LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"katherine a. dettwyler" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 19 Jan 1996 19:25:45 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
>Kathy,
>
>       Please do forward this to the list.  My main point is that the detrimental
effects of
>insufficient iron have always been emphasized when the reverse, the
>detrimental effects of too much iron (and many other vitamins/minerals)
>are seldom mentioned.  It is extremely important to be aware that too
>much iron can cause problems (some have even linked it with an increased
>susceptibility to cancer and ischemic heart disease - although yes it is
>still controversial) and
>the fact that iron is involved in one of the body's defense mechanisms.
> For example the much larger quantities of available iron in the diet of
>iron-fortified formula-fed infants has been associated with a higher
>susceptibility to salmonellosis, botulism, and SIDS (Weinberg, 1994).
>   I certainly agree that the advantage breast fed babies have has to do
>with a number of factors, of which lactoferrin is only one.  However, I
>think that it is very incorrect to say that
>one of the top 5 causes of maternal mortality in childbirth worldwide is
>anemia.  Anemia is a SYMPTOM not a cause. The underlying causes for
>anemia are many and varied and it is these issues that need to be
>addressed (and considered to be causes) not the symptom of anemia.  Why
>doesn't a woman's iron absorption rate reach 40% or 90% during
>pregnancy?  Because it would be potentially very detrimental to both her
>and the embryo/fetus in terms of giving an advantage to pathogens.  This
>brings up an interesting point that I have been wondering about lately.
>Arthur and Isbister (1987 in Drugs 33:171-182) noted that "Other mammals
>have approximately ten times the iron loss present in humans per kilogram
>and iron absorption in humans is only one-fiftieth to one-hundreth of
>that in other mammals".  Why?  I would be interested to hear Dr. Zimmer's
>comments.
>
>                                                        Cheers,
>
>                                                          P.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2