Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few comments

June 17, 2004

> well, except that commercial formula is not what's recommended.

This is what I'm saying: A mother whose diet is bad and who continues

to eat badly is not going to use the WAPF custom made formula. If she's

willing to go to that length, SHE COULD IMPROVE HER OWN DIET, and a lot

more easily. The point that breastfeeding mamas need to eat really well

is good, and that's great, and the moms list I'm on has even encouraged

a couple of the resident NT types to write a book on NT eating for

pregnancy and breastfeeding. But what I'm saying is, if a mother is

eating SAD, she's not going to KEEP eating SAD and put her child on a

raw milk formula. She's going to do one of two things: keep eating SAD

and put her child on a commercial formula (if she decides not to

breastfeed); or change the whole family's diet, which may include the

raw milk formula or may not. The advice should be, mama, eat better,

not mama, put your baby on formula. ANY formula.

(Note that while this is passionately written, no ill will is intended

toward anyone! )

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

June 17, 2004

> , and can say that in the past two years we have seen countless

> mothers turn to the NT formula and be amazed at the results when for

> any one

> of a number of good reasons they could not breastfeed.

Sure, the WAPF formula is much to be admired and promoted for those

(truly rare) occasions when women cannot breastfeed. And I had to wean

one of mine when I had my heart attack, so I've used formula too.

(Pre-WAPF, but she was old enough that her formula days were brief,

luckily.) I'm not arguing about whether WAPF-style formula is better

than commercial formula. I'm arguing about the way WAPF presents this

information.

I've answered the other arguments put forth here elsewhere.

> I don't think WAPF is out there actively suggesting that

> most women should be concerned about whether their milk is adequate.

Maybe so but this is how they are perceived by many influential people

in the mothering community. Sometimes it seems very much that WAPF gets

its mouth in gear prematurely. It could use some advice on effective

communication.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

June 17, 2004

Hi Lynn,

For adoptive parents, gay parents, infected/sick mothers and mothers who

just can't produce enough milk, the NT formula has been a godsend. I may be

wrong but I don't think mothers in these categories can be called " truly

rare " but people who call us can't be considered a random sample. Perhaps

uncommon would be a better term, but this is semantics. As we all turn the

nutritional status of this country around hopefully we'll get to where all

mothers will have clean, rich breast milk and plenty of it.

As for that perception by some in the mothering community of WAPF, it sounds

like this is a good opportunity for building bridges across differences

which should not be difficult since in most respects the camps are on the

same page as proponents of natural wisdom around childbirth and rearing!

Thanks for your sharing,

Christapher

Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few

comments

> , and can say that in the past two years we have seen countless

> mothers turn to the NT formula and be amazed at the results when for

> any one

> of a number of good reasons they could not breastfeed.

Sure, the WAPF formula is much to be admired and promoted for those

(truly rare) occasions when women cannot breastfeed. And I had to wean

one of mine when I had my heart attack, so I've used formula too.

(Pre-WAPF, but she was old enough that her formula days were brief,

luckily.) I'm not arguing about whether WAPF-style formula is better

than commercial formula. I'm arguing about the way WAPF presents this

information.

I've answered the other arguments put forth here elsewhere.

> I don't think WAPF is out there actively suggesting that

> most women should be concerned about whether their milk is adequate.

Maybe so but this is how they are perceived by many influential people

in the mothering community. Sometimes it seems very much that WAPF gets

its mouth in gear prematurely. It could use some advice on effective

communication.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

June 18, 2004

> As for homosexuality, I don't think anyone would argue that homosexuality

is

> caused by nutritional factors in -all- cases - or even in most. But given

> the drastic changes in diet over the 20th century, isn't it possible that

> feeding children toxic horrible pseudo foods could affect their

development

> at the most profound levels resulting in some cases in homosexual

> tendencies/identification? A troubling thought

I don't know, since we can't reproduce and recruiting has gotten a bad rap

in recent years, we have to get our new victims SOMEHOW....

Christie

June 18, 2004

Have you written to the magazine about how you feel?

Tas'.

spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few

comments

hi all,

just wondering what those who have seen this latest issue of wise

traditions thought of it.

i was especially disappointed by the comments in response to a

reader's letter regarding homosexuality and diet. in a nutshell, the

reader wondered if the WAPF's position on homosexuality is that it

can be a result of malnourishment or improper food choices.

here's what the response said (in part):

" ...there is also no doubt that a diet of imitation foods can

disrupt the hormonal development of the growing child, as

demonstrated by the studies of Pottenger and many others, resulting

in same-sex orientation that would not otherwise have occurred.

Chief culprits are margarine, MSG (which causes injury to the

hypothalamus) and soy formula (which floods the infant's bloodstream

with estrogens). We believe that it is important to provide this

information to prospective parents who also want to be grandparents. "

i was also surprised (and, again, disappointed) by a segment in the

soy alert! section. the piece commented on an anti-soy article

written in the last issue of mothering magazine (a progressive

parenting glossy) calling those who wrote in to mothering mag

protesting the story " whiny " .

imo, that word was used in poor taste. it doesn't sit well with me

(and undoubtedly anyone who is still on the fence about what to

believe regarding soy who happens to read wise traditions) that an

nutrition education organization, one that i am a member of and

volunteer for, would be so thoughtless.

i understand that the editors often use harsh language to

characterize those who denounce WAPF and it's nutritional findings,

but i can't seem to rationalize how doing so could possibly urge a

layperson to accept said findings. in fact, it most likely causes a

loss of credibility.

erica z

June 18, 2004

> if, for example, she had a dioxin-free source of grass-fed raw milk and

the

> mother herself was highly toxic...

> -katja

No such animal as dioxin free grass fed raw milk even in Vermont according

to a scientist who got involved in a discussion I read when Ben & Jerry's

ice cream was found to contain dioxins. She said the cows breathe it from

factory emissions. We get Midwest drift. Goes onto grass as well. Ben &

Jerry's did go to dioxin free packaging.

Wanita

June 18, 2004

Christie,

Ha! Btw, I am in no way suggesting that there is anything wrong with being

gay, just that I don't think it is outrageous to ask the question of how

deep are the effects of intergenerational refined foods - could they affect

the hormonal system and the self-perception of some, thus affecting sexual

identification? I think it is possible to ask such a question without an

agenda or expectation, being " gay-positive " - and just wanting to better

understand nutrition, health, and physical development.

Cheers,

Christapher

Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few

comments

> As for homosexuality, I don't think anyone would argue that homosexuality

is

> caused by nutritional factors in -all- cases - or even in most. But given

> the drastic changes in diet over the 20th century, isn't it possible that

> feeding children toxic horrible pseudo foods could affect their

development

> at the most profound levels resulting in some cases in homosexual

> tendencies/identification? A troubling thought

I don't know, since we can't reproduce and recruiting has gotten a bad rap

in recent years, we have to get our new victims SOMEHOW....

Christie

June 18, 2004

>> Btw, I am in no way suggesting that there is anything wrong with being

gay, just that I don't think it is outrageous to ask the question of how

deep are the effects of intergenerational refined foods <<

Oh, I understand perfectly! I myself have been worrying all afternoon about

all the little potential dykelets who were turned instead into Stepford

Wives by their mothers' consumption of transfats and dioxins! It's very sad

to see nature subverted by nutritional error!

Christie

June 18, 2004

Women who cannot produce enough breast milk are unfortunately not " truly

rare " . I know at least half a dozen myself included. I know for myself, I

tried everything to increase my breastmilk including homeopathy, herbs,

brewers yeast, beer, pumping, nothing made more than a slight difference.

Irene

At 02:17 PM 6/17/04, you wrote:

>Hi Lynn,

>

>For adoptive parents, gay parents, infected/sick mothers and mothers who

>just can't produce enough milk, the NT formula has been a godsend. I may be

>wrong but I don't think mothers in these categories can be called " truly

>rare " but people who call us can't be considered a random sample. Perhaps

>uncommon would be a better term, but this is semantics. As we all turn the

>nutritional status of this country around hopefully we'll get to where all

>mothers will have clean, rich breast milk and plenty of it.

>

>As for that perception by some in the mothering community of WAPF, it sounds

>like this is a good opportunity for building bridges across differences

>which should not be difficult since in most respects the camps are on the

>same page as proponents of natural wisdom around childbirth and rearing!

>

>Thanks for your sharing,

>

>Christapher

>

> Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few

>comments

>

> > , and can say that in the past two years we have seen countless

> > mothers turn to the NT formula and be amazed at the results when for

> > any one

> > of a number of good reasons they could not breastfeed.

>

>Sure, the WAPF formula is much to be admired and promoted for those

>(truly rare) occasions when women cannot breastfeed. And I had to wean

>one of mine when I had my heart attack, so I've used formula too.

>(Pre-WAPF, but she was old enough that her formula days were brief,

>luckily.) I'm not arguing about whether WAPF-style formula is better

>than commercial formula. I'm arguing about the way WAPF presents this

>information.

>

>I've answered the other arguments put forth here elsewhere.

>

> > I don't think WAPF is out there actively suggesting that

> > most women should be concerned about whether their milk is adequate.

>

>Maybe so but this is how they are perceived by many influential people

>in the mothering community. Sometimes it seems very much that WAPF gets

>its mouth in gear prematurely. It could use some advice on effective

>communication.

>

>Lynn S.

>

>------

>Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

>http://www.siprelle.com/

>http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

>http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

>

June 18, 2004

> Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a

>few comments

>

>> It hops and skips around the planet often landing finally in the

>> colder very northern latitudes. Hence the very high concentration

>of

>> dioxin in polar bears. It concentrates in the fat of an animal and

>> stays there.

I don't think this is true. If WE can detox dioxin, why can't other animals?

I think it largely has to do with the health of the animal - they healthier

they are the more capable of detoxing. This is true of plants, and it's true

of people who actively detox (via diet, chelation, sauna, supplements, etc),

so why not the rest of the animal kingdom?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

June 18, 2004

> For adoptive parents, gay parents, infected/sick mothers and mothers

> who

> just can't produce enough milk, the NT formula has been a godsend. I

> may be

> wrong but I don't think mothers in these categories can be called

> " truly

> rare " but people who call us can't be considered a random sample.

These are the people for whom formulas were invented. When I say " truly

rare " I mean that the vast majority of *birth* mothers absent other

conditions and with proper support (which is really where breastfeeding

problems multiply at large) are able to breastfeed. As I said, I had to

wean my youngest girl to the bottle after a heart attack forced me to

take medications that would be toxic to her. It broke both our hearts,

and once I dried up I allowed her back on my breast for comfort.

Nothing comes out but we still get the benefits of the attachment. So I

know all about conditions that might force one to use formula.

> As for that perception by some in the mothering community of WAPF, it

> sounds

> like this is a good opportunity for building bridges across differences

> which should not be difficult since in most respects the camps are on

> the

> same page as proponents of natural wisdom around childbirth and

> rearing!

And that's what I'm trying to do. I wish WAPF would make it easier.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

June 18, 2004

> this is simply not true. studies have shown that nutrition

> composition of breastmilk is identical in women across the board

> despite their own diet, be it health conscious or malnourished.

Yeah, and the USDA's studies show that the same goes for plants and

the soil they're raised in. LOL..

Chris

June 18, 2004

> this is simply not true. studies have shown that nutrition

> composition of breastmilk is identical in women across the board

> despite their own diet, be it health conscious or malnourished.

By the way, this is obviously impossible, becuase certain nutrients

can't be manufactured by the human body even during breastfeeding.

So, for example, a mother deficient in DHA could not possibly have

sufficient DHA in her breast milk. Furthermore, research *decades*

ago showed that breastfeeding mothers who eat trans fats have babies

with decreased visual acuity.

Chris

June 18, 2004

--- In , " Elaine " <itchyink@s...>

wrote:

> Yes, but for some reason breastfed babies, even drinking 'toxic'

breastmilk,

> fend of environmental toxins better than their formula-fed peers.

And is their formula made with raw milk?

Chris

June 18, 2004

--- In , Lynn Siprelle <lynn@s...>

wrote:

> > the gist is that if a woman's diet is less than stellar, she'd be

> > better off giving the baby formula, namely the raw milk formula

that

> > NT advises.

>

> Yep. I cannot defend this at all, especially since I don't believe

it.

> So many people in my acquaintance completely ignore what WAPF has

to

> say about anything because of this ONE position. It's completely

> ridiculous.

What's more ridiculous is the caracature offered of it above,

substituting " less than stellar " for the much more moderate stance of

WAPF that there is a certain threshold beyond which it is

comparatively more advantageous to offer a raw milk formula than

breast feed. " Less than stellar " could mean one eats dessert every

day, by NT standards. Having too much sugar is no good, e.g., but it

won't affect the breast milk in the same way that consuming

considerable amounts of trans fats every day, or having no source of

DHA in the diet, etc.

Chris

June 18, 2004

--- In , Lynn Siprelle <lynn@s...>

wrote:

> > well, except that commercial formula is not what's recommended.

>

> This is what I'm saying: A mother whose diet is bad and who

continues

> to eat badly is not going to use the WAPF custom made formula. If

she's

> willing to go to that length, SHE COULD IMPROVE HER OWN DIET, and a

lot

> more easily.

All this is saying is that the NT prescription is not of much

practical use, which is much, much, much different from saying that

it is " ridiculous, " conflicts with research, and is a reason to

ignore other WAPF recommendations.

Chris

June 18, 2004

....this is simply not true. studies have shown that nutrition

composition of breastmilk is identical in women across the board

despite their own diet, be it health conscious or malnourished...

I don't know about 'identical', but I learnt that the baby gets first priority

on whatever nutrients there are. So if the mother's diet doesn't have enough

nutrients for both of them, the baby can remain reasonably healthy while the

mother becomes malnourished.

Cheers,

Tas'.

June 18, 2004

Can't find the study right now but I've read, recently, that Inuit mothers in

the Arctic, have the highest levels of dioxin in their milk compared with

mothers elsewhere... of course dioxin is NOT a nutrient but it's clear though

that breast milk composition is NOT the same across the board.

I'll second the comment by Tas' too...

Dedy

...this is simply not true. studies have shown that nutrition

composition of breastmilk is identical in women across the board

despite their own diet, be it health conscious or malnourished...

From: << I don't know about 'identical', but I learnt that

the baby gets first priority on whatever nutrients there are. So if the mother's

diet doesn't have enough nutrients for both of them, the baby can remain

reasonably healthy while the mother becomes malnourished.

Cheers,

Tas'.>>

June 18, 2004

Irene,

did you try eating and drinking in huge amounts?

I'm a big gal and I'm sorry to tell you i produced copious milk but i was

hungry and thirsty all the time so i was constantly eating and drinking

(mostly skim milk; i always hated milk growing up but when i was nursing

i was craving it; i hated whole milk but loved skim milk. i know...).

but i knew thin women who couldn't produce enough milk.

my simple theory is that if you don't eat and drink enough, maybe in

copious amounts, you won't be able to have sufficient output. sorta

like, and please excuse this analogy, if you want to pee, you have to

drink a lot.

I'm sorry you had such a difficult time.

maybe copious milk production is a benefit of obesity? i have no idea.

and i may be completely and utterly wrong about this. please forgive me

if i am. :-)

laura

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:37:58 -0700 Irene Musiol <irene@...> writes:

Women who cannot produce enough breast milk are unfortunately not " truly

rare " . I know at least half a dozen myself included. I know for myself, I

tried everything to increase my breastmilk including homeopathy, herbs,

brewers yeast, beer, pumping, nothing made more than a slight difference.

Irene

At 02:17 PM 6/17/04, you wrote:

>Hi Lynn,

>

>For adoptive parents, gay parents, infected/sick mothers and mothers who

>just can't produce enough milk, the NT formula has been a godsend. I

may be

>wrong but I don't think mothers in these categories can be called " truly

>rare " but people who call us can't be considered a random sample.

Perhaps

>uncommon would be a better term, but this is semantics. As we all turn

the

>nutritional status of this country around hopefully we'll get to where

all

>mothers will have clean, rich breast milk and plenty of it.

>

>As for that perception by some in the mothering community of WAPF, it

sounds

>like this is a good opportunity for building bridges across differences

>which should not be difficult since in most respects the camps are on

the

>same page as proponents of natural wisdom around childbirth and rearing!

>

>Thanks for your sharing,

>

>Christapher

>

> Re: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a

few

>comments

>

> > , and can say that in the past two years we have seen countless

> > mothers turn to the NT formula and be amazed at the results when for

> > any one

> > of a number of good reasons they could not breastfeed.

>

>Sure, the WAPF formula is much to be admired and promoted for those

>(truly rare) occasions when women cannot breastfeed. And I had to wean

>one of mine when I had my heart attack, so I've used formula too.

>(Pre-WAPF, but she was old enough that her formula days were brief,

>luckily.) I'm not arguing about whether WAPF-style formula is better

>than commercial formula. I'm arguing about the way WAPF presents this

>information.

>

>I've answered the other arguments put forth here elsewhere.

>

> > I don't think WAPF is out there actively suggesting that

> > most women should be concerned about whether their milk is adequate.

>

>Maybe so but this is how they are perceived by many influential people

>in the mothering community. Sometimes it seems very much that WAPF gets

>its mouth in gear prematurely. It could use some advice on effective

>communication.

>

>Lynn S.

>

>------

>Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

>http://www.siprelle.com/

>http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

>http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

>

June 18, 2004

but Suze, if there is a LOT of dioxin, perhaps the dioxin overloads the

system and so only so much can be detoxed, hence the presence of the

dioxin in the polar bears...

maybe what Lynn said is true. i have no idea.

laura

I don't think this is true. If WE can detox dioxin, why can't other

animals?

I think it largely has to do with the health of the animal - they

healthier

they are the more capable of detoxing. This is true of plants, and it's

true

of people who actively detox (via diet, chelation, sauna, supplements,

etc),

so why not the rest of the animal kingdom?

June 18, 2004

i have no doubt i have been deficient in healthy omega fats my

whole life, or DHA or whatever you call it.

when i was pregnant and then nursing, my brain started to fade. i could

FEEL IT. and other moms said the same thing.

isn't this from the baby sucking those healthy fats, the little i had,

right from my system, and thus from my brain?

i can't believe all breast milk is the same, ether. but who knows, it

might be...

laura

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:01:08 -0000 " chrismasterjohn "

<ChrisMasterjohn@...> writes: