colostrum: was keeping weight on, NT-style

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 6 May 2002 19:49:24 -0700 bianca3@... writes:

On Mon, 06 May 2002 19:32:23 -0400 Idol <Idol@...>

writes:

<snip>

I've read what sounds like a good argument against consumption of

colostrum: it's extremely rich in hormones meant for growing calves. How

does this square with your experience?

****

I first read about colostrum years ago (1985?) in Dr. s' Milk

Book. He was very enthusiastic about it and went on further to talk about

medical milk therapy, i.e treating the animal so that certain antibodies

would show up in the colostrum to treat various disease states. He was

even quoting from a medical milk magazine that was published earlier in

the last century. Fascinating reading to say the least.

Over the years whenever I found a source I would always buy it and had

very good results. But I never used it therapeutically because it was a

here today gone tomorrow type of thing.

Some argue that milk period has hormones that are designed for that

particular species and that the soporific effect of milk is in fact the

hormones that are not designed for humans. This is an ongoing debate in

some RAF circles.

Bianca

**************Me again:

I would further add that the colostrum article you reference doesn't

sound much removed from the " milk is for babes " argument or the " this

milk is for only the babes of this species " argument.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

Bianca-

>I would further add that the colostrum article you reference doesn't

>sound much removed from the " milk is for babes " argument or the " this

>milk is for only the babes of this species " argument.

Yeah, I can see the similarity in the arguments, but while milk is

basically just a food, if colostrum does have a hugely higher density of

hormones and initial-cow-programming, maybe it's not good. I don't know.

-