or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Question about nutrition & BF.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question about nutrition & BF. - Page 3

post #41 of 219
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.
post #42 of 219
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
post #43 of 219
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.
post #44 of 219
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.
post #45 of 219
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.
post #46 of 219
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.
post #47 of 219
Don't mind me, just subscribing to this fascinating thread.
post #48 of 219
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. :
post #49 of 219
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.
post #50 of 219
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.
post #51 of 219
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
post #52 of 219
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.
post #53 of 219
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.
post #54 of 219
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.
post #55 of 219
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
post #56 of 219
this thread is just fascinating! :
post #57 of 219
:
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.
post #58 of 219
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.
post #59 of 219
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.
post #60 of 219
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breastfeeding
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Question about nutrition & BF.