Jennifer Tow wrote:
>Cow milk allergy is the single most common recognized allergen among
>Americans (gluten may not be far behind) and while it is likely that
>this mom has exposed her child to cow milk
>through her own diet, that does not mean that direct feeding to the
>child is a good idea. I would much prefer to see
>the mom just skip the feeding of any milk other than her own and let
>the baby wean, continue feeding or pick up again after
>birth as just happens, but if she feels the need to feed a milk I
>would rather see her use almond than cow or soy,
>both with inherent risks for chronic disease. I do agree that nuts
>are best left for after the second year in general, but
>almonds are a fruit, not a nut and many with allergies to certain
>nuts can eat others just fine. I used thinly spread raw almond
>butter for my kids after the first year and they all did well with
>it. Personally, I would suggest hemp milk if she really wants a
>better choice. IMO, the only reason that parents are told to delay
>nuts and not cow milk is that the cow milk lobby is so
>powerful--it is not good science, nor good nutrition in any way to
>advocate the feeding of cow milk to children. It's just a
>combination of common practice, the fact that many adults themselves
>are addicted to it, poor nutritional education, lots of
>marketing and huge government support.
I agree with Jennifer that cow milk is a problem as an allergen in
Western countries, due to its common use, especially as the first
foreign protein given to many infants.
Like Jennifer, I also used to be very cynical about the dairy
industry and our love affair with cow milk products. However, I have
just completed a nutrition degree (so I am now officially a
'nutritionist'- but not a dietitian yet - as well as IBCLC). This has
what has kept me away from reading Lactnet for a few years. I now
understand why cow milk plays such a large role in Western nutrition,
and that apart from those with allergy/intolerance problems, it
*should* be a major part of the diet for both children and adults.
Let me explain briefly:
In our long-time-ago ancestors' time, people used *much* more energy
per day, just in obtaining food, than the average human today. They
had to chase game, walk many kilometres, digging up roots, picking
fruit, etc. Their food was unprocessed, mostly low-energy-high-fibre.
They ate much larger quantities of food overall than we do, so had no
problem getting the micronutrients they needed each day, including
calcium.
Fast-forward to modern Western diets and lifestyles. We (generally)
eat mostly ad lib high-energy-low-fibre foods (and not enough fruit
and vegetables, which have the most nutrient-dense micronutrients, ie
vitamins and minerals), we expend very little energy to obtain our
food or to live in general, so in order to maintain a healthy weight
(not all of us do that either!), we have to eat a lot less in overall
quantity. This limits the intake of critical micronutrients, so that
we need to choose individual foods carefully, to make sure we meet
our requirements for minerals and vitamins. The only way to meet
calcium needs in a typical Western diet, using non-fortified foods
alone, is to eat cow-milk products (or another animal-milk products).
Sure, we can fortify soy or other plant-based milks to make them
equivalent in this respect, and they make good substitutes, or we can
pop supplements, and many people do need to do this (like many
post-menopausal women - another story).
Yes, there is calcium in nuts and vegetables, but the amounts are
very small. Calcium is toxic to plants and they have mechanisms to
rid themselves of too much. This also means that eating most
vegetables at the same time as another calcium source can reduce you
absorption of calcium. Brassica veges (cauliflower, broccoli, brussel
sprouts, cabbage, etc) are unique in the vegetable world in that they
do not have this anti-calcium effect. So they are good to eat if you
are wanting to maximise calcium absorption.
Mammalian milks are just so elegant with how they deliver calcium,
that I have a whole new respect for them! Calcium is usually present
in nature as insoluble compounds, so delivering large amounts in a
liquid form is problematic. In milk, there are casein (protein)
molecules with hydrophobic tails. These clump together with their
tails together to avoid contact with the water in the milk. These
clumps form casein micelles which trap the calcium and keep it away
from the water - so allowing large amounts of it to be suspended in a
watery medium. This is why animal milk from any species is a neat way
to deliver calcium to the young, especially. However, it works well
for any aged individual. (The lactose and intolerance to that is a
whole other subject BTW. However, in the young, lactose also enhances
calcium absorption.)
Fortunately for those of us with allergy or intolerance to cow-milk
protein, supplemental forms of calcium are absorbed with equal
efficiency as that from non-fortified foods.
I hope this helps explain why nutritionists recommend cow-milk
products in Western diets. For the vast majority of people, they
constitute a valuable and necessary part of the diet.
Joy
--
******************************************************************
Joy Anderson B.Sc.(Zoology) Dip.Ed. Grad.Dip.Med.Tech. B.Sc.(Nutrition) IBCLC
Australian Breastfeeding Association counsellor
Perth, Western Australia. mailto:[log in to unmask]
******************************************************************
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
