Our own little Kiwi Thread ! page 194

[NZ primal Gwamma]

a beef farmer i know says you need to be real careful with cows and dogs. the cows go the dog if the dog doesnt go the cow. if the dog hides behind you, the cow will go over the top of you to get to the dog. nothing like good real life sprinting practise as they dont shoo when they are charging at you! next time take the bike when you move them lol

Yep don't worry Seas - I know all the protocols around cow / dogs / and calves .............guess who was meant to be minding the dog ?????? Guess who is gonna get one hell of a round up later ...........
....and no I won't take the bike - Gwamma post drunk in charge of a zimmer frame is one thing............... Gwamma post drunk in charge of a motorized vehicle that she has no idea how to drive................... you do the math !!!!! LOL

[seaweed]

i so want a you-tube of that one G. i dont like 4 wheelers. motorcycles are fine but 4 wheelers are another thing altogether. i made a scotch egg just now. i am not feeling very hungry as i was also thinking about having a go at smoking some paua to take weaving with me tomorrow. smoked paua with some sort of cream cheese dip sounds appealing. google reveals no smoked paua recipes so i will have a go tomorrow on a small piece to see what happens. i could always smoke the guts too. they are like roe. well sorta. seaweedy roe. very nice fried in butter but very filling.

[NZ primal Gwamma]

I don't do you tube, and I don't do photos or videos or two wheel motorbikes................ am I boring or what !!!!!!!
I don't do paua or roe, seaweed ( thats the floaty in the tide kind), or guts - smoked or otherwise........ YEP....B-O-R-I-N-G

[NZ primal Gwamma]

Zoes – I was interested to read in another thread that you are involved in a war about beliefs surrounding breastfeeding. I am presuming the war you refer to is me disagreeing with you over a mother being able to feed and adequately sustain a child solely on breast milk until they are eight years old.
I thought that this discussion was done and dusted.
You think a mother could, and provided evidence, I think that it is utter nonsence, and wouldn’t stack up on any reputable study. (And we can find studies for and against anything)
However I also doubt that any woman in her right mind would solely breast feed her child until the age of eight and record all the data and inflict medical tests on her child to see if that child hasn’t suffered any adverse affects. This study would also have to continue for many years after because children continue to grow ( brain development, organ development, bones etc…) until well into their teens if not their early 20’s.

I also didn’t really think it appropriate to be debating this on the other guys forum, as it was way off topic – however I am sure that our other Kiwis wont mind be putting it to bed here.

So I am sad that you think my response constituted a war. You made a statement and I replied with my opinion. I thought that was it !!!

[zoebird]

The statement "war" was asserted in humor, but of course other people saw the same conflict issue. It's not a big deal, it's just the internet. Even so, the discussion is frustrating.

I find it frustrating for three reasons.

First, you are glib: "i'm sure there are studies against!" If there are, then post them. For the record, I did your due diligence and found none. I had my husband do several searches and he found no evidence to support your claim that breast milk looses it's nutritional value after 6 months.

Second, your false opinion has far reaching social consequences. What we know is that breastmilk is extremely important for infants -- particularly in the first two years. But, most woman have to battle their way through myths, misinformation, and cultural pressure to succeed at breast feeding.

One of those myths/misinformations is what you assert above -- that breast milk looses it's nutrition after 6 months. And this causes a lot of struggle for a lot of mothers.

And, while NZ is more open about breastfeeding than the US -- I have to say that it's not by much. Breastfeeding a toddler here (over 18 months) is really frowned upon. I was surprised.

And you know what most women told me? That there's no point in providing breast milk after 6 months, because it doesn't provide anything nutritionally important. This, of course, ignores the fact that it does, as well as ignores the fact that nursing provides many other benefits besides nutritional and immunological ones (such as emotional and social development benefits).

There was a lot of pressure for me to stop breastfeeding DS, and I did continue on in spite of it. But, no doubt that this pressure also influenced when and why I stopped nursing my son. I believe I stopped too early (he was 3), as he didn't wean himself. I am saddened by that.

So, the reality is that these myths and misinformations and cultural ideas about when and which foods are introduced actually inhibits mothers from breastfeeding to natural weaning (2.5 to age 7) which does impact the health of those children.

And, it impacts the health of mothers, too. The longer you breastfeed (either one or multiple babies over time), the lower your risk of breast cancer: "A study of Chinese women found that their breast cancer incidence dropped by 63% when they breastfed for six years." (Source)

So it's increasingly frustrating to me that people cling to and disseminate misinformation to families trying to make thoughtful decisions on how to best provide for their families.

Third, you are clinging to a detail that has been consistently qualified, and yet assert that I have not qualified it thus. It honestly feels like you refuse to understand that qualification.

A. I never stated that there were scientific studies of women solely breast feeding their children up to age 8. Instead, I provided nutritional information on the contents of breastmilk and anthropological/human development information on natural weaning.

B. I qualified the statement as "sole" referring to an evolutionary advantage under extreme circumstances -- famine.

C. I never asserted this as "policy statement" -- what a family should do. I asserted several times that there are many ways to feed a child, and that I prefer baby-led weaning because of it's basis in human development rather than cultural ideas about when feeding should begin.

D. It was simply evidence to refute that breastmilk looses nutritional value.

E. Evidence supports that breast milk holds nutritional value for infants up to two years, and that beyond that holds immunological value up to natural weaning. After age one, this is considered "supplemental to foods" but before age one, it is considered the "primary nutrition" even if foods ahve been introduced.

I don't understand why you seem to find this so difficult to understand, that you keep asserting "glib" statements about studies, what you believe (without providing supporting evidence), and so on.

Obviously, you have a right to your opinion. You also have the right for it to be unsupported and misinformed. And, you have a right to share it.

And likewise, I have a right to refute it, provide evidence that refutes it, and be frustrated by the fact that you ignore this evidence and then obfuscate by fixating on an unimportant element (the term "sole" even after it was specifically qualified to refer to "during famine conditions").

[zoebird]

Also, in my google searches, I found some really interesting stories:

Two Breastfeeding women save 30 men lost at sea.

Breast milk given to severely ill adults to ease pain and symptoms. (it includes a story of a family using breastmilk 2x week for their 15 yr old son to ease the effects of Crohn's disease, as well as an adult who treated his prostate cancer with breastmilk).

More about Cohen, who treated prostate cancer with breastmilk -- here it says he had a bottle a day at the start, and now has 2x week

Breastmilk used to treat cancer, arthritis, diabetes, acne . . .

Looks like humans probably should drink human milk throughout their lifetimes.

After all, we drink other animal milks, why not our own? Particularly when it is "made for us, by us?"

I never had any of my own and neither did my husband, but this is some *interesting* information.

[zoebird]

weird internet hiccup creates post double!

[NZ primal Gwamma]

Zoebird firstly let me profusely apologise for my glib comments. If you do not like my posts please I implore you – put me on ignore. And if I am that offensive to yourself or others I will unhappily sever my connection with MDA. Just say the word!


Secondly I mistakenly thought that you were advocating feeding a child ONLY breast milk for up to 8 years. I thought that I made this quite clear in my posts – and I disagreed with it. However sorry I obviously got that wrong, you were not advocating this.


Thirdly I am truly impressed with you and many others on these threads with your abilities to research and add information to your posts. Sorry but this old Gwamma is quite computer illiterate and really needs to do a course in computer studies, before I can understand this process!


Anyway and finally – and I really mean finally,
IMO breast is best as a sole food up until about 6 months of age, however if a mother chooses to continue breast feeding until the child is 1,2,8 or 15 – good on her and her family. That is their choice and who am I to judge ?? A lot of women cannot breast feed for a variety of reasons, and I do not knock them for that. There are some great formulas out there. It is a case of doing your homework.
IMO a baby learns through putting things in its mouth. From birth - fingers, nipples, teats, toes etc…. all go into a babies mouth. This is exploratory play which a child bases his future learning on.
IMO between the ages of 6-12 months solids should be introduced initially as a play/exploratory thing – but continues on to a macro/micro nutrient based food source.
If a child is not tasting, playing and exploring new foods during this important developmental time, it can have negative effects on some children, and they can become picky eaters. I say can – not a definite here, it’s a possibility.
So IMO we need to introduce solids to the child during this time.

I do not disagree that breast milk could sustain sailors, or colostrum milk can boost athletic performance etc...... however I am repeating - my opinions are above

[zoebird]

Zoebird firstly let me profusely apologise for my glib comments. If you do not like my posts please I implore you – put me on ignore. And if I am that offensive to yourself or others I will unhappily sever my connection with MDA. Just say the word!

First, I accept your apology, but the rest is pure, needless melodrama.

There is nothing wrong with mistakes, disagreements, or even frustration.

Secondly I mistakenly thought that you were advocating feeding a child ONLY breast milk for up to 8 years. I thought that I made this quite clear in my posts – and I disagreed with it. However sorry I obviously got that wrong, you were not advocating this.

It was very clear in your posts that you thought I was advocating that -- which is confusing because in now 5 posts I have advocated against that.

Instead, I clearly advocated for baby-led weaning.

Short of that, I also asserted that there were several methods of food introduction.

Thirdly I am truly impressed with you and many others on these threads with your abilities to research and add information to your posts. Sorry but this old Gwamma is quite computer illiterate and really needs to do a course in computer studies, before I can understand this process!

It's not hard. Google.com, then put words into the search box. This provides a list of links. Click on the one that looks like it's waht you're looking for. Keep goig until you find it and/or you've given over too much time to it. When you find one, you basically copy the address from the browser and then paste it into a thread. you don't even ahve to to do the link creation.

Classes are worthless. It just atkes a little autodidactic effort.

Anyway and finally – and I really mean finally,
IMO breast is best as a sole food up until about 6 months of age, however if a mother chooses to continue breast feeding until the child is 1,2,8 or 15 – good on her and her family. That is their choice and who am I to judge ?? A lot of women cannot breast feed for a variety of reasons, and I do not knock them for that. There are some great formulas out there. It is a case of doing your homework.

According to the science, less than 5% of women are unable for biological reasons, and most people can't due to social pressures. This is why information and support is really important.

In the US, only 17% of babies are exclusively (sole) breastfed to 6 months. And only 40% for the first 3 months. (source)

To me, this is really telling. It is not that 60-83% of women are physically incapable of providing breastmilk for their babies -- but rather that there are many other pressures at play that inhibit their ability to do so.

Also, asserting this isn't judgment. It's just a clear picture of the situation that women face due to myths, misinformation, and the lack of support that many mothers experience -- particularly when they are struggling with breast feeding and/or pumping.

As such, I find it vitally important at this point for me to find the best method to support women as they are navigating this information. It's not about "perfection" or "everyone must be the same" but realizing that there is a health crisis for women and children in terms of this issue. In fact, it is a cultural crisis.

When misinformation about the nutritional value of breastmilk past six months is posted, this only further entrenches this cultural situation. I think it's only fair to stand up and assert facts on the matter, rather than just opinions.

Don't you think that is fair?

IMO a baby learns through putting things in its mouth. From birth - fingers, nipples, teats, toes etc…. all go into a babies mouth. This is exploratory play which a child bases his future learning on.

I agree. I never argued anything about this point, and it has nothing to do with the nutritional profile of breastmilk after 6 months, which was your statement.

IMO between the ages of 6-12 months solids should be introduced initially as a play/exploratory thing – but continues on to a macro/micro nutrient based food source.
If a child is not tasting, playing and exploring new foods during this important developmental time, it can have negative effects on some children, and they can become picky eaters. I say can – not a definite here, it’s a possibility.
So IMO we need to introduce solids to the child during this time.

This is fine, too, as it stands to logical reason (inference). It may not be all supported, but it's fair enough.

But, it might also be noted that nothing in these statements says anything about the nutritional value of breast milk, does it? All that it states is that it can be healthy for children to experiment with food for flavor/taste development as opposed to nutrition at this age. This is no different than what I asserted in all of my posts (particularly the ones about baby-led weaning).

My only contention is your statement that breast milk looses nutrition after 6 months so you must feed a baby from then onwards. The reality is that breast milk doesn't loose it's nutrition then (or ever for that matter), and can be used by humans through adulthood (according to the funny ones cropping up from the google search).

Likewise, instead of an arbitrary month -- "6 months" -- I assert that we should look to readiness signs. Some children will demonstrate those signs early (6-8 months) and others late (after 12 months). But I'd much rather have it be individual-child process as opposed to a single number/date.

And those were my problems with your statement (breast milk looses nutrition after 6 months; babies must be fed at 6 months).

[NZ primal Gwamma]

I am not sure why I am continuing with this but - just sometimes I will make a stand.

Zoebird, in THE thread you attacked my original post and said……… "I hate to say it -- as much as I love Gwamma -- but she is woefully misinformed abotu breastmilk. In fact, her statement is utter nonsense and absolutely unsupported by major health organizations and science."

Part of my original statement read……..”IMO when a child gets to about 6 months of age, to continue to grow at an optimal level, you must introduce solid foods, and this must form a major part of their diet. I am led to believe that up until about 6 months of age breast milk has all the goodies to sustain and nurture said babe, however beyond this point we need to introduce the nutrients that a child needs to survive optimally.”

I haven’t stated that breast milk loses its quality !

I have said that we need to introduce nutrients so the child can survive optimally.

the thread bounced about for a bit, backwards and forwards, and now I read

My only contention is your statement that breast milk looses nutrition after 6 months so you must feed a baby from then onwards. The reality is that breast milk doesn't loose it's nutrition then (or ever for that matter), and can be used by humans through adulthood (according to the funny ones cropping up from the google search).

Likewise, instead of an arbitrary month -- "6 months" -- I assert that we should look to readiness signs. Some children will demonstrate those signs early (6-8 months) and others late (after 12 months). But I'd much rather have it be individual-child process as opposed to a single number/date.

And those were my problems with your statement (breast milk looses nutrition after 6 months; babies must be fed at 6 months).

so I repeat that I have never said that breastmilk loses its nutritional value after x time. I also believe that the child should be deciding when he/she eats solid food, however if you do not offer that child a chop, or a morsel off your plate, or a piece of apple etc.... how will that child be able to make an informed age appropriate choice ? - so often the pincer grip time in their life is a really age appropriate time to give them something to eat, suck, smear etc...

anyway I am done, I am not forcing my views on anybody - I am defending my views because they haven't been interpreted as intended.