LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Jennifer Tow <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:51:08 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
Sorry for the late post--I am way behind on mail due to family illness and my
own.

In a message dated 10/21/0 1:00:49 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< and then there are physical differences that seem to be well-supported by
science. higher rates of lactose intolerance in various groups. higher
incidence of some diseases. the authors of this study seem to believe that it
is merely the darkness of the skin that causes this problem, but i don't
think they have proven this well enough to draw the conclusions stated.
 >>

One factor that I find absent in many studies is genetic expression. B/c we
tend to assess "disease or disorders" in relationship to the "norm" for white
 middle-class Americans, we are thinking inside of a very small box, IMO.
Many of the medical conditions or problems we see in a particular group of
people may well reflect evolutionary adaptability. That is to say, what
appears as a weakness actually reflects the strengths of a population group,
when viewed in a different environment. I am not saying that rickets is
adaptive, but that it may be the way that a particular gene is expressing
itself in a particular environment. That environment may be internal as well
as external, including the "gut" environment which evolves based upon
nutritional habits, or it may reflect, as Carol said, a cultural environment
which places more children in daycare, or indoors for safety's sake in some
neighborhoods. I think it is too narrow to assume that breastmilk, rather
than environmental factors is the "culprit".  I find the conclusion of this
study ambiguous and think it is a dangerous line to walk to imply that the
breastmilk of *some women* is inadequate for their babies. We should always
assume that breastmilk is more than adequate and look for other factors we
can understand and manipulate if necessary, to solve problems. (Not that I
think taking a walk is a huge manipulation). Oddly, this study neglected to
sort out other possible factors, leaving us to rely heavily on the conclusion.
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2