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:
Morgan Gallagher <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Jun 2007 12:43:14 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
Rachel Myr wrote:
> Heather Neil raises pertinent questions in the matter of the influence 
> of maternal diet on the quality of her milk.
> One thing that has never, ever been demonstrated to my knowledge is 
> whether milk produced by a mother on a sub-optimal diet gives poorer 
> nutrition to her child than any breastmilk substitute would.  It's 
> hard to imagine a maternal diet that would cause ANY breastmilk 
> substitute to surpass the mother's own milk in suitability for her child.
> Of course there are extreme circumstances with environmental pollution 
> disasters but that isn't maternal diet, either.
> Rachel Myr
> Kristiansand, Norway

I think we'd be pretty safe in saying, that if the mother is managing to 
produce milk at all, it's going to be better quality than any 
substitute.  Notwithstanding the hygiene issues, it's clear the biology 
will protect the infant at the cost of the mother.

Just looking at how maternal milk containing HIV retrovirus, is still 
healthier for the baby than substitute, just about says it all.

The mammalian tenancy, if the situation is so threatening that the 
offspring are not going to survive, is for the mother to kill and eat 
the offspring, in order to fuel her flight.  There comes a moment where 
having a fertile escapee, is more important than allowing  her to die 
with the young: if the calories gone into producing the young are to be 
lost (the young will die no matter what happens) then the calories have 
to recycled.  Nothing in the biology of such dire situations, is about 
the mother's milk suddenly not being enough - as it's a response to 
extreme danger from predators etc

Thankfully, one of the patterns that the human mammal has evolved _not_ 
to do.

There must be a point where milk will not be produced, as the maternal 
body is ravaged - but look at the Auschwitz - Birkenau 
</url?sa=L&ai=BfY9qXPJjRoXzEoqQ0gT6kqndBYCNmxS4sp3eArbIgc4C4MUICAAQARgBIMeY-AUoAjgBUJXS1lxgu76ug9AKmAGShwGqATRjb20ubWljcm9zb2Z0OmVuLWdiOklFLVNlYXJjaEJveCtHR0lDYitHR0lDYUk3K0dHSUNsyAEBgAIBqQL2fyna0KHAPtkDF4OooHXFCqPgAxA&q=http://www.escape2poland.co.uk/auschwitz.html&usg=AFQjCNHGq874d4TDLhuf1sOFnrr8BSVtRA>
mothers who managed even in the most extreme of deprivations, or Cecily 
William's little band in the Japanese camps.

The ability of the human mammal, to continue producing intelligent and 
physically alert offspring, in face of extreme nutritional deprivation, 
is probably why we've survived as a species- along with our ability to 
store all those fat cells for the raw energy required to get us to the 
next time of plenty.  Times of plenty have buoyed up the baseline, and 
off we go into the future, hoping the next generation will get optimum, 
as opposed to survival, nutrition.  Ironic then, in the extreme, that 
it's this very resilience, that masks the damage being done by 
artificial feeds - whether it be karo syrup, ground almond milk or 
commercial formula.

Just like it's also extremely ironic, that in our first sustained time 
of plenty, we are relentlessly filling up all those fat cells, whilst 
continuing to be malnourished.

Morgan

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2