or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Feeding Babies in Traditional Culture
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Feeding Babies in Traditional Culture - Page 2

post #21 of 77
Quote:
Our interpretation is the following: the diet of modern American women is so appalling, and their preparation for successful breastfeeding so lacking, that their breast milk provides no better nourishment for their infants than factory-made formula.
Quote from Successful Breastfeeding...And Successful Alternatives

Wow...I hadn't read much of the WAPF information about breastfeeding until finding this thread. While I agree that excellent nutrition is extremely important during pregnancy and breastfeeding, Fallon's breastfeeding discussions are IMO pretty deplorable. She seems to imply that most modern human infants would be better off fed by cows. She also totally ignores the immunological and emotional benefits of breastfeeding... Oh wait, she does discuss the immunological benefits in her article Is Mother's Milk Sterile?
Recent Research on Human Milk
. At the end of the article, however, she uses research about the benefits of breastmilk to justify the consumption of raw cows milk (rather than to promote breastfeeding).

I also found it strange in her personal breastfeeding saga that she compares the health and intellegence of her three children (which, of course, is inversely related to how long they breastfed). I wonder how her kids feel about that!

I don't know...I guess this is a take what resonates and leave what doesn't situation for me. I'm really intruigued by traditional diets, but Fallon's love affair with raw cow's milk gets a little annoying sometimes... I wonder if her perspective would be radically different if she had succeeded in producing adequate milk for her babies?!?!

-Angie
post #22 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama2Rowan View Post
I don't know...I guess this is a take what resonates and leave what doesn't situation for me. I'm really intruigued by traditional diets, but Fallon's love affair with raw cow's milk gets a little annoying sometimes... I wonder if her perspective would be radically different if she had succeeded in producing adequate milk for her babies?!?!

-Angie
I'd be willing to bet money that yes, her attitude WOULD be radically different.

Breastfeeding is such a fundamental symbol of motherhood, if you don't succeed at it you either beat yourself up for the rest of your life or convince yourself it's less important than it really is so you don't feel like a failure.

I had to supplement due to low supply, too. But I deal with it with long-term disappointment with myself and acknowledgment of my failings. Fallon's approach is probably healthier psychologically, but I think because she's so influential her attitude is dangerous.
post #23 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikki98 View Post
I also wonder about food allergies of children fed traditionally(do they have less allergies, that is). Hope I didn't go too off topic here .
Before modern times, I suspect that many babies with severe food allergies simply wouldn't have survived. If a baby is allergic to some staple in the diet, he or she would probably be very sickly in early infancy (from the allergen in breastmilk) and then grow slowly, if at all, and then succumb to a minor illness- if they didn't die from anaphylactic reactions to allergens. I don't know if they were always able to specify what was wrong with "sickly babies" who died young.
post #24 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by spughy View Post
I'd be willing to bet money that yes, her attitude WOULD be radically different.

Breastfeeding is such a fundamental symbol of motherhood, if you don't succeed at it you either beat yourself up for the rest of your life or convince yourself it's less important than it really is so you don't feel like a failure.
ITA. This issue is one of the main reasons I haven't started a WAPF local chapter myself. I don't want to deal with being expected to defend their breastfeeding statements, since I think many are indefensible. Yes, raw milk formula is a blessing for some and the info needs to be available, but IMO they emphasize it to such an extent that it overshadows the unequaled value of breastfeeding and is given more attention than helping mom to optimize her breastmilk. "Oh, you've had supply issues and/or your diet isn't perfect and/or your baby is fussy or colicy? No worries, there's nothing you can do about it, give raw milk formula instead!" is often how it comes across to me.
post #25 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by quietserena View Post
This is the one aspect where I disagreed with NT wholeheartedly. IMO, kids need to be breastfed and solids delayed as long as possible, especially grains.
It seems there is a misunderstanding here. If I remember correctly, the only food that Sally recommends feeding at 4 months is raw egg yolk. She is definitely not advocating a full-blown feeding program including all types of foods at that age.
post #26 of 77
I just finished reading "Our Babies, Ourselves" and she had a lot of information about feeding in traditional societies.

It completely depended on the society. Some started supplementing with solids at birth while some didn't give solids until closer to 2 years. There is no one way of doing things in those societies.

I think you should observe your child and do what you think is right for them.
post #27 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mama View Post
That has not been true from bf'ing sources I have read or my own experience. From what I can remember reading the later solids are introduced the less this problem occurs and I am thinking that delaying cord clamping until there is no longer a pulse affects this as well. Luke did not eat solids really until 17 mo, his iron was beautiful when tested at 12 mo, I never did any supplementation.
Interesting.
post #28 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJP View Post
ITA. This issue is one of the main reasons I haven't started a WAPF local chapter myself. I don't want to deal with being expected to defend their breastfeeding statements, since I think many are indefensible. Yes, raw milk formula is a blessing for some and the info needs to be available, but IMO they emphasize it to such an extent that it overshadows the unequaled value of breastfeeding and is given more attention than helping mom to optimize her breastmilk. "Oh, you've had supply issues and/or your diet isn't perfect and/or your baby is fussy or colicy? No worries, there's nothing you can do about it, give raw milk formula instead!" is often how it comes across to me.
Uh... I'm a chapter leader, and I'm NOT a member of WAP! My reason? Their stance on breastfeeding and solids. And they know that's my only objection and otherwise I'd join.

And concerning iron, the studies out there show that if a child doesn't have the cord clamped prematurely, iron isn't an issue until well after the first birthday.

My second child ate more in solids his first sitting at six months old than my first child did the whole first year she was eating solids. Watch the baby, not the calendar. Kellymom has a wonderful discussion about knowing when children are ready for solids.

The real heart of the issue is two things. One, Sally didn't nurse successfully, which colors her whole perception of it. Two, Sally is past childbearing age, so she's moved onto other areas of focus. The scant research that was done for that area of the book was quite.... lacking. There are some within WAP who would like to see this change, but so far no concerted effort has been made by those who vowed to do the heavy research on it over a year ago.

As a chapter leader, I can't tell you how many people I have come into contact with who started the egg yolk at 4 months old and the child developed egg allergies, or the kid threw it up violently, yet because they thought that was what would guarantee their perfect health, they continued it anyway.

If you don't like it, make some noise. PLEASE. The more they hear that this is unacceptable, the more likely it is to change. Sally has stated in the past that 95% of WAP members nurse, and the majority of them nurse for extended periods of time.
post #29 of 77
Ok, cord clamping presents many many problems!!!! babies need that blood!

Anyway, back to the discussion.:
post #30 of 77
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Megan~ View Post
I just finished reading "Our Babies, Ourselves" and she had a lot of information about feeding in traditional societies.
I'll have to look for this one, thanks!!
post #31 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by krankedyann View Post
Uh... I'm a chapter leader, and I'm NOT a member of WAP! My reason? Their stance on breastfeeding and solids. And they know that's my only objection and otherwise I'd join.

And concerning iron, the studies out there show that if a child doesn't have the cord clamped prematurely, iron isn't an issue until well after the first birthday.

My second child ate more in solids his first sitting at six months old than my first child did the whole first year she was eating solids. Watch the baby, not the calendar. Kellymom has a wonderful discussion about knowing when children are ready for solids.

The real heart of the issue is two things. One, Sally didn't nurse successfully, which colors her whole perception of it. Two, Sally is past childbearing age, so she's moved onto other areas of focus. The scant research that was done for that area of the book was quite.... lacking. There are some within WAP who would like to see this change, but so far no concerted effort has been made by those who vowed to do the heavy research on it over a year ago.

As a chapter leader, I can't tell you how many people I have come into contact with who started the egg yolk at 4 months old and the child developed egg allergies, or the kid threw it up violently, yet because they thought that was what would guarantee their perfect health, they continued it anyway.

If you don't like it, make some noise. PLEASE. The more they hear that this is unacceptable, the more likely it is to change. Sally has stated in the past that 95% of WAP members nurse, and the majority of them nurse for extended periods of time.
First of all, . You're right, we should be making noise to them. I did so several years ago, when I first was unsettled by their BF/solids stuff, but should do more. If they get a lot of feedback about it from people otherwise friendly to their messages, maybe it will hasten a re-evaluation of their published materials on the topic.

It never occurred to me to start a local chapter without being a member, because it gives that as a requirement to be a chapter leader ("Be a member in good standing of the Weston A. Price Foundation"). Hmm. I am a member, largely because I like getting Wise Traditions in print and I do support a lot of their work. I know they put all the articles on the website, but I don't like to read lengthy pieces at the computer or print out ream after ream of unbound paper. I'll compose a new letter to them along the lines of "I'm a member and support much of your work, but this is what I think is wrong with your breastfeeding/feeding babies stuff..." Maybe we could start a new post here to encourage those of us who feel this way to all write to them.

On the issue of iron, everything supportive of BF I've ever read says that although the absolute iron level of breastmilk appears low, it's in a very absorbable form. Normal birth with delayed cord clamping combined with decent breastmilk should make iron supplementation (even with food) unnecessary. But since most births in the US are in the hospital, where physiologically normal birth without medical interference and cord clamping/cutting immediately is the exception, I can see how most babies may begin to have low iron much sooner. Sad.

I could not agree more with your statement to watch the baby, not the calendar. Use that maternal instinct, it's for real!
post #32 of 77
This has been a really interesting discussion. I always thought you should delay grains and the harder to digest foods, but then I came across this study that made me wonder...

http://www.musckids.com/news/parenti...etter/2006_08/

I waited to introduce grains until after 1 yr for my 18mo dd, but she still has problems digesting them. She has mild eczema, red cheeks, and lots of loose stools. It doesn't seem to matter if I soak grains or not. She can handle small amounts of rice cereal and buckwheat cereal, but nothing in the form of flour, even soaked or sprouted. If she gets it, the eczema, red cheeks, and loose stools return.

So I'm not sure if my dd is confirming you should wait until after 2 yrs to introduce grains or that we waited too long??
post #33 of 77
And remember that in some traditional societies, colostrum is seen as unfit and is expressed and discarded. In some cultures, herbal tea is the first liquid given newborns.
There is such variety out there. I would think though that babies also have an innate intelligence and if let to play with foods, they will either reject that which is unfit, or eat it if they need it. They may eat something once, but if their bodies are not ready for it, they will reject it next time around. Which is why it's so important not to impose any kind of food on your baby (as in moms continuing egg yolks after baby throws up)
post #34 of 77
I also won't join WAP because of the breastfeeding misinformation. I would start a chapter here but for that as well. As someone who is working on LLL leader accreditation, I can tell you that Sally's article demonstrates a clear lack of breastfeeding knowledge and technique. It does not belong on their website at all. Her personal story is valuable, but that article is full of *expletive*. My toddler is trying to tear up the house or I would rant on. . . .
post #35 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by provocativa View Post
but that article is full of *expletive*.
Yes, but so is KellyMom:

Quote:
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.
And LLL too:

Quote:
There is very little difference in the milk of healthy mothers and mothers who are severely malnourished.... If the mother’s diet is not adequate, it is her body that makes up the difference...Breastfeeding on cue ensures that the baby will receive all he needs within the day in order to grow well and remain healthy.
So I can appreciate WAPF's stance but I do wish they would be more specific about the research that supports the connection between nutrition and healthy milk. That article could be a little less strident and a little longer in facts.

Rarely do I agree with every single thing an organization says.
post #36 of 77
I like the Westin Price foundation website for feeding in traditional cultures info. It does look, however that there is some scarcity (and misinformation) in info re: infants specifically.
One interesting study I read did suggest that there is a window of time for introducing solids that is most beneficial regarding allergies- after 6 months, but well before 9 months of age. The study was done at the Helsinki Skin and Allergy Hospital, and followed breast fed babies into adulthood. Findings were that babies who were exclusively breastfeeding past nine months were far more likely to develop allergies. It appears that exposure to external antigens before a certain age (in this case 9 months) is important for the developing immune system.
I found the article originally in New Scientist magazine- but you need a subscription to read the full-text. You can find it from other sources by googling the hospital name, and "breast".
Cheers,
(and table feeding) mom to Adelle, born : 1/06
post #37 of 77
sorry to jump in here right in the middle but i have been doing alot of thinking about this topic this weekend. and not to start anything but.....and just to preface i have only read the NT book and some of the price website. so if we are all giving our children what our parents gave us, etc. wouldn't it be that actually having children isn't the best because we wouldn't be having optimally healthy children? i DO NOT believe this at all but if you take that logic to the next level that is where it goes in my thinking and isn't it to give your children the best start to life and stop a cycle of bad nourishment etc? so concluding that breastfeeding in most cases (other than drug or alcohol addictions) is the most healthful minded thing to do to begin to'heal' generations of processed eating? what does everybody think?
post #38 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneS View Post
Rarely do I agree with every single thing an organization says.
I am always quick to point out to critics that Sally Fallon is not Weston A. Price. Yes, she is the current head of the WAP Foundation, but he did his research before she was born, and we can get lots of useful information from his research without following every single word she says.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NursingStudent View Post
there is a window of time for introducing solids that is most beneficial regarding allergies- after 6 months, but well before 9 months of age. The study was done at the Helsinki Skin and Allergy Hospital, and followed breast fed babies into adulthood. Findings were that babies who were exclusively breastfeeding past nine months were far more likely to develop allergies.
Do you know what amount of feeding is sufficient to prevent allergies? I breastfeed almost exclusively for a long time out of laziness. It's far easier to nurse than to think about what food to introduce next, and worry about only introducing one at a time, and make sure it's healthy, etc., etc. etc. Feeding the babies from our meals wouldn't be too difficult though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brookescott88 View Post
so concluding that breastfeeding in most cases (other than drug or alcohol addictions) is the most healthful minded thing to do to begin to'heal' generations of processed eating? what does everybody think?
I'm afraid that I wasn't able to really follow any of what you were saying. Are you saying that even if we and our ancestors were nutritionally deficient, breastfeeding would still be the best start for a baby? I agree with that. I get overwhelmed thinking that I can't make a difference. There is so much past deficiency to heal, and my own diet is so lacking. I try to remember that every single baby step helps me move toward good health.
post #39 of 77
Well, I'm certain that it really doesn't take that long to heal nutritional deficiencies from past generations. If you look at the Pottenger cat studies, it *only* took those poor, completely sterile, hostile, horrible looking cats four generations to heal completely from three generations worth of terrible nutrition. And note that by introducing appropriate cat food (raw that is) to the sterile generation, *enough* fertility was restored to spawn a new generation, that was a bit healthier than the former. That's quite a feat of itself. Sterility is now quite common in our culture, but imagine what we can do to turn things around. And let's be grateful for the health that we do have, grateful that we were able to bring forth life. I sometimes get all depressed about my state of health, but really I am thankful that I was fertile enough for two pregnancies, and that I was so fertile only months ago when one intercourse in five months was enough to put a baby in my womb (OK, too much information).
Let's all make a list of the things about our health that we are grateful for!

That quote abuot mother's quality of milk by LLL was truly depressing. Of course, the baby will take stores from the mother, but what if there isn't anything or very little in store? Many women suffer from nutritional deficiencies. If there isn't enough of certain nutrients in the body for health issues to develop, why would there be enough for a baby? The reason there are birth defects is precisely this, no? The statement by SF that formula is more nourishing than the milk from a very poorely fed woman should not be taken as advice to scrap the nursing and continue eating crap, but rather to understand the huge importance of getting good nutrition during lactation.

There is WAY too much emphasis placed on the words by Fallon--she is but one of the many people who advocate traditional foods. And WAPF is simply a nutrition organization, NOT a political party that must have a united front. I can't see why people are so concerned about their statement on breastfeeding. Let's use our own minds and judgement, AND assume that others are capable of doing this as well, discerning useful from poor information and adivce. Why do we expect Sally to be flawless, when we certainly have our own share of flaws.
post #40 of 77
"I'm afraid that I wasn't able to really follow any of what you were saying. Are you saying that even if we and our ancestors were nutritionally deficient, breastfeeding would still be the best start for a baby? I agree with that. I get overwhelmed thinking that I can't make a difference. There is so much past deficiency to heal, and my own diet is so lacking. I try to remember that every single baby step helps me move toward good health.[/QUOTE]"

yep! i wasn't very clear there, thanks!
i guess i always look at what sally fallon wrote in NT as representing price.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Traditional Foods
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Feeding Babies in Traditional Culture