i wish sally fallon.... - Page 2

[LoMaH]

This is not to attack nor defend Sally because I was one of those mothers who couldn't nurse successfully AND whose child couldn't tolerate ANY of the homemade formulas. (yep, it's all my fault, I guess.)

I'm only interjecting because there's always misinformation being posted about Dr. Price's work, and I feel it's important to clarify.

Dr. Price's work isn't limited to refined foods vs. whole foods.
The criteria Dr. Price used for studying the primitive diets was that the people had to have
A-immunity to tooth decay and (meaning very low % compared to those eating modern foods. Normal development of faces and dental arches)
B-resistance to disease.

If the groups didn't meet those requirements, what would be the purpose of studying their dietary "wisdom"?

Yes, not all groups ate the same foods to one another, but the foods they all ate were nutrient dense and provided many times over the minimum daily requirements for nutrients (fat solubles, water solubles, minerals). They typically ate special foods prior to conceiving, during pregnancy and lactation. I agree that the focus should be to get mothers to eat better while they're nursing.

Similarities of the traditional diets;
http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Tra...milarities.htm

[Gale Force]

An added problem with the homemade formula focus is that there is no acknowledgment of the potential risk. The risk may be small but it is there and it's our job as mothers to make our own decision. I wrote something at the Ethicurean on this issue: Raw milk information.

[ltlmrs]

Originally Posted by LoMaH

This is not to attack nor defend Sally because I was one of those mothers who couldn't nurse successfully AND whose child couldn't tolerate ANY of the homemade formulas. (yep, it's all my fault, I guess.)

I'm only interjecting because there's always misinformation being posted about Dr. Price's work, and I feel it's important to clarify.

Dr. Price's work isn't limited to refined foods vs. whole foods.
The criteria Dr. Price used for studying the primitive diets was that the people had to have
A-immunity to tooth decay and (meaning very low % compared to those eating modern foods. Normal development of faces and dental arches)
B-resistance to disease.

If the groups didn't meet those requirements, what would be the purpose of studying their dietary "wisdom"?

Yes, not all groups ate the same foods to one another, but the foods they all ate were nutrient dense and provided many times over the minimum daily requirements for nutrients (fat solubles, water solubles, minerals). They typically ate special foods prior to conceiving, during pregnancy and lactation. I agree that the focus should be to get mothers to eat better while they're nursing.

Similarities of the traditional diets;
http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Tra...milarities.htm

I just want to clarify that I was not critiquing Dr. Price, but the WAP Foundation, which I think focuses too much on *specific* things that certain traditional societies ate rather than the general outlines which should then be adjusted and used by modern people based on their cultural heritage.

To be honest, I like Fallon more than many of the other writers for Wise Traditions. I really like Nourishing Traditions for the most part precisely because she is not ideological about food in it (using white flour for her pie crust, for example).

BTW, I have actually found the PPNF to be much more helpful and less judgmental than the WAPF. I'm not sure what the connection between them is, but PPNF seems much more actually research oriented and I really appreciate that. The vibe I get from WAPF is that it is a clique and you're either in it or you're not, whether or not you actually support TF and like the work of Dr. Price.

I have a friend who is religious about eating according to the guidelines of the WAPF and she has had two miscarriages. After her last one she turned to me and said "I feel like a WAPF failure!" and I find it bothersome that someone who is experiencing grief feels guilty from outside pressures.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense.

[Gale Force]

Originally Posted by ltlmrs

I have a friend who is religious about eating according to the guidelines of the WAPF and she has had two miscarriages. After her last one she turned to me and said "I feel like a WAPF failure!" and I find it bothersome that someone who is experiencing grief feels guilty from outside pressures.

My diet has been very good for some time. In fact, I attribute my diet changes to beating depression in my second pregnancy. As an interesting side note, that same second child was born with club foot -- here's a picture. I was in shock when it was diagnosed probably because a common factor is maternal diet. I got over it pretty quickly. For goodness sake. We have enough guilt as it is. Send your friend to that picture.

[ltlmrs]

Originally Posted by Gale Force

An added problem with the homemade formula focus is that there is no acknowledgment of the potential risk. The risk may be small but it is there and it's our job as mothers to make our own decision. I wrote something at the Ethicurean on this issue: Raw milk information.

It's funny because the first thing that came to mind when I had the opportunity to purchase raw milk was the fact that when I was little we always boiled our milk before drinking it. It's one of the most vivid memories of my childhood, stock pots full of milk on the stove and getting to eat the "skin" on top.

My mother was a doctor who treated many cases of brucellosis in people who consumed milk from their own cows. One of the reasons why I drink raw milk here in the States is because I live in a brucella free state and I trust our farmer. I would not drink raw milk otherwise. However, I would still rather buy raw milk from a farmer I know and pasteurize it at home than the alternatives.

That said, I am a big proponent of raw milk, but between raw milk formula and less nutritious breastmilk, I would definitely take the breastmilk even if I have to get a nurse or donated milk.

But, I think the real point of the WAPF is that we don't really have a choice. Agribusiness and the USDA has taken away the mother's right to choose what's best for her child, whether it is breastmilk or a raw milk formula. With all the propaganda out there it's lucky if mothers chose to nurse their children, let alone chose something other than manufactured formula!

[AJP]

I wish Price's work didn't so often get lumped in with some modern people associated with his name.

As for mommy guilt, my second child, who was born after we'd been eating a very nutrient-dense TF diet for 4 years, had defective baby tooth enamel, just like his big brother did (who was born before I ate TF although it was mostly whole, organic foods), and just like I did. The assertion that eating a certain way will guarantee physical and mental perfection (as defined by whatever group is in question, and no matter which way of eating we're talking about) in one's children or self is arrogant in the extreme, especially when results that don't fit that template are blamed on not implementing the recommendations properly. The WAPF's ridiculous "thumbs-down" review of Nina Planck's latest book is a perfect example of this.

[LoMaH]

Originally Posted by ltlmrs

I just want to clarify that I was not critiquing Dr. Price, but the WAP Foundation, which I think focuses too much on *specific* things that certain traditional societies ate rather than the general outlines which should then be adjusted and used by modern people based on their cultural heritage.

It's in Dr. Price's "Letter to his nieces and nephews" (which btw, I have a printed hard copy but can no longer find it online. ?? ) where he recommends foods that he thought they'd have better access to as Westerners (dairy, whole grains, fish, eggs, vegetables, butter, CLO). I think that's why the foundation focuses more on those.
When you read Dr. Price's work for yourself, you realize that you don't have to follow that exact formula, but can do a different variation. (yeah, more work than if they just outlined it)

To be honest, I like Fallon

I spoke to her by phone and she recommended the formulas to me. I ended up in the ER with a 3 mo. old with full body hives. I don't hold it against her (much less now, 7 years after the fact) because at least she TRIED to give me a solution, which is more than any of the physicians ever did and I was desperate. But, yeah, she should've been more cautious, even though it was ultimately my decision to follow her advice.

Back to Dr. Price, I just wanted to clarify that eating some traditional foods doesn't equate eating a traditional diet where our nutrient requirements are met consisitently. It's somewhat of a sore spot for me because my relatives think that eating bone broths a few times a year counts as eating healthily. If it were, we'd all have better health than we do.

I apologize for steering off the original topic, so I'll stop here.

[organicmidwestmama]

Originally Posted by Gingercat

They have repeatedly attacked La Leche League and any lactation consultant who sent them a letter, so I believe that there's no way to listen to "just a group of mothers"...


...I often complain about this; for example they dismissed Nina Planck , Michael Pollan and recently kicked out Dr. Mercola just because he has a different opinion on CLO.

where did the wapf critisize LLL? just curious... i actually don't agree with LLL's nutritional advice for mothers either, but overall they are revolutionaries in defending childhood health and nutrition starting at he breast.

[fruitfulmomma]

where did the wapf critisize LLL?

http://www.westonaprice.org/The-Woma...rnational.html

https://www.westonaprice.org/Breastf...iscussion.html

[UrbanSimplicity]

I have to say I was shocked when I read the nutritional guidelines in LLL's WAB. I feel the information is out of date and wonder if LLL felt pressured to NOT alienate women who know their diet is less than ideal.

[Gingercat]

I do not agree with La Leche's dietary guidelines either but it is one thing not to agree and another to publicly attack an organisation that has such an honorable cause! It is like saying that if you eat according to La Leche's guidelines (or even you're a vegetarian) you'd be better off not breastfeeding at all!

[Elizabeth2008]

to be frank, there are a lot of things about Sally Fallon that irritate the crap out of me. She's quite self righteous.

I think she has a lot of good nutritional advice. But her advice on breastfeeding/formula feeding is just, well, wacky.

[Smokering]

Aw, I dunno... the thumbs down review of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding seemed fairly logical. LLL was recommending poor diets for lactating women, which have been shown to adversely affect breastmilk. What's the problem with saying that? The review didn't advocate formula instead, it advocated that LLL focus on improving nutrition for lactating mothers. As far as that goes, I agree with it. If the evidence does indeed show that babies do poorly on "bad" breastmilk, it's disingenuous to pretend that isn't the case out of fear that some women will choose to use formula instead of focussing their efforts on making "good" formula. It seems paternalistic - "Well, we'll keep the truth from the silly women because they might misuse that knowledge".

I'm only part way through NT - will be interested to see what she says about breastmilk. So far I do find her style a tad off-putting. For a dietary system as generally evidence-based as Traditional Foods, using words like "new-fangled" and talking about spiritual energies make the whole thing seem a bit suspect. Food doesn't nourish if we eat it without forgiveness in our hearts? Erm... oookay. I'm all for forgiveness, but I didn't see a peer-reviewed study in there, KWIM?

[mamadelbosque]

But even women who have absolutely horrible diets will have their babies do better on their breastmilk than on formula. Thats a fact. Thats why people try to advocate for mothers in subsahran africa who likely have a very poor diet to breastfeed - its cheaper, its safer, and its better for babies. The stance that if you don't have a perfect/wonderful diet then you should just use formula is absolute, complete, 100% BS.

ETA: I know women who say they didn't nurse cause' they know their diets are crap and so formula fed instead. Thats bad advice. I don't care if you live on fast food - your breastmilk is *STILL* better than formula!!

[Smokering]

Yes, I agree... but the review WASN'T SAYING that women with poor diets should formula-feed instead. It was saying they should improve their diets!

[Smokering]

Just finished NT today. I see what you mean about her stance on BF. She pays it lip-service... in fact, she says the importance of breastfeeding "cannot be overemphasised" - but the thing is, she doesn't exactly try to overemphasise it! She (or her quoted authors) wax far more lyrical about foods like beet kvass than they do about breastfeeding. And the page on "what to do if you're having problems" is very cursory - it only addresses low supply, not other issues like latching, mastitis etc, and leaves out some pretty common remedies for low supply anyway. So yeah, not uber-impressed.

On the other hand, she may have felt the topic was covered in other publications, or that the sort of person reading NT would be likely to breastfeed anyway; or she could have simply been focussing on formula because providing a "recipe" for breastmilk isn't possible. So I don't think it's a terrible book, particularly when taken in combination with other books rather than as the sole source of nutritional info. Egg yolks at four months, though? That's pretty young... And she should have mentioned donor milk.

Incidentally, it's a mark of how much my perspective has changed that I no longer find the concept of homemade formula horrifying. If I couldn't breastfeed a subsequent child I'd strongly consider the WAPF formula over commercial stuff. Anyone here used it?

[fruitfulmomma]

Anyone here used it?

Not her formula, but my mother was told she didn't make enough milk and after I was hospitalized with dehydration from a severe reaction to formula my great-grandfather told her to put me on goats milk. Not sure if she added anything extra or if it was straight but it worked for us. So I am totally comfortable with the idea of using homemade formula if for some reason I could not bf a child.

[aarias]

I love Sally Fallon and WAPF even if I don't agree with everything. They have made an amazing contribution.

I think a letter to Sally Fallon is a great idea if someone wanted to take it on. I can't imagine a group she would rather hear from. To me this is the important point:

Originally Posted by mamadelbosque

But even women who have absolutely horrible diets will have their babies do better on their breastmilk than on formula. Thats a fact. Thats why people try to advocate for mothers in subsahran africa who likely have a very poor diet to breastfeed - its cheaper, its safer, and its better for babies. The stance that if you don't have a perfect/wonderful diet then you should just use formula is absolute, complete, 100% BS.

ETA: I know women who say they didn't nurse cause' they know their diets are crap and so formula fed instead. Thats bad advice. I don't care if you live on fast food - your breastmilk is *STILL* better than formula!!

I am just starting to realize how huge the effects of maternal nutrition are on babies. And even if the mama is eating a "perfect" traditional diet it does not mean she is absorbing all the nutrients. There are so many issues in our culture that the idea of "perfect" breastmilk is ridiculous. However, there are so many protective effects of breastmilk that the idea of not breastfeeding because of diet is very harmful. Natasha Campbell McBride (who is WAPF-friendly) talks about how if a mother has bad gut bacteria (I'm sure very common), she passes it on to the baby in pregnancy. The baby gets this bad gut bacteria which sets it up for a lot of health difficulties, but gets protective antibodies in the breastmilk. When babies are weaned, they lose the protective antibodies and lots of problems start to develop. In hindsight I definitely saw this with my ds who was weaned at 4 (of course, we will never know how he would be had I not breastfed because of my poor gut health which I had no idea about at the time.)

When my daughter was born, she showed overt signs of gut issues (constipation) and I was able to clean up my diet while breastfeeding. Again, I will never know what would have happened had I weaned because of my issues, but I can imagine it would not be good.

[cristeen]

Originally Posted by Smokering

If I couldn't breastfeed a subsequent child I'd strongly consider the WAPF formula over commercial stuff. Anyone here used it?

I have. And I must say that I'm very grateful that she included those recipes in the book. My little guy got the broth-based formula when he showed he was reactive to the commercial dairy based formula when he was less than a month old. We quickly got donor milk, but in the gap between realizing he was losing weight like mad and getting the donor milk, that formula worked fairly well for us.

I will say though that I've been flamed on these boards before for discussing it's use. So while you may be comfortable with it, not every TFer is.

I'll also say that right now he is NOT on WAPF formula, he's back on commercial dairy formula (and doesn't seem to be reacting much this time). When the smell of your baby makes you retch (CLO) - that's not healthy for anyone. I've been debating making it again without the CLO, maybe adding the DHA/ARA supplement available from Baby's First instead.

[krankedyann]

Originally Posted by UrbanSimplicity

Seriously, I think we should write an open letter to Sally Fallon. Rather than discouraging moms with a less-than-ideal diet from bf-ing, she should focus on encouraging them to eat better for both their babies and themselves.

It's been done before, and completely dismissed, in earnest. There are quite a few of us former chapter leaders who either left or were put out over the letter writing campaign.