) should be SQUELCHED, for fear of scaring off the entry-level breastfeeders?" My response to her was focused at things I've said in this thread, mostly prior to last night's postings.

That said:

Quote:

On page 2 of the thread, Jane provided this argument:

Quote:
And regarding genetics. Weston Price found that poor nutrition carried on to the next generation. I think it plays much more of a role than modern medicine is willing to study.

For ex., if all the children in a family (mine) needed glasses and braces, is it genetics? Or because my mom believed in a lowfat diet, and didn't eat enough preformed vitamin A in butter, eggs, cream and fish?
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnu...taminasaga.html
Apparently the info on thay website is to be only utilized when it suits the posters needs. I also provided info from the same website & was subsequently told that that info was not good. So do I believe the info from that site or not?

Quote:

On page 2 uccomama provides a link to an argument stated by toraji.
I'm not finding this. However, uccomamma provided a link that said "Lactation, therefore, appears to be relatively robust in the face of poor nutrition."

Quote:

Jane recommended Price's book on page 3.

Quote:

And uccomama provides a short book review on the relevant research from the Price book:
I'm sorry but what part of "I haven't read the book" are you not understanding? Perhaps direct quotes from the book, complete with page numbers would be helpful so that I can quickly & easily locate this information? You wouldn't turn a research paper in without that type of information.

Quote:

Wendy provides information on how chemicals (pesticides etc) get into the milk on page 3. Obviously junk food has a lot of that.
Obviously? How so? Also, my dinner last night was with two bovine practioner's who told me themselves that there is no difference between organic cow's milk & traditional cow's milk (pesticides & antibiotics are undetectable in either's milk). These were 2 women who take care of dairy cow's every day of their lives. When they tell me things like, "my children will NEVER drink raw cow's milk!" I'm inclined to believe that raw cow's milk is bad, bad, bad.

Quote:

On page 4 HerthElde lists specific vitamins and minerals classified according to whether their levels in the maternal diet affect levels in breastmilk.
Yes she did & I fully intend on taking a look at the information directly. Just as soon as I finish defending why myself in this thread.

Quote:

uccomama refers to a Pottenger study on milk.
Again I fully intend on looking this up.

Quote:

HerthElde links to Kellymom re: supplementing if maternal diet is deficient
This does nothing towards the argument at hand though which is, maternal diet influences the quality of her breastmilk. Kellymom also says that maternal diet does not affect the quality of breastmilk.

Quote:

HerthElde links to an Enig article on fats and human milk.
AGAIN, I fully intend on going to the source & reading it.

Quote:

On page 5 HerthElde and Jane make our job easier and find abstracts in PubMed for our perusal.
Yes. They did that last night while I was gone & as you can see, I've spent my time defending MYSELF today rather than taking the time to read all of it. Which I fully intend on doing.

Quote:

And on page 6, Carol says:

Quote:
But being the analytical person that I am, I'm not just going to believe you because you say something is true or not true. I need proof. And if you don't want to provide that proof, then fine. Just say so.
Yes. Aside from the WAPF crap that keeps being reiterated ad nauseum, up until last night *very* little was posted that convinced me to see it your way. I have told you _ad nauseum_ that I will get the book & read it.

Now would you ladies like to continue to berate me or would you like to get back to the issue at hand? *INSERT SARCASM* Because yes, of course I'm just so close-minded that I think it's a wonderful idea to bury my head in the sand on this issue. I'd just love nothing more than to deny my little nursling the essential vitamins & minerals she needs. *eyeroll*


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Carol,

The problem is that you keep claiming that no proof has been provided, yet you haven't read what has been provided to you. I certainly don't expect you to have read all of that information last night and this morning. But given that it was provided last night, as was other information previously, it seems odd that you would make this statement this morning:

Quote:

But being the analytical person that I am, I'm not just going to believe you because you say something is true or not true. I need proof. And if you don't want to provide that proof, then fine. Just say so.
That's why you appear closeminded. Just read the stuff when you get around to it and then comment on it if you wish, but in the meantime, this exchange (as nasty as it's getting on all sides) is really unnecessary and irrelevant. Research has been put out there. The ball is in your court. Do with it what you will.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Ugh, I give up!


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *its_me_mona*
Aside from the WAPF crap that keeps being reiterated ad nauseum, up until last night *very* little was posted that convinced me to see it your way. I have told you _ad nauseum_ that I will get the book & read it.

The Weston Price book will put all of the "WAPF crap" in perspective.


----------



## MisfitMama (Sep 4, 2003)

*Here are some rambling thoughts I have on this topic (not directed at anyone in particular - I just feel like "talking":*

Personally, I have no idea how much academic/peer-reviewed research is out there, because after reading WAP I couldn't care less about what academics, etc. are finally coming up with - so much research only exists because some huge company has decided to fund it anyway.

IMO, once you get into stuff that people did before civilization began, it all becomes common sense and research becomes sort of unneccessary. Like, I'm GLAD people are finally doing research on co-sleeping and attachment and all that. . . Thank GOD, really, because some people have to have everything "scientifically proven" (even though there is no such thing as "proving" anything in science anyway, as any scientist will tell you.)

BUT. . . for those of us that have gone a little deeper into things, the research only serves to try to convince other people of the things we already understand. That's the way I feel about WAP stuff. . . I know science will eventually catch up, the way it is with stuff about attachment, about the continuum concept, about the stuff that is discussed in _Ishmael_. . . but I am not going to wait around for science!

Frankly, most of the people in government and the medical community, and many of the people in academia are totally in the dark! In our culture, everyone is brainwashed and I swear to God the people most likely to know what is going on seem to be the stay-at-home moms, because we're the most likely to become "Glorious Generalists" as Gwen Llewellyn (of _The Teenage Liberation Handbook_) would say! (That is, we're some of the most likely people to have done our *own* research in many fields, and also to have spent time thinking about how many different fields converge and make a holistic picture of the world.)

Amen.

MisfitMama


----------



## Mirzam (Sep 9, 2002)

Amen Sister!


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Hi, OP here! I've been in







: mode partly because I've been busy (as we all are, I know) and partly because I don't have anything original to add; I'm just learning from you all. JaneS, I'm sorry I misquoted you! I was in a real hurry when I posted last and I didn't realize someone else had been talking about the raw milk formula.









I looked around a bit on the Weston Price Foundation website and I also looked at the book review linked in a recent post. Can I ask, does that review represent the book pretty well? I figure the book must be really intriguing - it is obvious that everyone who has posted about it is an intelligent person, not the type to fall for "fad diets" and the like. However, the book review made me







about Weston Price. People have thinner noses because of their diet?? I mean, that just doesn't make sense to me. Broader noses mean people are healthier??

I will have to get this book and read it, obviously - the next time I'm at the library I'll check it out or put in an ILL request for it. But what I'm thinking, putting together the obvious devotion to WP of so many intelligent people along with the slightly nutty stuff on the web about his ideas, that it might be the kind of thing where he has a lot of great ideas and observations along with idiosyncratic stuff that is not worth much...kind of like the Continuum Concept...so much great stuff but the author's ideas about homosexuality were just a product of the culture she lived in when she wrote the book, kwim?

Possibly I'm not making any sense, and possibly I will offend people, but I just do not get it about WP...like Carol, I am really intrigued and will definitely read the book. I have a lot of comments and questions about what I understand of WP's ideas but because I have not read the book, I will keep further commentary to myself for now.

SO glad I started this thread.

~Elizabeth

ETA: Carol, don't give up! I really want to know what you think of the WP book after you read it, and your perspective is crucial to this debate! (It is also the perspective that I am leaning towards, if you couldn't tell







...but I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong).


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Sorry this has to be quick, I'm not even able to read all of other excellent posts here today.

Re: thinner noses

Yes, narrowed nostrils, narrow faces, crowded teeth caused by narrow dental arches are signs of incomplete facial development hampered by nutrition. And yes, it's hard to believe. Until you see the pictures over and over again. In many different races and ethnicities around the globe. It's truly mind blowing.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...ry_wisdom.html

It's why I brought up my personal story of me, my sister and brother all needing braces. Not to prove it by anecdote, but to make it more personal. The research has already been done over 60 years ago to prove it.


----------



## Bia (Oct 21, 2004)

Jumping in.... he was talking about facial bone structure. If you look at the comparison pictures, there is an obvious difference in facial bone structure, including the nose, mouth, teeth, etc. according to health and diet of the mother. Think of a cleft palate. Do you think that is a fluke, or due to the fetus not having what it needs or being subjected to a toxin?
There is a great deal of info that cannot be condensed in this thread, and IMO, a whole lot of research that one shouldn't even try to condense, because it doesn't do justice to that information or the effort put into the research, kwim? IMO, those of us on the WAP side can't convince you of anything, and shouldn't even try. All we can do is say "Here. Read this for yourself. Look at these pictures."

edited for typo & spelling


----------



## Bia (Oct 21, 2004)

sorry, cross-posted!


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

RE: cleft palate

*Maternal nutritional status and the risk for orofacial cleft offspring in humans.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...283&query_hl=1
"...a higher preconceptional intake of nutrients predominantly present in fruits and vegetables reduces the risk of offspring affected by OFC."

There's a ton more similar studies that can be had by clicking the "Related Articles" link at the right.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
If it does, then are we responsible for telling women this information even though it may discourage them from breastfeeding?

Here are my thoughts:

-We have no qualms about telling women to nurse on cue rather than on a schedule (which may be seen as inconvenient)

-We have no qualms about discussing the benefits of cosleeping with regards to breastfeeding (which may be seen as inconvenient)

-We have no qualms about discussing the benefits of babywearing with regards to breastfeeding (which may be seen as inconvenient)

-We have no qualms about telling a woman to nurse her baby as long as he/she needs to, not for 10 minutes a side (which may be seen as inconvenient)

-We have no qualms about telling a woman she may need to nurse more than once per side in some cases, which results in lopsidedness (which may be seen as inconvenient)

-We have no qualms about telling a woman who is having trouble with supply to try expressing in addition to fully nursing to get her supply up (which may be seen as inconvenient)

Also:
-We have no qualms about telling a woman during pregnancy to watch her nutrient intake.

So why is one more thing which may be considered incovenient so taboo?


----------



## Bia (Oct 21, 2004)

this has been bothering me and I can't stop thinking about it... why is it ok to underestimate women instead of educating them? whose right is it to decide what is good enough in this debate over adequate vs. optimum nutrition? if you make the decision to withhold information because you are afraid a woman will not breastfeed, you are deciding for her what is good enough for her baby... rather than offering information, letting her decide what is valid to her and what isn't, letting her decide what is good enough for her baby and what isn't. Why assume women are too lazy to go to the trouble, or not bright enough to figure all this out for themselves? If certain women want to disregard information once it is presented, fine. But that is a decision they should make... it shouldn't be made for them as a matter of policy.


----------



## its_me_mona (Feb 2, 2005)

Quote:

why is it ok to underestimate women instead of educating them? whose right is it to decide what is good enough in this debate over adequate vs. optimum nutrition? if you make the decision to withhold information because you are afraid a woman will not breastfeed, you are deciding for her what is good enough for her baby... rather than offering information, letting her decide what is valid to her and what isn't, letting her decide what is good enough for her baby and what isn't. Why assume women are too lazy to go to the trouble, or not bright enough to figure all this out for themselves?
I will presume that since I seem to be the only voice of dissent in this thread that you are assuming that it is me making such implications. That is not what I'm saying at all.

You might want to take a look at statistics and look at the reasons why women choose not to breastfeed. I'm telling you, one reason they choose not to breastfeed is because they think they're going to have to change the way they eat.

My argument is NOT that we should not tell mother's that they need to maintain a diet different than what they might if they weren't breastfeeding. My argument is that we should not be telling them this *IF* there is no data to back the claim up. *If* the evidence clearly shows that there are indeed varying qualities of breastmilk based on maternal diet, then yes, I would agree that women should be given this information.

Do you believe that there's some sort of conspiracy going on in this world to keep said information from women? If so, why? I'm having difficulty understanding why the current advice being given is to tell mother's that they do not need to eat differently while breastfeeding if it simply is not true. Why do we tell mother's this?

THAT SAID, I am *KINDLY* asking that you take into consideration that the above statements are made without having read any of the links provided by JaneS, HerthElde or the WAP book. I am at work today and this is the first time I've checked this thread since becoming thoroughly disgusted with it yesterday. I'm surprised that I came back for more, lol.

Thank you.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Carol, I don't think she was referring to you personally, I think it was a question based on the stance of most breastfeeding organizations.

BTW, I'm glad you're back.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
However, the book review made me







about Weston Price. People have thinner noses because of their diet?? I mean, that just doesn't make sense to me. Broader noses mean people are healthier??

Elizabeth -- I know it all sounds crazy and that's partly why it's so powerful when you read it. You will never look at people in the same way again. You will never look at your own food in the same way again.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

*Consumption of vitamin A by breastfeeding children in rural Kenya.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...269&query_hl=2
"Vitamin A deficiency remains a significant health risk in developing countries, affecting infants and children in particular. To counter child malnutrition, mothers are encouraged to breastfeed to ensure that their children receive adequate macro- and micronutrients, including vitamin A. However, this assumes that the mother has sufficient vitamin A intake to provide enough vitamin A to her child...The primary source of vitamin A for infants younger than six months was breast-milk deficient in retinol vitamin A. This study suggests that in this rural community, breastfed infants may not receive appropriate foods with high vitamin A content and that although exclusive breastfeeding is advocated, most breast milk is deficient in retinol, further heightening the risk of vitamin A deficiency."

*Vitamin B-12 deficiency is very prevalent in lactating Guatemalan women and their infants at three months postpartum.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...952&query_hl=2
"We conclude that vitamin B-12 deficiency is highly prevalent in these lactating women and is associated with depletion of the vitamin in their infants. The cause of the maternal deficiency is unknown, but malabsorption exacerbated by low dietary intake of the vitamin is a possibility."

*Vitamin B-12: low milk concentrations are related to low serum concentrations in vegetarian women and to methylmalonic aciduria in their infants.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...84&query_hl=13

*Concurrent micronutrient deficiencies in lactating mothers and their infants in Indonesia.*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...54&query_hl=13
"BACKGROUND: Deficiencies of vitamin A, iron, and zinc are prevalent worldwide, affecting vulnerable groups such as lactating women and infants. However, the existence of concurrent deficiencies has received little attention.
CONCLUSIONS: ... The micronutrient status of lactating mothers and that of their infants were closely related; breast milk was a key connecting factor for vitamin A status. Furthermore, concurrent micronutrient deficiencies appeared to be the norm."


----------



## Sarsparilla (Sep 8, 2005)

I agree completely with the eating more protein advice. Avoiding trans fats would be very good...you can still get lots of goodies without them if you go to a natural food market.
Also, the stuff gets into your milk. Doctors and scientists can research it all they want, but as moms, we know that if you pay attention to your babies mood and the physical stuff (gas, poop, pee, oily skin, etc...), you can definitely see it. Caffiene keeps babies up, and it's also not good for their kidneys. If it's coffee that you're drinking, you could switch to decaf and try and cut back. I was a monster coffee drinker before I got pregs, now I do a cup of decaf about 3 or 4 times a week. If it's soda you're drinking...you should probably try and get that to a minimum. The carbon dioxide in carbonated beverages will eat your bones away (leading cause of osteoporosis in teenage girls!). The sugar will also eat away at your calcium.
One thing to think about here that goes beyond breastmilk is that this could be a good time to start putting together healthy eating habits and routines, because you probably want to teach those to the babe when it's time for them to eat. If you continue to eat like this, your child will also eat like this.
I try to eat lots of good fats: avocado, coconut, butter, organic lard, whole milk, fish oils, nuts, etc... cause this makes for good fatty breastmilk, which means they are well fed, and nurse less.
Also, taking herbs can supplement your milk: fenugreek, fennel, chamomile, red raspberry leaf. Eating oatmeal makes for good milk too.
I have a major sweet tooth, and I've had to curb it for pregnancy and nursing. I would eat REALLY bad stuff: nerds, licorice ropes, jolly ranchers, life savers...tons of crap every day. I absolutely agree eating protein helps with the cravings, as does excersize...even stretching for 5 minutes at a time.
If you must eat sugar, try to eat better sugars, like honey, maple syrup and sucanat (dehydrated cane juice). These sugars still have vitamins left in them, so they don't need to pull out of your bodies reserves to be processed.
A great book is Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon. I think you can get it on Amazon pretty cheap. She's got tons of info about fats, protiens, sugars, etc... and lots of recipes. Everything I've ever made from the book has been delicious. There are really good dessert recipes which don't use white flour or refined sugars.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JaneS*
.

Re: thinner noses

Yes, narrowed nostrils, narrow faces, crowded teeth caused by narrow dental arches are signs of incomplete facial development hampered by nutrition. And yes, it's hard to believe. Until you see the pictures over and over again. In many different races and ethnicities around the globe. It's truly mind blowing.


I've been thinking about this statement for a little while now but I haven't had the chance to post. No, I haven't read the book and with a new baby, I'm not sure when I 'll get the chance. I did look at the pictures though. They are quite interesting. However, I'm not convinced by the arguments presented here that inadequate nutrition somehow leads to narrowed nostrils and narrow faces. People of color generally have wide flat noses and wider faces, fuller lips, thicker hair. These are all, in my opinion, adaptations to the environments where one lives. E.g. a thinner nose is probably more suited to a higher altitude in terms of getting air/oxygen more efficiently than a flat nose. It would better for a native of Alaska to have a wider nose/face and stockier bodier to deal with the elements there better. However, if indigenous people mix with people who have narrow noses and narrow faces, i.e. White people like through colonialization/immigration etc, then the features get more mixed up and a person of color might end up with a narrow nose, lighter hair/eyes, etc. I can kind of see how crowded teeth could be a result of malnutrion but the narrow nose and narrow face . . . I think that's a bit of a stretch. From the pictures it looks like the flat nosed/straight teeth person never mixed with a person of a different group i.e. has "pure" genes. Again, I haven't read the book and the previous posters haven't really explained how nutrition and narrow nose/face are related (how one actually causes the other) so maybe with some further explanation this might actually make some sense. But as a person of color, it just sounds really silly.

Oh and if Price really does use that word "primitive" in his writing (I read stuff from the website) that I don't really want to read his stuff because I know his angle is already skewed. Oh and also in certain places such as where I'm originally from, there are no cows so certain things such as raw dairy (cream, cheese, milk) were not and still are not a part of the traditional diet. There are goats but people don't drink the milk. Mostly the diet is chicken, fish, eggs, lots of vegetables and fruits, and occasionally goat meat. So to me, the Price arguments starts to fall apart little by little because all of us have wide noses and wide faces.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

rootzdawta, I am also a non-white mama. The "primitive" wording was popular terminology when the book was written, back in the 30's in America. There is a big disclaimer in the beginning of the Price book explaining that while his terminology may not be PC for modern times, they felt it would be more detrimental to edit and reword his text than to just leave it in its entirety. Price is long dead, but the confusion that he is still alive and authoring articles is due to the name of the Weston A. Price Foundation which is headed by Sally Fallon (author of Nourishing Traditions) and others. She is the one who promotes dairy, not Dr. Price.

If you do read the book, the feeling is indescribable. Things that I used to take for granted, like thinking that wider faces were due to being of "pure" stock and not mixing with whites, and that narrower faces were somehow more desireable and refined, all got thrown out the window. The pictures show parents both white and non-white with wide, robust faces, and the children after the parents started eating refined foods and sugar. The children do not have the wide faces and jaws of their parents. Shouldn't this be, according to popular theory, a genetic trait passed down? Yes there is some variation due to racial differences, but you can definitely see the faces of the children becoming narrower. It does not matter what color you are. The pictures of the children tell the truth.


----------



## Sarsparilla (Sep 8, 2005)

I've also noticed an increase in my energy levels, and overall health after following this diet. My husband is lactose intolerant, but if we buy RAW unpasteurized milk, he has no problems with it. I'm not sure why, but it was one of Fallon's recommendations.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

you can definitely see the faces of the children becoming narrower. It does not matter what color you are.

So what precisely is the causal agent in this narrowing of the face, and is it observable? Can one's face grow appreciably narrower or wider in their own lifetime? Or is the wideness/narrowness of one's face based on one's parents' diet somehow affecting the expression of the genes...? Someone please explain this to me because I just don't get it. I looked at the pictures on the website and I'm still







...it doesn't make a lick of sense to me.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sarsparilla*
I'm not sure why, but it was one of Fallon's recommendations.

It's because raw milk naturally contains lactase.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Hi Toraji







. I'm truly not trying to argue with you all again :LOL since I avoid the nutrition board here now to avoid that!

I haven't read this entire thread, but it does seem to be taking the approach of 'animal products are necessary for good breastmilk' and you know how I feel about that :LOL ! My face is probably fairly narrow; I'm blond, white, etc. I don't know if I can blame my face structure on my mom's diet, but it hasn't caused me any problems and I look more or less like all of my relatives for the past few generations (haven't seen any before that). I needed braces for a gap btwn my front teeth, but didn't have major orthodonture. I wasn't breastfed and ate probably a half-way decent diet as a child.

Our kids dentist has told us that being of mixed heritage is a more important determinant of whether you will have crowded teeth, etc. than anything else. He says that those people who are pure-blooded whatever tend to have pretty straight teeth. Only my older dd (7) has started loosing teeth and growing permanent teeth in thus far. She's almost 3/4 Italian and 1/4+ whatever other European decent that I am (German, English, who knows).

Of the 6 permanent teeth that she has thus far, I am amazed at how straight they are. I keep knocking on wood, but the dentist says that she may be one of the fortunate few who needs no orthodontics. We are vegan. I was vegan for 10 years prior to conceiving dd#1.

One area that really does bug me about Sally Fallon's writings is that she has very clearly articulated that she doesn't think that women who are vegetarian should breastfeed b/c our milk is inferior. I truly have not seen any indication of that in my children. They are healthy, they don't have any of the facial problems that she asserts will come about from lack of animal products (dd#2 has a wider face than dd#1 -- she looks more like dh -- but they are both very normal looking), and my older dd is so smart that it just blows me away. She hit the cap on the literacy test that they gave the second graders a month ago (12th grade).

I'm sure that good nutrition during bf is important just like good nutrition is important during pregnancy, but I would hate to discourage any woman from bf by making her feel that she needed to achieve some level of perfection in her diet in order to make good breastmilk for her baby. I also don't care for the one size fits all approach that holds that there are some specific products that must be included in one's diet in order to breastfeed.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
I'm sure that good nutrition during bf is important just like good nutrition is important during pregnancy, but I would hate to discourage any woman from bf by making her feel that she needed to achieve some level of perfection in her diet in order to make good breastmilk for her baby. I also don't care for the one size fits all approach that holds that there are some specific products that must be included in one's diet in order to breastfeed.

I agree. I think the gist of my stance is this: formula is *always* inferior to breastmilk. But a healthier diet in the mother *can* make a healthier baby than an unhealthy diet (not always the case, it depends on just how strong mom's constitution is to begin with).
I think, as far as nutrition goes, that what is the healthiest way to eat is up for debate, and while I have no qualms about sharing my *own* successes, I encourage people to do their own research on both sides of the story and come to their own conclusion. There is no one-size fits all diet - we all have different genetic backgrounds and live in different places with different climates. And we all know that there are many many perspectives even within the mainstream medical community about what constitutes an optimum diet, let alone with those of us that take a more holistic approach.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
I agree. I think the gist of my stance is this: formula is *always* inferior to breastmilk. But a healthier diet in the mother *can* make a healthier baby than an unhealthy diet (not always the case, it depends on just how strong mom's constitution is to begin with).
I think, as far as nutrition goes, that what is the healthiest way to eat is up for debate, and while I have no qualms about sharing my *own* successes, I encourage people to do their own research on both sides of the story and come to their own conclusion. There is no one-size fits all diet - we all have different genetic backgrounds and live in different places with different climates. And we all know that there are many many perspectives even within the mainstream medical community about what constitutes an optimum diet, let alone with those of us that take a more holistic approach.

Okay. I can agree with that







, especially the part about formula always being inferior.

I worked as a researcher for a USDA funded nutrition program for a while and I, too, was driven to distraction by the govt message of 'there are no bad foods.' I, too, agree that people should be given information and then allowed to draw their own conclusions. However, I have also seen that some people can be overwhelmed with info and then freeze. I'd have to agree with someone a page or so back who said that perhaps there ought to be two levels of information: give me all of it and give some other members of the public less info so that you don't scare them out of making the best choice (bf) for fear that they need to be perfect in order to make it happen. It's a hard public health decision but I have a lot more sympathy for the conundrum that PH officials are in than I used to (even though I am technically 'one of them').


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
I'd have to agree with someone a page or so back who said that perhaps there ought to be two levels of information: give me all of it and give some other members of the public less info so that you don't scare them out of making the best choice (bf) for fear that they need to be perfect in order to make it happen.

Maybe it's more in the way it's phrased. If it's absolutely no ifs, ands or buts clear that formula is inferior, but something is said that indicates a better diet can be EVEN better, or a viable solution to nursing problems, I don't really see the problem.
I think about myself . . . it sounds like you were pretty healthy when you began your pregnancies. I was NOT, but was unaware that my problems were deficiency related. I ate a whole foods version of what was in the food guide and took vitamins and thought I was doing all the right things. Dd and I both started showing signs of deficiency. Had I not been inclined to really research it, it's very unlikely I would have been able to physically continue nursing. As it was, my ankle was so bad I was getting little sleep and getting to a point where I could barely walk. Had I not been so committed to breastfeeding, I may have just weaned her. And you know, I probably would have felt better after because my own body wouldn't have had to share. Dd might have had the appearance of doing better as well (although I believe it would have been superficial) and had I been someone else, someone who is convinced that formula is an ok choice, who KNOWS what kind of crap info I would be spreading about to other women!
I resent that I didn't find any info on how important nutrition CAN be to a nursing relationship. I resent that I didn't come to the information before dd was 9 months. Or before my health had declined so much. I honestly think that by saying nutrition doesn't matter, we are doing a huge disservice to many women.
I don't know - maybe I'm just too close to the issue to be objective.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Hey ChristaN!







Nice to see you again!

I agree with a lot of what you've said. As I keep saying, no one diet fits all! I know that Sally Fallon has an anti-vegetarian agenda but I don't necessarily agree with everything she writes.

The issue that I am personally trying to argue is the idea promoted by breastfeeding advocates that it doesn't matter what you eat, your milk is just fine. And this is what I personally do not agree with, though like HerthElde I may be too close to the issue to be objective (but I'm really trying!) I totally agree that it is very difficult to know how much info will "scare" someone off. In the interests of trying to get every woman to breastfeed though, are we making it seem like it's easier than it actually is? I know this does not just strictly apply to nutritional issues, but also troubles with starting the nursing relationship. I had painful, bleeding nipples when I first started and remember feeling those "I am a failure at this" thoughts because everything I'd read about just starting made it seem so simple and pain-free! I eventually figured out that it wasn't anything that I was doing, my nipples just needed to toughen up.

My secondary reason for being on this thread was trying to clarify some ideas about Dr. Price's work that seemed to be getting confused with Sally Fallon's opinions. Did you know that Dr. Price was a vegetarian? Though I'm not sure for how long or any more info about that

Nora'sMama, it all happens in the womb. If there is insufficient nutrition for baby to grow optimally, then they will just make do with what they have. Think about how tiny they are when they are forming. If one thing is just slightly off, then it will make a huge impact in the formation and development of the fetus. Hope that makes sense, my time is being cut short!


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

I finally got around to reading the current issue of Mothering.... and in it is an article called BURSTING BREASTFEEDING MYTHS:

One of the myths is that diet is unimportant while bf'ing.

It was written by the fabulous Dr. Paul Fleiss.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Christa,

As I understand it, Dr. Price didn't find one native society who lived only on plant foods and was healthy. I seem to recall that he mentioned the people of East India who were vegetarian which had a number of degenerative diseases and a low life expectancy but I cannot find that info online right now. Some African tribes were mostly vegetarian, but still contained some animal products:
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...of_africa.html

Officially a vegetarian diet can be healthy according to WAPF if it contains animal products such as eggs and dairy. However it requires a strong constitution and optimal ability to assimilate certain key vitamins and minerals. Veganism is strongly warned against for specific reasons.

I am a former vegetarian who is greatly appreciative of Price's research and the findings of the WAPF. I've personally seen enormous results by following their knowledge. It seems overwhelmingly clear to me personally, once I read his research on native populations, why I would not want to follow a vegetarian diet nor feed my children in that manner.

The biggest problems he found were the lack of Vitamin D and Vitamin A. Both of which are only found in animal foods. They are shown in native diets to be consumed at 10x the amount in modern diets ... and these high doses of key fat soluble vitamins, along with what he termed "Activator X" were what prevented degenerative diseases now so common in modern life. He did try very hard to find a society successfully living on veg foods, as he first believed in the health of a vegetarian diet.

Native diets contained a special catalyst called Activator X, aka The Price Factor. A fat soluble nutrient found only in organ meats, fish eggs, and grass fed butterfat that completely controlled cavities and optimized bone building minerals.

Some of the info which he found regarding Vitamin A, D and B12 are summarized in this article:
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstru...tarianism.html

Other info re: vegan/vegetarian diets
http://www.westonaprice.org/tour/vegtourindex.html

I'm curious as to how you reconcile these differences personally. As you seem to make mention of other debates you've had here, and you are obviously aware of his findings. I'm not trying to start a debate in this thread. I've stayed away from any vegetarian/omnivore debates b/c I truly believe you cannot convince people of what is healthiest for them, you can only try to inform them what you've found that seems to be true *for you personally*.

I'm curious if you have other information/research you can show me as the WAPF arguments about key vitamins, minerals, fats and their specific functions seem so rock solid to me. I've never read anything so well researched about nutrition in my life, and I've read a great deal since taking a college nutrition course that was hard as hell. Perhaps you can link to your previous posts that you mention as explanation so needn't go into it all again. Thank you!


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Another thing with regards to Sally Fallon and veganism - I can completely understand why someone would be annoyed by the vehemence with which she presents the view that vegans are not healthy. Not unlike my annoyance to the vehemence with which vegan websites discuss why they believe meat is totally unhealthy. One significant difference - Fallon does not attack the moral character of veg*ns. IMO, attacking another's ethics is far more vicious than saying someone's diet isn't optimum.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Jane,

I honestly don't want to get into the omni vs. vegi debates any further myself, either. I admit that I haven't read much of Dr. Price's work -- only some of what can be found online (not the book). From what I see, I have more of an issue w/ the interpretations (Fallon - whose book I have read) than the original work, although I really should someday find the time. It isn't available anywhere around here that I have seen, so I'd have to order it online. It just isn't relevant for me, so I admit that I am not highly motivated to spend the money. We are healthy, our teeth (mine and kids) are straight and not decaying, and we are not suffering from any ailments.

I simply know what works for me and my family. I have been vegan for coming up on 17 years soon. I have one filling in my mouth (that I got as a child), am healthy, educated, and with no degenerative diseases. My children are doing great as well. My dh's family is extremely sensitive to animal products in a negative way. He was raised by a father who was a butcher and ate a diet pretty much based on whole food animal products from what he relays to me (his parents apparently embarrased him extensively by sending in thick whole grain bread sandwiches and eggs from grandpa's farm when his peers were eating wonder bread). His parents died very young from colon cancer and a heart attack. I can see the difference in my dh himself when he eats animal products. His cholesterol, triglycerides and bp shoot through the roof whenever he eats cheese. A short while on vegan food and they all come down again.

I, like many others here, am going based upon what works for my family. I can see the difference in our health when we are eating vegan food (not that I have too much to compare in my case since I haven't eaten non-vegan food for so long!), but with dh it is very obvious. He is healthier when he doesn't eat animal products. Whenever he goes on a spree of making himself steaks or eating cheese, we wind up in the hospital with him having chest pains, gaining weight, and developing colon polyps (which he & all of his siblings have developed in their 40s).

As far as actual research showing that diets low or lacking in animal products can be healthful, there are some studies that strongly suggest that to me. It is true that there are so few populations that have been historically vegan that it is hard to conduct a longitudinal study of the vegan diet, so most studies compare populations eating more animal products with those eating very little (although not zero). A few that have interesting findings to me include:
the Harvard Nurses study (found that nurses who ate more dairy had higher rates of osteoporosis)
and The China Study

I really believe that the reason that so few populations have been historically vegan is not b/c it is unhealthy but b/c it would have been extremely difficult in many climates to maintain a vegan diet in the past prior to modern society. My mother's family is from Sicily (south Italy) and their native diet is probably as close to vegan as my family gets since it is pretty easy to grow lots of veggies year round there and people were poor enough that they couldn't afford meat and dairy often. They also lived a lot longer before they moved to the US and started eating a bunch of processed foods and soda.

One question that I do have is whether Dr. Price accounted for confounding factors? Did he have any way or knowing if the problems he was seeing were caused by the intro of white bread and sugar rather than the reduction of milk and meat in the diet? The kids that he saw with deformed faces and teeth weren't now eating whole foods vegan diets rather than whole foods omni diets, were they? I took enough research classes in grad school that I admit that I am a little suspect -- although I can't judge w/out reading his research. I just wonder b/c you can't determine if the lack of animal products was the problem if that is not the only change that was taking place in the diets of these people - kwim? It can be a hypothesis, but unless you are comparing apples with apples, you can't have a tested theory.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Christa -- you should read the book, I think you would be fascinated. Earlier in this thread I offered to mail my extra copy to people who are interested in reading it and that each person on the list would mail it to the next. So if you would like to read my copy, PM me.

His book is not about vegan vs omni diets, it's about traditional versus modern, so the key is the introduction of processed foods. But what he finds in common in all of the traditional diets is animal fats, that's why we all focus on animal fats in our diets. His research design is highly fascinating. He has so many different types of case comparisons that support his story. It is a must read for anyone with any interest in nutrition at all.

Amanda


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:

His book is not about vegan vs omni diets, it's about traditional versus modern, so the key is the introduction of processed foods.
That I have no issue with at all. From what you all say, it does sound like his observations support the idea that the introduction of processed foods is not health supporting. There is a lot of research out there that supports that hypothesis as well.

It just seems like a leap (and a leap without substantiation) to go from that to what Sally Fallon and Mary Enig have written in regard to his observations proving that veg*n diets are unhealthy.

Back to the original question, I wonder if the best message to provide women might be just that a healthy diet remains important during bf just like it was important during pregnancy and then to provide further information on what that healthy diet constitutes as seems appropriate based upon the individual woman, her capacities, and her motivation to bf. I can't get with the idea that a healthy diet for lactation requires animal products, though -- sorry. My older dd would have been a super scary genius with the addition of something else if her mental capacity was somehow stunted by my vegan diet during bf and pregnancy :LOL !


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Well, there is the issue that all traditional diets had animal products. The only community he found without had evidence of physical degeneration, but the community was something like 75 years old, not centuries or millenia. And it ate whole foods. So the problem from a research point of view is that there was little variation in the animal fats department of traditional societies. The only variation there was (and it wasn't exactly "traditional") does not speak well for the vegan diet.

I'm with JaneS, HerthElde, and toraji in the end -- the School of Hard Knocks has taught me plenty about the importance of animal in the diet.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
Back to the original question, I wonder if the best message to provide women might be just that a healthy diet remains important during bf just like it was important during pregnancy and then to provide further information on what that healthy diet constitutes as seems appropriate based upon the individual woman, her capacities, and her motivation to bf.

ITA.

And while we're at it, how about the fact that nutrition is just important, period.

For the people that don't think that nutrition affects breastmilk, what is your view of the effect of nutrition on your overall health?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JaneS*
The biggest problems he found were the lack of Vitamin D and Vitamin A. Both of which are only found in animal foods.

And then there is that detail as well. When I was a near vegan, I assumed that supplementing was fine, but I only focused on Bs.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

This thread has been referenced by several other posts around the boards lately


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

subbing...it's an area of interest to me!


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Another fascinating example of diet and milk production from a fellow mammal. It's all about the diet and the digestion. For those of us who've battled gut problems, it will sound eerily familiar:

Quote:

Soil specialist Jerry Brunetti6 explains why the way cows are fed today causes them to suffer from a range of health problems. Dairy cows are fed grains and soybeans, which have high caloric and nitrogen values. Sometimes rations even include bakery waste, such as out-of-date donuts, candy and pastries. These *foodstuffs upset the delicately balanced ecosystem in the cow's rumen. As rumen microbes digest the foods eaten by the cow, they produce waste products which inhibit the growth of other microbes.* One of these metabolic wastes, acetic acid (vinegar), is used as an energy source by cattle. But the waste from microbial digestion of starches-like corn and bakery waste-is lactic acid, which has no value to ruminant. It also lowers the pH in the rumen, causing acidosis. *The colostrum (first milk) of such acidic cows has very few antibodies because they are immunosuppressed.*

*Another serious consequence of grain feeding is that cows on grain absorb lower amounts of fat-soluble vitamins A, D and E, even when these vitamins are added to feed; and, consequently, less of these vital nutrients show up in the milk.7*

http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/splendor.html


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Wow, JaneS, that's amazing!

I am the OP of this thread and although I never got around to checking out the Weston Price book, I'm much more inclined to believe that nutrition plays a role in milk quality than I was before. I am really trying to get the right things into my diet. Unfortunately, it is **** very hard for me and I'm struggling. But I pay special attention to the fats in my diet and besides not eating any PHOs, I try to eat lots of avocados, olives and olive oil, flaxseeds, walnuts, fatty fish (and I take fish oil), and other healthy fats. I also use butter and whole fat dairy, although I am not planning on doing the raw milk thing.

My DD is thriving and chunky so hopefully I am doing something right! I still eat too much sugar though.


----------



## MaryJaneLouise (Jul 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JaneS*

It really bothers me that the research studies are done on IQ points. I guess they are easily quantifiable. And safe. Not like a study correlating MS and formula feeding (although I swear I heard there was one.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Quote:

Varicella, ephemeral breastfeeding and eczema as risk factors for multiple sclerosis in Mexicans.

Tarrats R, Ordonez G, Rios C, Sotelo J.

Neuroimmunology Unit, National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that the incidence of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Mexico and other countries of Latin America has increased steadily for the last two decades. We made a thorough search of antecedents on MS patients that could be potential risk factors. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted using a questionnaire that included demographic, nutritional, infectious and personal antecedents previously identified in other reports as possible risk factors for MS. RESULTS: The frequency of varicella, *ephemeral breastfeeding* and eczema in the medical history of MS patients *were significant when compared with controls; all appeared to be mutually additive.* However, they were unrelated with clinical characteristics or disease severity. CONCLUSION: During the last decades, breastfeeding has been abandoned in large segments of society and the incidence of varicella and childhood eczema keeps a north-south gradient similar to that described for MS. These factors may participate in the sharp increase of MS in countries like Mexico traditionally considered as an area of very low incidence.
BTW ephemeral breastfeeding means short term breastfeeding.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Thank you MaryJaneLouise!

I just found this mention too in the excellent "Outcomes of Bf'ing" at LLL:

Quote:

Although thought to be multifactorial in origin, and without a clearly defined etiology, lack of breastfeeding does appear to be associated with an increased incidence of multiple sclerosis. Dick, G. "The Etiology of Multiple Sclerosis." Proc Roy Soc Med 1976;69:611-5

Pisacane A, et al. Breast feeding and multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1994 May 28;308(6941):1411-2.

Quote:

Breastfeeding vs Multiple Sclerosis
as reported in 'The Compleat Mother', Winter 1997

The association between bottlefeeding and multiple sclerosis was investigated in a case-control study by the Pediatrics Department at the University of Naples, Italy. Patients with multiple sclerosis were less likely than controls to have been breastfed for a prolonged period of time. Cow's milk contains lower amounts of unsaturated fatty acids, and *a different compostion of cortex grey matter has been described in bottle fed infants.* This fact could be associated by means of the formation of defective membranes with easier entry of an infective agent across the blood-brain barrier or with accelerated degradation of myelin itself.

Human milk might actively influence the immune system of the offspring by different mechanisms, and some features of the immune response among those who have been breastfed for a prolonged period may last for a long time.

In the study, 93 cases and 93 controls were enrolled. Cases were all patients who had a definite diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; controls were people who matched the cases in terms of age and gender. The groups were contacted by two interviewers who were blind to the objective of the study. Whenever possible the mothers of the patients were interviewed, otherwise the patients provided information about their infant feeding, usually quoting their mothers. The mean duration of breastfeeding was 8.4 months for the cases and 12.5 months for the controls.

Alfredo Pisacane,
Nicola Impagliatzo et al Dipartimento di Pediatri,
Universira di Napoli,
Fen'co II,Via Pansini 5. 80131
Naples, Italy

This is a special concern of mine as a very close friend has MS. And since the right fats develops the myelin, it makes sense that bf'ing helps prevent. Also since MS is an autoimmune disease too.


----------



## chasmyn (Feb 23, 2004)

This is amazing. As I was reading it I couldn't help but think that just once, I'd like to see the mainstream media latch on to something like this and run with it. Just once I'd like to see them use their fearmongering on something like this, something that might bring some beneficial results for once. Imagine a society in which most women have never even heard of formula, except in very special circumstances....*sigh*


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Chasmyn, in my ideal world formula would be available by prescription only, would have plain labelling (no cute ducks or bunnies or bows) and there would be NO advertising of the product - and every woman, poor or rich, would have access to an LC in the postpartum period who could help as needed to see that the BF relationship is thriving...and if formula was truly needed, the LC could be trained and enabled to prescribe the best formula for the baby. WIC or its equivalent would allow organic food purchases and would educate the nursing mother in proper nutrition...nursing teas and tinctures would be available through WIC.

Of course, in my ideal world, every woman would also have 1 year of full-paid maternity AND every dad would get paternity leave...and there would be lots of support for BF everywhere...and all peds would be well-educated in BF issues.

Fat chance! (snort) - Oh well, I can dream.


----------



## chasmyn (Feb 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Chasmyn, in my ideal world formula would be available by prescription only, would have plain labelling (no cute ducks or bunnies or bows) and there would be NO advertising of the product - and every woman, poor or rich, would have access to an LC in the postpartum period who could help as needed to see that the BF relationship is thriving...and if formula was truly needed, the LC could be trained and enabled to prescribe the best formula for the baby. WIC or its equivalent would allow organic food purchases and would educate the nursing mother in proper nutrition...nursing teas and tinctures would be available through WIC.

Of course, in my ideal world, every woman would also have 1 year of full-paid maternity AND every dad would get paternity leave...and there would be lots of support for BF everywhere...and all peds would be well-educated in BF issues.

Fat chance! (snort) - Oh well, I can dream.

THAT is a world that I want to live in


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Another reference to prove junk food diet in mama means junk milk for baby.

And I find the mention of trans fats effects on lactating very, very interesting.

Quote:

More than a decade of research at the University of Maryland, as well as research that was being done at other institutions, showed that consumption of trans fatty acids from partially hydrogenated (a process that adds hydrogen to solidify or harden) vegetable fats and oils had many adverse effects in health areas such as *heart disease, cancer, diabetes, immunity, reproduction and lactation, and obesity*....

As regards to the question of cancer, trans fatty acids induce adverse alterations in the activities of the important enzyme system that metabolizes chemical carcinogens...

Both primate and human studies have shown inappropriate handling of blood sugar; trans fatty acids decrease the response of the red blood cell to insulin, thus having a potentially undesirable effect in diabetics. The primate research was initiated at Maryland in collaboration with the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health, and the human research is from the University of Pittsburgh and quite recent...

One major concern is that trans fatty acids adversely affect immune response by lowering efficiency of B cell response and increasing proliferation of T cells. This was shown in research done at Maryland using a mouse model and although there are reports from clinicians that there are problems of immune dysfunction in humans it still needs to be evaluated systematically in humans.

*Recent research from outside the U. S. has indicated that trans fatty acids interfere with reproductive attributes and of concern is the finding that trans fatty acids lower the amount of cream (volume) in milk from lactating females in all species studies including humans, thus lowering the overall quality available to the infant.* The latter research was done at Maryland by my colleague Dr. Beverly Teter.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jun/10/trans_fats.htm


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Of course, in my ideal world, every woman would also have 1 year of full-paid maternity AND every dad would get paternity leave...and there would be lots of support for BF everywhere...and all peds would be well-educated in BF issues.

This part of your ideal world exists...in Sweden. I read about it in The Price of Motherhood. The US is so far behind Western Europe with regard to these issues....


----------



## luvmyfirefly (May 12, 2006)

double post - sorry!


----------



## luvmyfirefly (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *uccomama*
I do know who Hale is and quite frankly and his work is valuable, but I don't believe any pharmaceutical drug is safe to take while breastfeeding whatever the concentrations

Hmmmm, I wonder what you would say to moms like me who were only able to establish and continue nursing by using the pharmaceutical Domperidone. My daughter had a very weak suck and it was only by using Domperidone and extensive pumping that I was able to develop an adequate supply.

Believe me, I'm no fan of big Pharma. (I developed Fibromyalgia after the birth of my daughter, and the first doctors I went to had me on so many meds I felt like a zombie. In fact, I only weaned my daughter at 18 months to begin these meds. I've since found an MD who mostly uses nutritional supplements and I'm down to 2 prescription meds from a high of 8 - 10 per day.) But in my case, this drug enabled me to nurse my daughter - and believe me - I tried EVERYthing else. I was beginning to annoy my LCs by how many times I showed up on their doorstep - some of them were even telling me to give up. I pumped every 2 hours around the clock for the first 3 -4 months of her life, and I smelled of pancake syrup from all the fenugreek I was taking. I did tons of research, discussed it with my OB/Gyn AND my daughter's pediatrician and then began taking Domperidone. Within 4 days of beginning it I finally had the milk my lovely girl needed.

So is that pharmaceutical unacceptable as well? It would have been better for me to give her formula than take it and nurse her?

A little moderation in our attitudes goes a long, long way.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

I know you didn't ask me, but I would absolutely take Dom in your situation. BM is too valuable.

However, from what I know now about nutrition now leads me to believe a lot of low milk problems are nutritionally related. But that is not an easy or a quick fix, so again, I think Dom is probably the only drug I would take while BF'ing.


----------



## luvmyfirefly (May 12, 2006)

Sorry to be so late to this thread, but I'm new to the forums.

I just wanted to say that a lot of this discussion seems to me to be painfully academic. Of course, EVERYONE would be better off with a more nutritious diet (although there's a lot of disagreement about what that is) including nursing moms and their babies. But the only alternative to nursing available to most people is formula. (For instance, the only place in Ohio that I know of that sold raw milk stopped a couple of years ago because of either a salmonella or e coli problem.) And the breastmilk of a woman who ate nothing but McDonald's would still provide more good to her baby than formula.

Also, the WAP Foundation's (not necessarily Dr. Price's) positions on vegetarianism and soy foods strike me as awfully extreme. Extremely LOWFAT vegetarian/vegan diets are probably unhealthful for anyone but Dean Ornish's heart patients - but I don't think the level of animal fats and proteins in the typical American diet is doing us any favors either.

Here are just a few rebuttals of WAPF that I was able to find:

http://www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm

http://www.energygrid.com/health/200...henbyrnes.html

http://www.bryannaclarkgrogan.com/page/page/2264686.htm

Their position is also not bolstered by the fact that one of their main representatives, Dr. Stephen Byrnes (author of the controversial "The Myths of Vegetarianism") died at a relatively young age of a stroke.

I think they make wonderful points, though, about the damage highly processed foods do to us.

I also want to issue the disclaimer that I am a vegetarian of 20 years now, primarily for ethical reasons.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JaneS*
However, from what I know now about nutrition now leads me to believe a lot of low milk problems are nutritionally related.

As a vegan of 17 yrs who had an extremely overly abundant milk supply, if this is the case (as it may be -- I have never looked into the issue) that would support the idea that my vegan diet, at least, was not lacking in nutrients. (My clothes were soaked in milk and milk would spray all over the place when dds popped off from nursing. Dd#1 also gained more than 2 lbs in the first two weeks of her life and was generally a very big baby despite having small petite parents.)


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Well . . . I have a huge supply, too, but we still became nutrient-depleted. I think this, like many other things, has a HUGE number of factors (for example, I was a smoker for 25 years - started in utero, and that likely stripped a lot of my stores right down).
I know this isn't really a thread about what constitutes *good* nutrition, but when looking at what diet would truly be optimum, you'd have to take a look at the starting point, as well as effects over a few generations, and take environmental factors into account, and probably all sorts of other factors . . . certainly something I'd be curious to see if in a few hundred years anyone had any definitive answers about anything. Too bad we can't pop into the future to do our research, eh







?


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
As a vegan of 17 yrs who had an extremely overly abundant milk supply, if this is the case (as it may be -- I have never looked into the issue) that would support the idea that my vegan diet, at least, was not lacking in nutrients. (My clothes were soaked in milk and milk would spray all over the place when dds popped off from nursing. Dd#1 also gained more than 2 lbs in the first two weeks of her life and was generally a very big baby despite having small petite parents.)

That's great! Perhaps you were not eating trans fats or an abundance of the wrong vegetable oils (canola, corn, etc.) which greatly effect our hormones. That is not true for all vegetarians or all people in this culture. A study of one doesn't really prove much. I was nutrient deficient and had abundant milk as well. It really is more complex and individual than that.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

My lack of supply was definitely due to gut issues. After taking steps to heal my gut my supply went up-after taking domperidone for a year. I had been off of it for months and suddenly I was much more full.

I actually don't agree that a mother who exclusively eats trans fats (McDonalds) is doing her baby any favors. Formula isn't a great comparison because it's horrible across the board-but faced with donated bm from a mom who consumes a ton of fast food and the ability to make my own from raw organic milk-I'd make my own no question.

Luvmyfirefly-I didn't take dom with my son and had to make my own formula. It was okay and I did what I could for him, but with my daughter there was no question and I took the dom. I'll never regret it. The minute amounts passed in bm are nothing compared to nutrients from another animal. Hopefully (and it appears that I won't!) I won't be having this issue again. As I said, the more my gut healed, the more milk I had. The better I ate-the better she ate!


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *luvmyfirefly*
Also, the WAP Foundation's (not necessarily Dr. Price's) positions on vegetarianism and soy foods strike me as awfully extreme. ...

Here are just a few rebuttals of WAPF that I was able to find...

I'd like to address this. A page of "rebuttal" to Weston Price's work is nowhere near adequate.

As many people who disregard Weston Price may not know: he travelled all around the world meticulously studying over 40 ethnically and racially diverse tribes and villages.

No other research of its kind exists, or will exist, because these pockets of isolated people, eating solely their native diets as they have for centuries before, has gradually disappeared in this modern world.

And WAP was a man who was well studied in research methods. He was the head of research for the precursor organization to the Amer. Dental Assoc. directing a staff of 50.

He found that no society who was vegetarian was healthy (and he wanted to, he looked quite hard.)

He found that native diets ... as diverse as the seafood eaters of Polynesia, the Masai who ate up to a lb. of butterfat a day, the Eskimos who exsited solely on whale fat and meat (with no ketosis)... provided more than 5 times the minerals and 10 times the fat soluble vitamins as modern diets and the RDA. It definatively proves animal fat and cholesterol do not cause half the ills they are blamed for today, and in fact are the basis for traditional human diets and health of the immune system.

These native diets kept the people disease free, protecting them from heart disease, cavities, tuberculosis that was rampant in the time, guards against depression, and on and on.

He also explained how nutrition effects the shape of your child's face. Crowded or crooked teeth, need for braces, and tooth health is nutritionally based. Native diets did not produce narrow jaws or narrow nostrils.... these are all around us now as modern diets have effected our bodies so visibly.

If the diet is low in minerals and fat soluble activators from animal fats the body compensates and gives less priority to certain parts of the skeleton. And amazingly enough, a narrow jaw/head, effects not only our looks and ability to breathe properly, but hormone production and the brain.

It's quite extraordinary research. That the WAP Foundation has continued. Their views and research on soy are an extension of the food preparation techniques WAP found in his travels. If you think their position is extreme, well perhaps our modern diet, compared to native diets that is meant to keep ourselves healthy, is actually the extreme in my view.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JaneS*
If the diet is low in minerals and fat soluble activators from animal fats the body compensates and gives less priority to certain parts of the skeleton. And amazingly enough, a narrow jaw/head, effects not only our looks and ability to breathe properly, but hormone production and the brain.

Can you please expound upon diets lacking in animal fats affecting the brain? Are you implying that vegetarian diets during gestation or lactation correlate with lower intellect in offspring or that people with narrow faces or nose bridges are statistically less intelligent as a group?

I haven't noticed that members of my local Mensa chapter look any different than anyone else I meet on the street and we don't seem to have wider faces, noses or jaws than your average person either. Both my older dd and I have had IQ tests done at some point in our lives and came up in the 98-99.5% (as compared to the general population). I do have a rather oval face (reasonably narrow) and a straighter less than wide nose bridge, but am rather confident that my brain development is not stunted. I look quite a bit like my ancestors for the past 3 generations many of whom I have seen either in person or in old photos.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

I am really interested to hear the answers to ChristaN's questions. IIRC I asked similar questions way back when on this thread and they were never answered - the main thing I am interested in is finding out the mechanism by which nutrition results in narrower faces and I would also love to see any evidence beyond the anecdotal that narrower faces are an indicator of poor health - and please, WAP supporters, don't tell me to 'go read the book, it will change your life'! If the evidence is that strong, surely you can sum it up for me in a few sentences. My local library did not have 'the book' but although I think WP's observations/ideas were very intriguing, and I have looked at a lot of the stuff online about it, some of it just doesn't make ANY sense to me. I know that this is anecdotal and therefore doesn't mean much if anything, but I keep thinking about my great-grandma who lived to be 103, never saw doctors, and had a very narrow face and nose. Like, noticeably so. If I think about my family (extended) and their states of health, there is absolutely *no* correlation between the width of their face/breadth of their nosebridge and their health status. Or their nutritional status, from what I know of it. So I am inclined to be skeptical of all of the narrow face = nutritional depletion stuff until someone finally explains it to me a little better.

ETA - actually, I reread JaneS's post and she mentions the mechanism! - can't believe I missed that. JaneS, where can I read more about the way that the body prioritizes certain parts of the skeleton under nutritional pressure? I want to stress that I have an open mind about all of these claims, and I really agree that most modern people eat an appalling diet which certainly has negative ramifications for their health, but some of the claims of the WAP Foundation just do not seem scientifically sound at a cursory glance. NO offense is meant to anyone, I just would like to understand a little better.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Alot of this info is in "Nutrition and Physical degeneration" a fascinating read! I would recommend you check the library and take a look for yourself. It also included many photos that would help you understand. I didn't love what I was reading from WAP and his "cronies" (Jane can attest to that) until I got through N&PD. Now I'm sold.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I just remembered that it was because of this thread that I bought an extra copy of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration and offered to start my own lending library. One of my doctors has it now, but when I manage to retrieve it, it's up for grabs again.

I'm going to tell you ladies why you should read the book even though you want the Cliff's Notes version. As you know, we can all find people with broad faces who are unhealthy and narrow faces who are. That's not very helpful. The power of Price's work is his implicit research design. So with the mechanism Jane offers (for which I don't have any cites) let me tell you how he proceeds.

In these 15 or so cultures (and many villages) that had not been exposed to western foods, he found some interesting case comparisons. For instance, in a Swiss community, he found only one or two people with dental problems. As it turned out, they had spent a couple of years in the city in their teens and then moved back to the isolated village. The rest of the community was basically protected. But in terms of facial structure, he compared cousins, some whose moms stayed in the village on native diets and some whose moms moved to the city. Then he lets the pictures do the work of explaining. That's why you need to see the book. He finds a family of five children, three of whom were born before the corner store came into the village and sold white flour, two were born after. The differences between the children on the two maternal diets are striking. He has many other comparisons like these. I actually think that since you guys also value diets of low processed foods, that you would find this book very interesting.

As far as the animal fats go, we've been talking about the importance of vit A and D and I want to emphasize that you can have these tested if you are concerned. But another interesting tidbit is that there is a pretty good-sized body of research out there that find that you actually absorb more minerals in meats than in plant-based foods.*(see below*) So if you have two meals with the same amount of iron, for instance, one plant-based and one meat-based, you will absorb more iron in the meat-based food. There's something about meat. Researchers haven't quite pin-pointed what it is, it would appear. Price said that the vitamins in the animal fat contain activators that aid in digestion and he isolated a particular activator, but he certainly did not have the entire mechanism nailed.

And so we definitely know from Price's work that processed foods are bad. We can all agree with that. We know that meat-based foods have more bio-available nutrients. That statement will be more controversial to you gals, but you can start with the article below and work your way through (or do a search in a biology index for "meat and absorption"). And then there is the question about whether you *need* animal fats to be healthy. Price thinks you do, primarily based on the wisdom of our ancestors and the vitamin A and D issue. And so if you want to do a solid rebuttal of Price, you should find 1) native diets that were vegan, 2) evidence that plant-based carotenoids serves the same function of Vit A, and 3) evidence that vegans get enough vit D from the sun. And if you can do that successfully, you still have the mineral absorption issue that there is a good body of research on, but if that were the only issue, then you could simply eat a lot more vegetables.

And one more thing -- the facial structure reflects on the mom's nutritional status during the pregnancy, according to Price. Many of us are working on undoing our past mistakes and some of us may have narrow-faced children and even if those narrow faces are due to nutrition issues in our pregnancy, it doesn't mean that they will face a lifetime of ill-health. Price actually worked with a group of boys and replaced only their lunch. Their breakfast and dinners at home were the same garbage that had caused their cavities and behavioral problems. Their cavities stopped and they became good students. So maternal nutrition in pregnancy is not the end of the road by any means.

And there is the issue of birth order. It would appear that my son's face will be fairly broad in spite of my pregnancy diet (which was not all that it could have been). Price gives examples of siblings as well -- as you go down the line in birth order, faces, noses, and hips narrow.

Another person's research to read is Pottenger. He discusses bone formation as well and was concerned that the male and female body structure were changing with poor nutrition -- that they were actually becoming more alike. Women's hips were narrowing and shoulders broadening while men's hips were broadening and shoulders narrowing. He had planned a huge study on this but never got to it. He supports a diet with a lot of raw foods and with animal.

*Zhang, Carpenter, and Mahoney 1990. "A Mechanistic Hypothesis for meat enhancement of nonheme iron absorption." _Nutrition Research_ 10: 929-935.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
My local library did not have 'the book' but although I think WP's observations/ideas were very intriguing, and I have looked at a lot of the stuff online about it, some of it just doesn't make ANY sense to me.

Your library should be able to get it through interlibrary loan. If you are interested in this topic, you need to read the book as much as you want me to condense it into two sentences.

I think Christa should review the book for vegfamily. I haven't seen any vegan reviews of the book, so this could make Christa famous. And I would be highly interested in reading a vegan perspective on the book.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Wow-great post.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I think Christa should review the book for vegfamily. I haven't seen any vegan reviews of the book, so this could make Christa famous. And I would be highly interested in reading a vegan perspective on the book.

Sounds like someone has read my WAPF/soy analysis for vegfamily







!

I do have some major issues with how Price's work has been interpreted by current members of the WAPF and found some significant flaws in the research presented by WAPF to support the idea that soy is toxic, but I still haven't read N&PD, so can't comment on that. Just as a sidebar, I contacted a few of the researchers whose studies were quoted on the WAPF site as supporting soy as harmful. Not a one of them agreed with how their research had been interpreted and some even told me that they came to the exact opposite conclusion as what WAPF was asserting (i.e. - WAPF said something like, 'x's study found soy affected hormones and caused an increase in X problem' and the researcher said something like, 'no! My study found the hormonal effects related to a _decrease_ in X problem.' If that is the type of "research" currently being supported and put forth by that organization, I have a hard time taking them seriously.

Quote:

And there is the issue of birth order. It would appear that my son's face will be fairly broad in spite of my pregnancy diet (which was not all that it could have been). Price gives examples of siblings as well -- as you go down the line in birth order, faces, noses, and hips narrow.
My younger dd actually has a wider face and much wider nose than her older sister. She looks more like dh and dd#1 looks more like me (save for the dark brown hair and olive toned skin from dad!). I agree that anecdotes do not make for good research, though.

I am wondering if Price controlled for interbreeding, for want of a better term, with external populations? In other words, there is good evidence to support the theory that jaw structure and dental formation (i.e. straight, non crowded teeth) is affected by whether an individual is a "pure bred" vs. a "mutt." If he was looking at isolated populations that had not done much "inter breeding" with outsiders, they would be fairly "pure bred" and likely to have good jaw formation. If their descendants then moved to the city and began having children with outsiders, this would affect the jaw formation if only by virtue of the introduction of new genes (such as a small jaw from one parent and large teeth from the other parent that don't mesh well together).

Quote:

And then there is the question about whether you *need* animal fats to be healthy. Price thinks you do, primarily based on the wisdom of our ancestors and the vitamin A and D issue. And so if you want to do a solid rebuttal of Price, you should find 1) native diets that were vegan...
Just to address this segment of your arguement, my dh and I were actually having this conversation the other day. This is really the only segment of what I have heard that I find worth serious consideration. I will readily admit that native diets were not vegan. It was not in any way practical to be a healthy vegan hundreds or thousands of years ago. It is only by virtue of the world economy in which we now live that we have the luxury of having out of season foods readily available to us as well as food storage techniques that make for much more diverse diets. I do like the macrobiotic principal of eating what is in season and try to do so as much as possible, but I realize that if I were living in the 1800s in Colorado, I would have a very hard time, to put it lightly, staying healthy as a vegan.

However, I am not sure that this is good evidence that what was necessary 100s of years ago necessarily indicates what is ideal. It is a good indication of what was necessary to survive at the time. Humans did evolve as omnivores; it was necessary for our survival given the environmental conditions in most parts of the world. We ate what we needed to to survive in inhospitable environments. A raccoon has evolved such that it can survive by eating trash -- it is an opportunist just like us. Does that mean that the ideal diet for humans is omnivorous or the ideal diet for raccoons is trash? That I don't know. Likewise, traditional diets in Japan relied heavily on salt for food preservation (close proximity to the ocean and a supply of salt). Large consumption of foods preserved in a traditional Japanese way (quite comparable to the quantities traditionally eaten) are believed to be a causative factor in cancers of the GI tract.

People who ate traditional diets generations ago usually died from other causes long before they saw significant negative effects of their diets. They simply didn't live long enough to get cancer or have heart attacks. (This is as a whole. I recognize that the ocassional person did.)

Again, this is an area where I feel that NT has taken Price's observations and run a bit too far. That book I have looked over. They recommend a whole heck of a lot more animal fats than most traditional diets support (unless you were an Inuit) as well as some truly awful (IMO) infant feeding ideas including animal based formula concoctions rather than breastmilk.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
Sounds like someone has read my WAPF/soy analysis for vegfamily







!

Yes, so now we need one more.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
Just as a sidebar, I contacted a few of the researchers whose studies were quoted on the WAPF site as supporting soy as harmful. Not a one of them agreed with how their research had been interpreted and some even told me that they came to the exact opposite conclusion as what WAPF was asserting (i.e. - WAPF said something like, 'x's study found soy affected hormones and caused an increase in X problem' and the researcher said something like, 'no! My study found the hormonal effects related to a _decrease_ in X problem.'

IKWYM. Sometimes people will use the data in a study to make their case even though the aim of the research is different. And some use that technique more or less successfully.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
I am wondering if Price controlled for interbreeding, for want of a better term, with external populations? In other words, there is good evidence to support the theory that jaw structure and dental formation (i.e. straight, non crowded teeth) is affected by whether an individual is a "pure bred" vs. a "mutt." If he was looking at isolated populations that had not done much "inter breeding" with outsiders, they would be fairly "pure bred" and likely to have good jaw formation. If their descendants then moved to the city and began having children with outsiders, this would affect the jaw formation if only by virtue of the introduction of new genes (such as a small jaw from one parent and large teeth from the other parent that don't mesh well together).

Yes, he did control for it. The example of the corner store coming into a village is the best example. Same mom and dad, some children before the store and some after.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
It is only by virtue of the world economy in which we now live that we have the luxury of having out of season foods readily available to us as well as food storage techniques that make for much more diverse diets.

And this would be fine if you didn't need vitamin A and D as well.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Whoops! I just woke up and WAY misunderstood something in GaleForce's post. Boy, I am a little defensive today! I guess everyone who subscribes to this thread will see my misunderstanding, but no need to correct me, I read 'low processed foods' for 'processed foods' and proceeded accordingly. Luckily I caught myself!!

Sorry...









And THANK you GaleForce for the explanation. Now I can go back and read it without the wrongheaded feeling that I am being attacked...

honestly, so sorry...


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
Can you please expound upon diets lacking in animal fats affecting the brain? Are you implying that vegetarian diets during gestation or lactation correlate with lower intellect in offspring or that people with narrow faces or nose bridges are statistically less intelligent as a group?

I haven't noticed that members of my local Mensa chapter look any different than anyone else I meet on the street and we don't seem to have wider faces, noses or jaws than your average person either. Both my older dd and I have had IQ tests done at some point in our lives and came up in the 98-99.5% (as compared to the general population). I do have a rather oval face (reasonably narrow) and a straighter less than wide nose bridge, but am rather confident that my brain development is not stunted. I look quite a bit like my ancestors for the past 3 generations many of whom I have seen either in person or in old photos.

nak - all breastfed babies ingest "animal fats" - human milk is high in cholesterol.
Brain function encompasses far more than just intellect . . . all of our hormone regulation, nerve functions, senses, etc . . . essentially ALL bodily functions are regulated by the brain.
Wider jaws are "wide enough" if they allow all the teeth to come in relatively easily and straight.
A nose is "wide enough" if it allows relatively easy breathing.
Totally anecdotal - my bro had to have braces in order to straighten very crooked teeth . . . he also had nasal surgery to widen his nose to allow easier breathing. His nose doesn't look much different . . . "it's what's inside that counts"







(sorry - wierd sense of humour) (also anecdotal . . . everyone I know with bad hay fever has a very crowded mouth . . . may or may not mean anything)
Point is, the face doesn't neccessarily *look* much different - unless you're really looking for it.
In your case, it sounds like you started into veganism from a relatively healthy, long-lived group. It also sounds like you're very aware of your nutritional requirements and make a point of eating foods based on that. Do you also take supplements?

Quote:



Quote:

And there is the issue of birth order. It would appear that my son's face will be fairly broad in spite of my pregnancy diet (which was not all that it could have been). Price gives examples of siblings as well -- as you go down the line in birth order, faces, noses, and hips narrow.
My younger dd actually has a wider face and much wider nose than her older sister. She looks more like dh and dd#1 looks more like me (save for the dark brown hair and olive toned skin from dad!). I agree that anecdotes do not make for good research, though.
In my own case, dd2 definitely has a wider face and sturdier build than dd1. I was healthier going into the pregnancy, and consumed a more nutrient dense diet for the first two trimesters and higher fat through the whole pregnancy. (long story about "falling off the wagon" towards the end)
However, my experience doesn't refute Gale Force's statement. In a way it actually reinforces it . . .
Pregnancy and nursing deplete resources that must be replaced ideally by food, although of course supplements can also be used. If one continues to follow a nutrient poor regimen, one's resources continue to dwindle. This means that there are less and less "building blocks" through subsequent pregnancies to produce offspring of optimal health. It also means mom becomes more unhealthy with each subsequent pregnancy. (this is sort of a "circular" thing)
Dd2 is healthier than dd1 (in my case) BECAUSE I was healthier before and during her pregnancy BECAUSE my body had more available nutrients.

Quote:

People who ate traditional diets generations ago usually died from other causes long before they saw significant negative effects of their diets. They simply didn't live long enough to get cancer or have heart attacks. (This is as a whole. I recognize that the ocassional person did.)
The more I learn, the more I believe this isn't *quite* accurate . . . will expand on that later - gotta go change a dipe (and find a toddler







)


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
It was not in any way practical to be a healthy vegan hundreds or thousands of years ago. It is only by virtue of the world economy in which we now live that we have the luxury of having out of season foods readily available to us as well as food storage techniques that make for much more diverse diets. I do like the macrobiotic principal of eating what is in season and try to do so as much as possible, but I realize that if I were living in the 1800s in Colorado, I would have a very hard time, to put it lightly, staying healthy as a vegan.

However, I am not sure that this is good evidence that what was necessary 100s of years ago necessarily indicates what is ideal. It is a good indication of what was necessary to survive at the time. Humans did evolve as omnivores; it was necessary for our survival given the environmental conditions in most parts of the world. We ate what we needed to to survive in inhospitable environments. A raccoon has evolved such that it can survive by eating trash -- it is an opportunist just like us. Does that mean that the ideal diet for humans is omnivorous or the ideal diet for raccoons is trash? That I don't know. Likewise, traditional diets in Japan relied heavily on salt for food preservation (close proximity to the ocean and a supply of salt). Large consumption of foods preserved in a traditional Japanese way (quite comparable to the quantities traditionally eaten) are believed to be a causative factor in cancers of the GI tract.

People who ate traditional diets generations ago usually died from other causes long before they saw significant negative effects of their diets. They simply didn't live long enough to get cancer or have heart attacks. (This is as a whole. I recognize that the ocassional person did.)


See, this is how I feel, too. It does seem that most cultures, given the same basic food environment for generations, would end up having the optimal diet that is available for the conditions in which they live. But this does not mean that it was the optimal diet if they could have chosen from all the foods in the world (as we basically can today, given enough tenacity/$$). The diet of traditional peoples was designed to keep them healthy until 'old age', meaning 40 or 50, maybe 60 years, so IMO ChristaN's point is well taken that the people that WP studied did not typically live long enough for us to see the 'results' of their diets. Couldn't it be true (just as a hypothetical) that some of these diets were perfect for a person who did hard physical labor every day and who expected not to live past 60, but not such a good idea for relatively sedentary people who would prefer to live to 85?

I think that a well-researched vegan diet, while definitely 'artificial' as ChristaN points out - could possibly be one of the healthiest diets to choose if one wanted to live to a ripe old age. I do not see where anything is missing from such a diet.

The other thing I was thinking about is the story of these master yogis from India. They were a father and son and the dad was in his 90's, son in his 70's. They were limber and lithe and taught yoga every day and looked about 50 with bodies like slim reeds. Vegetarian from birth. If that's what a state of nutritional depletion looks like, sign me up!









Regarding my not having checked out the book, I know, I should have taken the time to stand in line and order it through ILL. It just quite honestly took lower priority that day (back when this thread was young) than getting out of the library in a timely fashion. So, mea culpa and the next time I go I will order it. I kind of forgot about it for a while but now I really want to see those photos!

I am understanding the whole narrow jaw (etc.) thing a lot better and I actually expect to be convinced on that point.









Thank you GaleForce and ChristaN for your great posts!! I agree that ChristaN should review N&PD.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
Whoops! I just woke up and WAY misunderstood something in GaleForce's post. Boy, I am a little defensive today! I guess everyone who subscribes to this thread will see my misunderstanding, but no need to correct me, I read 'low processed foods' for 'processed foods' and proceeded accordingly. Luckily I caught myself!!

Awww. I don't subscribe. It's probably just as well.

Truth be told, whether someone is a vegan is not a big issue for me. If any of us have the nutrients to sustain ourselves in our diets and in our stores, then we are better off than just about most of the western world. It is very hard to stay nutritionally replete these days, regardless of our dietary philosophy. It's only on obscure threads like this where we can take issue with each others diets rather than with the diet (SAD) that we would all agree, in a heartbeat, is a very bad one.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

I just wanted to ask another question about nutrition during pregnancy/lactation. Isn't it the case that the fetus will take first dibs on the nutritional stores? (Or, in the case of lactation, the milk will take first dibs?) I guess I don't understand why the fetus/nursling would be the one to suffer *more* than the mother from an inadequate diet. It seems to me that if the mother's diet is low in minerals, fat etc. that they will leach from her bones and her fat supply will be depleted before the fetus will miss out.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I think that a well-researched vegan diet, while definitely 'artificial' as ChristaN points out - could possibly be one of the healthiest diets to choose if one wanted to live to a ripe old age. I do not see where anything is missing from such a diet.

Again, that's the sticking point, because of A, D, and B-12.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
The other thing I was thinking about is the story of these master yogis from India. They were a father and son and the dad was in his 90's, son in his 70's. They were limber and lithe and taught yoga every day and looked about 50 with bodies like slim reeds. Vegetarian from birth. If that's what a state of nutritional depletion looks like, sign me up!









Do you mean strict vegetarian or ovo-lacto? The studies of long-term strict vegetarians have found that they were able to stay B-12 replete because of the residue on their produce.

I am interested in the discussion of old age and diets. I've seen some intriguing data, but I'm not familiar enough with it to jump in.

And here's a question for vegans: why not eat free-range, unfertile poultry eggs? I know the obvious answer is because it's not vegan. But are there ethical issues with such an egg? IMO, egg is one of the best foods out there, properly reared of course.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Awww. I don't subscribe. It's probably just as well.

Truth be told, whether someone is a vegan is not a big issue for me. If any of us have the nutrients to sustain ourselves in our diets and in our stores, then we are better off than just about most of the western world. It is very hard to stay nutritionally replete these days, regardless of our dietary philosophy. It's only on obscure threads like this where we can take issue with each others diets rather than with the diet (SAD) that we would all agree, in a heartbeat, is a very bad one.

I Totally Totally Agree!!

(that said, I really like this thread!







)

I just sometimes feel personally overwhelmed by the array of nutritional choices. Obviously the easiest choice to make is eating fast processed food b/c I'm exhausted. It takes so much thinking to eat a healthy diet in our culture because it isn't the norm, it isn't part of our cultural traditions anymore. We have to consciously design a diet and swim upstream (and spend more $$/lots more time) to eat better. I find that it's really difficult just to get started...and then it gets even harder when these questions come up of WHAT a healthy diet even IS!! Vegetarianism is the healthiest. No, Atkins. No, the WAPF diet...

And THEN you add the further layer of trying to find produce grown in mineral-rich soil, milk which is not pasteurized, etc. etc. etc...for someone with ADD like me it is just impossible and I just want to give up before I start. But then I get told that my milk might be deficient and it is like a stab through the heart.

So, I keep trying to learn more so that I can at least figure out what path I am walking.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I just wanted to ask another question about nutrition during pregnancy/lactation. Isn't it the case that the fetus will take first dibs on the nutritional stores? (Or, in the case of lactation, the milk will take first dibs?) I guess I don't understand why the fetus/nursling would be the one to suffer *more* than the mother from an inadequate diet. It seems to me that if the mother's diet is low in minerals, fat etc. that they will leach from her bones and her fat supply will be depleted before the fetus will miss out.


Yes, this is true. That's why way back i the first few pages of this thread (which I just glanced at this morning and had forgotten about entirely), I made the point that we need to consider the nutritional consequences for the nursing pair, not just the nursling.

There are some people here at MDC who have pretty powerful stories of their own nutritional status and how it affected their child. So, babies are not protected entirely. It depends on the nutritional deficit of the mother and other issues, like her ability to absorb the nutrients in her food.


----------



## Nora'sMama (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Again, that's the sticking point, because of A, D, and B-12.

Do you mean strict vegetarian or ovo-lacto? The studies of long-term strict vegetarians have found that they were able to stay B-12 replete because of the residue on their produce.

.

As far as A, D and B-12. It seems reasonable that artificial supplementation of these vitamins would be inferior to getting them from food sources (except isn't the sun the best source of Vitamin D? - I don't know another natural food source of D except cod liver oil). But perhaps it is 'adequate', gives the body a minimum of what it needs for health, and is sort of made up for as far as healthiness goes by the high antioxidant content of the vegan diet, etc? Hope I'm making sense.

I think the yogis were ovo-lacto?

I agree that the egg is a wonderful nutritional source but I think that many vegans don't eat eggs simply because the way in which eggs are produced is so odious...don't know what they would say to eating the eggs from their own chicken. I was never a vegan (ovo-lacto for a while).


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

All the moms on MDC should at least be taking baby steps to cut processed foods out of their diets. If they replace them with animal or plants, it hardly matters because it will be a vast improvement. So, Nora'sMama, don't worry as much about the rest of the details. Look at what bad stuff is the easiest to chop, chop it, and replace it with real food. Then find something else. It's the only reasonable way to make changes for most people.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nora'sMama*
I was never a vegan (ovo-lacto for a while).

And that's all the more reason not to be defensive. Even Sally Fallon (the founder of the Weston Price Foundation) says that you can be healthy on an ovo-lacto diet.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to eat factory eggs.

I think egg yolk also has vit D.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
In your case, it sounds like you started into veganism from a relatively healthy, long-lived group. It also sounds like you're very aware of your nutritional requirements and make a point of eating foods based on that. Do you also take supplements?

Yes, most people in my family live to be pretty old. My great-grandmother on my paternal grandmother's side lived to be 99; my maternal grandfather, 92; my maternal grandmother died in her early-mid 80s from lung CA (she was a long term smoker) and paternal grandfather died in his early 70s from lung CA (also a smoker).

In my case, though I would not say that I personally came into being vegan at a healthy point. I went o/l veggie at 13 and also was begining to struggle with an eating disorder at that time. I went vegan at 16. I continued to struggle with an eating disorder which became rather severe until the age of 23. At times, I ate nothing but a Tbsp. of peanut butter and diet rootbeer for days. I also severely abused laxatives. My older dd was born shortly before I turned 26 and I had been having ocassional lapses in my eating up until shortly before I became pg with her.

I did take prenatal vitamins during my pregnancy and completely stopped any lapses into disordered eating as soon as I knew I was pg. I ate fairly well, but certainly wasn't on a whole foods diet. By the time she was about 1 or so, I was eating a much better diet (more homecooked foods, more veggies, more diversity, etc.) I got pg w/ dd#2 when dd#1 was 16 months old. I nursed dd#1 throughout the majority of my pg and took no supplements at all (including no prenatals







). Both girls weighed over 8 lbs at birth and are very bright healthy kids with no obvious dental problems yet.

I have never regularly taken any supplements. I ocassionally will remember to pop a multivitamin or take a B-12 pill, but it is not regular. I do eat and drink fortified foods (such as Silk soy milk) and use nutritional yeast. I have worked in nutrition health education and, while the whole field drove me batty b/c the message was so polluted by the USDA, I have a pretty good idea of what I need and I religiously avoid transfats now and make an effort to eat a whole foods based diet, although I am not perfect.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
And here's a question for vegans: why not eat free-range, unfertile poultry eggs? I know the obvious answer is because it's not vegan. But are there ethical issues with such an egg? IMO, egg is one of the best foods out there, properly reared of course.

I'd agree that there is no ethical reason not to, but it just doesn't appeal to me (I'm picturing eating a chicken's menstrual product). I also don't agree with your opinion that eggs are among the best foods out there, but am happy to agree to disagree there.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
I'd agree that there is no ethical reason not to, but it just doesn't appeal to me (I'm picturing eating a chicken's menstrual product). I also don't agree with your opinion that eggs are among the best foods out there, but am happy to agree to disagree there.

So just to get a bit more off track, what do vegans consider to be a superfood? Spirulina? Nutritional yeast? Soy? Just curious.

And so would most vegans not want to eat a free range egg simply because the thought is revolting? Or is it just the principle of it -- that an animal was necessary to produce it? Or is it more a reaction to current farming practices?

I remember when I would not let meat in my house.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Sounds like someone has read my WAPF/soy analysis for vegfamily !
Will you post a link to that?


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
Will you post a link to that?

http://www.vegfamily.com/health/vega...nformation.htm

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
So just to get a bit more off track, what do vegans consider to be a superfood? Spirulina? Nutritional yeast? Soy? Just curious.

And so would most vegans not want to eat a free range egg simply because the thought is revolting? Or is it just the principle of it -- that an animal was necessary to produce it? Or is it more a reaction to current farming practices?

I remember when I would not let meat in my house.

I wouldn't presume to speak for other vegans and I honestly don't know what most vegans would consider to be a super food nor whether my reason for not consuming ethically obtained eggs is the same as the reasoning of other vegans -- sorry! I don't know that I, personally, consider any food to be a super food. I would see it more as a healthy balance of many foods that work together to provide optimal health. I guess that I see "superfood" as something that is pretty much a powerhouse of all the nutrients I need and nothing fills that role in my mind. There are a lot of foods that I believe are very healthy (like blueberries, legumes, kale, nutritional yeast, etc.), but none of them alone would be a "superfood."

I actually do allow meat in my house as dh is not vegetarian, but I do bleach the counters and anything he has touched after he cooks it b/c he buys supermarket crud and has terrible hygiene practices regarding cleaning the stuff up and I don't want to get food poisoning!


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Eggs were the first things back into my diet because I found a source for free range eggs that were organic and the hens were never slaughtered. Made me feel much better. IT is a menstrual waste product-but in my case I started waking up to the fact that I was damaging myself and my child by being so strict about my diet. I had a hard time reintroducing things, but I see the difference (serious guilt here) with animal products in our diets.

As a vegan I thought "super foods" were dark leafy greens, acai, coconut milk/oil/meat, goji berries, certain algaes, raw cacao beans, nuts-things that packed a serious nutritional punch. All veggies, fruits, nuts, beans were great, but there were some foods that were just SO nutrient dense and really gave you alot for your money. I now include other things in that list too....


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

On the longevity stuff - I still don't actually know what to think as until recently I always just took it on faith that our lifespans were increasing. This passage gave me pause, though, and the idea that could be wrong is intriguing to say the least.

From http://www.naturopathyworks.com/news/news1104.html

Quote:

Excerpt from
The Garden of Eating
"The Modern Longevity Myth"

The prevalent opinion that we live longer than our ancient ancestors misses the mark. Today the people with the longest life span are those living in Okinawa where the average life expectancy is 81.2 years - 86 for women, 75 for men. In modern America, the average is 80.45 years.

In Natural Eating, Geoff Bond notes ancient people had a similar life expectancy. About 3000 years ago, the author of the Bible's Psalm 90 wrote that the expected life span was between 70 and 80 years. Around the same time in Greece, the poet Homer composed the Iliad, in which he tells us Odysseus' wife Penelope remained faithful though he was absent 20 years, during which time she had offers of marriage from many men, some the same age as her son Telemachus. Bond says, "In other words, in ancient Greece 3000 years ago, a 40-plus woman was such a marriageable attraction that she was pursued by men half her age." More than 2300 years ago in Greece, the philosopher Aristotle recommended men not marry until reaching 35 - as Bond says, "hardly the strategy of people expecting a short life or decrepit old age."

Ancient people not only lived long, they were active late in life. The great Chinese philosopher Kung Chiu, commonly known as Confucius, died at 73 in 479 B.C. Kung Chiu wrote his famed Spring and Autumn annals in the last years of his life. Siddharhta Gautama, now known as Buddha, lived 80 years from 560 B.C. to 480 B.C. Gautama traveled from village to village by foot, teaching the Eightfold Path of enlightenment until his last day. In 399 B.C. the great philosopher Socrates was put to death at 70 by the Athenian government for supposedly having "led the youth astray" through his relentless public questioning of received views. Plato was 41 when he set up his first school of philosophy in 386 B.C.; he taught and wrote until he died in 347 B.C. at 80.

Bond adds: "Look again at some of Alexander the Great's generals. Antigonus Monophthalmos was a battling veteran who, encouraging his troops from his war-horse, finally succumbed to a hail of javelins at the Battle of Ipsus. He was 81 years old. His opponent, Lysimichos was later killed at the Battle of Coropedium at the age of 70. His ally Selfcos Nicator survived all battles only to be assassinated at the age of 78."

How many modern 70-year-old men would be capable of ridding a horse into battle carrying the heavy ancient armaments? These old men had the virility of youth. We live no longer but lack their vigor in our old age!

We have generated the false impression we have longer lives than our forebears by misunderstanding our own average life-span calculations. For example, it is often claimed that the average life span for white Americans increased more than 25 years (for men from 48 to 74; for women from 51 to 80) between 1900 and 2000. The 1900 figures paint an inaccurate picture because they are averages that include all deaths from infancy to old age.

To illustrate, if 50 percent of people die in infancy, and 50 percent live to 80 years, the average life span will only be 40. But when only those who lived past childhood are taken into account, people in 1900 had the same life expectancy as we do today; many lived to 70 and older. By improving sanitation and bringing down the infant mortality, we have created the illusion that adults are living longer. Once out of childhood, our potential life span has not really changed in at least 3000 years.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Some day when I have time, I am going to hunt for population statistics and do an analysis. It's a very interesting question. Thanks for the quote, HerthElde, and the reminder that I still haven't purchased that book.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
On the longevity stuff - I still don't actually know what to think as until recently I always just took it on faith that our lifespans were increasing. This passage gave me pause, though, and the idea that could be wrong is intriguing to say the least.

From http://www.naturopathyworks.com/news/news1104.html

That's interesting and I can see as how the numbers would certainly be skewed if they take into account child and infant mortality in figuring average life expectancy.

I wonder, though, if people were eating traditional diets back then as well as getting more physical exercise than our current society of couch potatoes does and we are working under the hypothesis that traditional diets are more health supporting, should not have these people been living _longer_ years ago than they do now rather than having nearly the same life expectancy? The exercise alone should be enough to account for more years of quality life.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
, should not have these people been living _longer_ years ago than they do now rather than having nearly the same life expectancy? The exercise alone should be enough to account for more years of quality life.

Some people argue that they did live longer, or at least were in better health for more years. But I haven't seen the data, so I don't know. And exercise would be a factor. You would think that modern medicine would help us out these days too, at least that's the intent.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Good point about modern medicine - it probably extends our lives enough to where we're on par with what it used to be when people actually did more than sit around on their computers all day







(yes, that was meant to be a cut down to myself and noone else







)
So, maybe diet was the key to quality of life, and exercise the key to longevity, while today modern medicine keeps us alive?
I read an article once that speculated about what the results of Pottenger's work might have been had there been access to modern pharmaceuticals, but I can't remember where (or, for that matter if the question "What would the results have been if he had access to modern pharmaceuticals?" might have been the extent of it







)


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Another thing I thought of . . . in my family (also long-lived) it's only in the past couple of generations that we lived in the city and became more sedentary. The older generations did get a lot of exercise because they farmed.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Hey, I am out hunting and foraging _right this minute_, getting lots of exercise.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Hey, I am out hunting and foraging _right this minute_, getting lots of exercise.

ummm, Amanda, hate to tell you this, but I don't think mental exercise counts


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
ummm, Amanda, hate to tell you this, but I don't think mental exercise counts









Oh man. Is that my problem?


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)




----------



## yogamerd (Jun 27, 2005)

If it makes you (or anyone else reading this) feel better, I am not always the healthiest either. I was RELIGIOUS about it during PG but then just got plain lazy. I actually didn't even KNOW that mamas were supposed to stick to a similar diet during BF that they did during PG. When I found out, I went "Awwwww maaaaan!"

I've always eaten fairly healthy but I definitely don't keep track of this or that. I just basically eat what I want to (sans caffeine) and once in awhile, I am mindful of "Oh yeah! I should eat a veggie or piece of fruit today!"

I figure it like this, if I am not eating very healthy, it's going to hurt me more than DD. Also, I don't ingest caffeine (as mentioned above), I don't do drugs, I only drink a tiny glass of wine once in awhile, I don't eat crappy fast food and I exercise/do yoga.

If you are feeling healthy, if your baby is growing and not getting sick, then you must be doing something right. Keep it up!


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I was thinking about this thread because my son's chiropractor just suggested yesterday that my son is hypothyroid. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree and it's too bad I didn't get my thyroid straightened out a bit earlier. The thyroid hormone is passed in the breastmilk, to the degree that you are producing it yourself.


----------



## MamaTessa (May 19, 2006)

This has been a very interesting thread. Just though I would pass on this link for anyone wanting to read Weston A. Price's book.

This is his book in it's entirety.


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Oh thank you thank you thank you thank you THANK YOU MamaTessa!







:


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I was thinking about this thread because my son's chiropractor just suggested yesterday that my son is hypothyroid. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree and it's too bad I didn't get my thyroid straightened out a bit earlier. The thyroid hormone is passed in the breastmilk, to the degree that you are producing it yourself.

Very, very interesting... so are things expected to be better or worse now that he has weaned? I assume the thyroid also nutritionally driven but I don't know exactly how beyond iodine issues?

My DS is being suspected for thyroid issues as well.







I have to take his AM temps for a week and it's not going well... wriggly toddlers and underarm thermometers do not go together.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Jane,

I've been taking his temp under his arm before he wakes up. It works well in the temp taking department but I find myself waking up at 4 or 5 am now probably because I am subconsciously thinking about it. The other issue is that he likes to sleep without a shirt and I like to sleep with the window open. The first two mornings his temps were 96.8 and 96.4. Last night he wore a shirt and it was 97.3. I assume most people wear pajamas, so I'll make sure he wears a light shirt and see how it goes.

My chiropractor didn't appreciate my humor when he told me to take his temperature for two weeks and I asked "where in his cycle?"









Amanda


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I don't think things will change now that he's weaned. He wasn't getting much hormone in there for most of that period anyway. The doc mentioned thyroid this visit only because Frederick complained of a foot problem. He saw his toe nails for the first time and noticed that they curl toward the skin. His nails have been like this since he was a baby. So when the doc said "thyroid," you'd think I would have responded with "my poor child." No. It went more like this: "why didn't you look at his toes before I got so fat!"

Iodine is the biggest nutrient by far.


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)




----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

my diet stinks.

but its getting better. eating veggies and fruits more and junk less.

I feel better about my eating habits although they are far from ideal. I don't want to quit the crap cold turkey though cuz its sooooo good and I want the new eating habits to stick. but yep...getting better...


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

That's great Jami! Baby steps is the way to go. I tried to go fully local, ethical and nutrient-dense all in one fell swoop (okay, not all, but before I was ready) in the eighth month of my last pregnancy and fell completely off the train . . . there was more to the story, but it was largely because I pushed myself too hard.
Yep. Baby steps. Oh, and meal planning. Meal planning is essential. In fact, it's probably the best first step, if you can swing it.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)




----------



## bluets (Mar 15, 2005)

i had totally forgotten about this thread! i haven't time to check, but do you suppose that kellymom.com would (or has) change the info from "mom can eat anything whilst breastfeeding" to "mom's diet is important while breastfeeding", especially if JaneS sent along all the references she included earlier in this thread?


----------



## Gumby (Feb 4, 2007)

bumping an interesting thread.

i need all the inspiration i can get to improve my diet. it's not horrible, and i'm making progress, but i got lazy about it in my last month of pregnancy...

nak


----------



## JaneS (Jan 11, 2003)




----------



## tanyalynn (Jun 5, 2005)

Okay, I went back and read the first 2/3 of the thread (will try to get to the rest soon). It's good. Better than good really.

I think the hard part is making significant dietary changes _before_ your own (or a loved one's) health falls apart enough to make it obvious that change is needed. I know I needed to be hit over the head with a 2x4 (my health just fell apart), and my kids are both affected. It's hard to impart the passion in the statement "Don't be me!!" without sounding a bit, well, overzealous, but once you've btdt, _not_ saying it (at least in some circumstances) feels irresponsible.

I'm rambling, but this is a good read.


----------

