breast milk quality variance

[Guest guest]

We discussed briefly before the quality of breast milk varying or not varying

(and I may or may not have missed some posts directed to me, I'll check

later)... it occurred to me that it is ironic how much emphasis we, as a group,

put

on the quality of a cow's " breast milk " intended for *its* offspring, and how

that varies with what the cow eats, and what what the cow eats was grown in,

but at the same time some of us will believe research showing that all human

breast milk is equivalent regardless of what the mother eats.

A cow has the same interest in promoting the survival of its offspring as a

human does, and obviously the system of each would be designed to benefit the

offspring at the expense of the mother during a period of time where the

survival of the offspring was critical and in question (that is, during

infancy).

However, if the quality of cow milk can vary so dramatically, even given this

axiom, how could it be different for humans?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/22/04 7:42:11 PM, ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> However, if the quality of cow milk can vary so dramatically, even given

> this

> axiom, how could it be different for humans?

>

It is no different IMHO. That's why I'm pretty careful with the foods I

choose to consume.

Elainie

>

>

[Guest guest]

>However, if the quality of cow milk can vary so dramatically, even

>given this

>axiom, how could it be different for humans?

>

>Chris

>

Exactly!!

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>

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

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@a... wrote:

> However, if the quality of cow milk can vary so dramatically, even

given this

> axiom, how could it be different for humans?

It is not different for humans. What a mother eats if very important.

To realize that you either need to be a " new " dad trying to sleep

while the baby is crying and your wife is crying. Or you need to be a

" new " breastfeeding Mom who suddenly and heavily regrets what she ate

for supper, or that little snack, or that extra bit of whatever . . .

Gayle

[Guest guest]

there is so much varying information on whether a lactating mother's

diet changes the makeup of her milk that my head is ready to spin

(it's a neat trick - you can borrow me for halloween if you want)...

i was going to bring this up in a message all it's own, but i might

as well include it here -

i just bought the june issue of gourmet magazine and was happily

surprised to find included an article on trans fatty acids - starrin

our own mary enig.

within that article there was a point that recent studies are

showing that lactating women who eat lots of TFAs potentially run

the risk of passing it on to their babes through their milk. if this

is the case, that would mean other unhealthy crap gets through too.

erica z

> > However, if the quality of cow milk can vary so dramatically,

even

> given this

> > axiom, how could it be different for humans?

>

> It is not different for humans. What a mother eats if very

important.

> To realize that you either need to be a " new " dad trying to sleep

> while the baby is crying and your wife is crying. Or you need to

be a

> " new " breastfeeding Mom who suddenly and heavily regrets what she

ate

> for supper, or that little snack, or that extra bit of

whatever . . .

>

> Gayle

[Guest guest]

> there is so much varying information on whether a lactating

mother's

> diet changes the makeup of her milk that my head is ready to spin

> (it's a neat trick - you can borrow me for halloween if you want)...

Hi a,

Right... but in sorting through it a couple points can be made:

1) As stated, in every single other species of plant and animal, what

goes in affects what comes out. The liklihood that humans have a

lone exemption from this law of nature is nil.

2) If we assume honesty in interpretation of the researchers, one can

conceive of numerous flaws a study could have that would allow it to

show no difference associated with diet. (For example, they could

have tested for vitamin A but varied carotenes, or tested for DHA but

varied ALA, say, from flax supplementation. Or, there may be a

certain threshold of intake after which variation stops (a saturation

point in the milk), and they could have varied nutrients above these

points). On the other hand, again assuming honesty of the

interpretation of the researchers, it's hard to conceive of a way

that variations dependent on diet could have been found if they

didn't exist.

3) It's outrageously obvious that a mother cannot possibly put

substances into her milk that she has deficient dietary intake of the

same substances, if her body is not capable of manufacturing them

itself.

4) In general, unless specific flaws are found, we can make an a

priori assumption that research finding variation trumps research not

finding variation, due to #2, and the principle that you can never

prove a negative but can prove a positive. In other words, if you

lose your keys, no matter how long you search your bedroom you cannot

confirm that you DIDN'T lose them in your bedroom, but if you find

them in your bedroom, you CAN confirm that you DID lose them in your

bedroom.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> 3) It's outrageously obvious that a mother cannot possibly put

> substances into her milk that she has deficient dietary intake of

the

> same substances, if her body is not capable of manufacturing them

> itself.

actually, that is not so outrageous. i've read of research that says

the mothers in third world countries BM is nutritionally on par with

ours in the USA . it's my understanding that pg women and nursing

are able to make more efficient use of nutrients. if i recall it has

to do with the hormone prolactin, but don't quote me on that.

some funny things happen in our bodies. like the old belief that you

have to take in less than a certain # of calories to lose weight and

yet on atkins you take in much more calories and still lose weight.

so not all is as it seems on the surface.

> 4) In general, unless specific flaws are found, we can make an a

> priori assumption that research finding variation trumps research

not

> finding variation, due to #2, and the principle that you can never

> prove a negative but can prove a positive. In other words, if you

> lose your keys, no matter how long you search your bedroom you

cannot

> confirm that you DIDN'T lose them in your bedroom, but if you find

> them in your bedroom, you CAN confirm that you DID lose them in

your

> bedroom.

sorry chris, that sounds really scientific but just not the case at

my house. are you childless? it's more likely that i set my keys

down on the dining room table and then 2 yr old picked them up &

took them to the bathroom and then 4 yr old picked themup & took them

to his bedroom and then the 7 yr old picked them up & took them to my

bedroom and my 16 yr old was actually simultaneously looking for them

to take a spin around the block *but* i beat him to it and found them

first.

vera

[Guest guest]

Just out of curiosity, did the study say what the diet of these women in the

third world countries was? How do we know it wasn't an equally nutritious diet?

Rebekah

Re: breast milk quality variance

actually, that is not so outrageous. i've read of research that says

the mothers in third world countries BM is nutritionally on par with

ours in the USA .

[Guest guest]

hi vera,

just wondering if what you read re: lactating women in third world

countries milk is similar to the western mom's came from the book

*our babies, ourselves*...

that's where i saw it.

erica z

>

> > 3) It's outrageously obvious that a mother cannot possibly put

> > substances into her milk that she has deficient dietary intake

of

> the

> > same substances, if her body is not capable of manufacturing

them

> > itself.

>

> actually, that is not so outrageous. i've read of research that

says

> the mothers in third world countries BM is nutritionally on par

with

> ours in the USA . it's my understanding that pg women and nursing

> are able to make more efficient use of nutrients. if i recall it

has

> to do with the hormone prolactin, but don't quote me on that.

>

> some funny things happen in our bodies. like the old belief that

you

> have to take in less than a certain # of calories to lose weight

and

> yet on atkins you take in much more calories and still lose

weight.

> so not all is as it seems on the surface.

>

>

> > 4) In general, unless specific flaws are found, we can make an a

> > priori assumption that research finding variation trumps

research

> not

> > finding variation, due to #2, and the principle that you can

never

> > prove a negative but can prove a positive. In other words, if

you

> > lose your keys, no matter how long you search your bedroom you

> cannot

> > confirm that you DIDN'T lose them in your bedroom, but if you

find

> > them in your bedroom, you CAN confirm that you DID lose them in

> your

> > bedroom.

>

> sorry chris, that sounds really scientific but just not the case

at

> my house. are you childless? it's more likely that i set my keys

> down on the dining room table and then 2 yr old picked them up &

> took them to the bathroom and then 4 yr old picked themup & took

them

> to his bedroom and then the 7 yr old picked them up & took them to

my

> bedroom and my 16 yr old was actually simultaneously looking for

them

> to take a spin around the block *but* i beat him to it and found

them

> first.

>

> vera

[Guest guest]

>

> > 3) It's outrageously obvious that a mother cannot possibly put

> > substances into her milk that she has deficient dietary intake of

> the

> > same substances, if her body is not capable of manufacturing them

> > itself.

>

> actually, that is not so outrageous.

I assume you mean it isn't so obvious? It is obvious, if my meaning

is clear, because if the substance can't be manufactured and is not

in the diet, then it has no origin of existence.

> i've read of research that says

> the mothers in third world countries BM is nutritionally on par

with

> ours in the USA .

Their geographical location or the degree of technological

advancement of the society within which they live is not quite the

same as their dietary intake of nutrients.

> it's my understanding that pg women and nursing

> are able to make more efficient use of nutrients. if i recall it

has

> to do with the hormone prolactin, but don't quote me on that.

That supports one of my points in which I stated that there might be

a certain threshold of intake above which we wouldn't find variance.

So hormones might make this threshold lower than it would be without

those hormones, that's just changing a quantitative measure, not the

qualitative fact that below some given point, there will not be

enough of the nutrient to saturate the milk.

>

> some funny things happen in our bodies. like the old belief that

you

> have to take in less than a certain # of calories to lose weight

and

> yet on atkins you take in much more calories and still lose

weight.

> so not all is as it seems on the surface.

That's because the old belief made the groundless assumption that a

given gram of a given substance always has the same caloric value,

without accounting for the metabolic pathway by which it is burned.

As far as I know, no science has yet overturned the " old belief " that

one substance cannot be in a specific location while simultaneously

having no existence.

> > 4) In general, unless specific flaws are found, we can make an a

> > priori assumption that research finding variation trumps research

> not

> > finding variation, due to #2, and the principle that you can

never

> > prove a negative but can prove a positive. In other words, if

you

> > lose your keys, no matter how long you search your bedroom you

> cannot

> > confirm that you DIDN'T lose them in your bedroom, but if you

find

> > them in your bedroom, you CAN confirm that you DID lose them in

> your

> > bedroom.

>

> sorry chris, that sounds really scientific but just not the case at

> my house. are you childless? it's more likely that i set my keys

> down on the dining room table and then 2 yr old picked them up &

> took them to the bathroom and then 4 yr old picked themup & took

them

> to his bedroom and then the 7 yr old picked them up & took them to

my

> bedroom and my 16 yr old was actually simultaneously looking for

them

> to take a spin around the block *but* i beat him to it and found

them

> first.

Vera, I hope your response is supposed to be humor. :-)

In case not, we could apply the theoretical assumption to my scenario

that no one moved the keys. Or, we could apply the same principle I

was writing of to each occurrence within your scenario. For example,

if you caught the 4-yo on tape or happened to see the 4-yo, you could

prove he had moved the keys, but, since the keys wound up in your

bedroom, you couldn't prove, say, that the 4-yo didn't take them to

the bathroom rather than his bedroom.

The principle is pretty simple.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Just out of curiosity, did the study say what the diet of these

women in the third world countries was? How do we know it wasn't an

equally nutritious diet?>

rebekah i'm sorry - i don't remember any of the details. it was yrs

ago, on an unassisted childbirth list - i might be able to locate the

source, if anyone is interested.

vera

[Guest guest]

> hi vera,

>

> just wondering if what you read re: lactating women in third world

> countries milk is similar to the western mom's came from the book

> *our babies, ourselves*...

> that's where i saw it.>

no erica i heard about it on an unassisted birth list i'm on. but

maybe that was the original source.... did it happen to mention what

kind of diet they ate?

vera

[Guest guest]

yes i would agree with your last sentence but if you refer back to my

original quote in which you said " deficient dietary intake " which is

clearly different from " is not in the diet " .

> >

> > > 3) It's outrageously obvious that a mother cannot possibly put

> > > substances into her milk that she has deficient dietary intake

of

> > the

> > > same substances, if her body is not capable of manufacturing

them

> > > itself.

> >

> > actually, that is not so outrageous.

>

> I assume you mean it isn't so obvious? It is obvious, if my

meaning

> is clear, because if the substance can't be manufactured and is not

> in the diet, then it has no origin of existence.

yes john, that was humor. not your cup of tea?

vera

In other words, if

> you

> > > lose your keys, no matter how long you search your bedroom you

> > cannot

> > > confirm that you DIDN'T lose them in your bedroom, but if you

> find

> > > them in your bedroom, you CAN confirm that you DID lose them in

> > your

> > > bedroom.

> >

> > sorry chris, that sounds really scientific but just not the case

at

> > my house. are you childless? it's more likely that i set my

keys

> > down on the dining room table and then 2 yr old picked them up &

> > took them to the bathroom and then 4 yr old picked themup & took

> them

> > to his bedroom and then the 7 yr old picked them up & took them

to

> my

> > bedroom and my 16 yr old was actually simultaneously looking for

> them

> > to take a spin around the block *but* i beat him to it and found

> them

> > first.

>

> Vera, I hope your response is supposed to be humor. :-)

>

> In case not, we could apply the theoretical assumption to my

scenario

> that no one moved the keys. Or, we could apply the same principle

I

> was writing of to each occurrence within your scenario. For

example,

> if you caught the 4-yo on tape or happened to see the 4-yo, you

could

> prove he had moved the keys, but, since the keys wound up in your

> bedroom, you couldn't prove, say, that the 4-yo didn't take them to

> the bathroom rather than his bedroom.

>

> The principle is pretty simple.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

> yes i would agree with your last sentence but if you refer back to

my

> original quote in which you said " deficient dietary intake " which

is

> clearly different from " is not in the diet " .

By " deficient, " I meant deficient for the purpose at hand--

saturating the breast milk. I was merely stating an obvious truism.

> yes john, that was humor. not your cup of tea?

oh forgive me. my name's chris, but it was a delicious cup of tea!

chris