The Health Hunter Articles

Breast feeding isn’t just breast feeding it has become a science project. Breast feeding science is a creation of an over zealous scientific community. They don’t know where to draw the line in the sand. Nature is not credited with knowing what it is doing. Just like eating isn’t eating it is calories, carbs, fats, sodium, sugar, and a whole slew of ingredients.

Breast Feeding Cultural Context

It seems just as everything is dictated by the times so is the mother child bonds. Researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology have found that the association between breastfeeding and healthy children is not as strong as thought. They have found that it is not the milk that makes babies healthier than bottle-fed babies. The baby’s overall health is determined before he or she is born.

Science Now

Until recently breastfeeding was said to offer benefits to an infant. Now research is saying if a mother is able to breastfeed, and does, this ability is proof that the baby had an optimal life inside the womb. The new research shows that breast milk is not as important for either the mother or the child’s health.

Its Hormones

In the most recent studies researches at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine have recently found a correlation between the level of male hormones (androgen) in pregnant women and breast feeding after the birth.

“Pregnant women who have higher levels of androgens breastfeed less,” says Professor Sven M. Carlsen. “Probably, this is a direct effect of hormones that simply limit nursing ability, by reducing milk production in the breast.”

Really

There is a strong link between testosterone and the ability to breastfeed. Until 1980 testosterone was used to stop milk production when it was desirable. “This was one of the reasons that we wanted to investigate whether the effects attributed to mother’s milk really should be attributed to hormonal factors in pregnant women,” says Carlsen.

It has been found that women who smoke, are overweight, or have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) breastfeed less than their peers. These women have higher levels of testosterone when pregnant. Older women are more likely to breastfeed; they have less of this hormone.

Carlsen says “Its thus not the women’s will to breastfeed, women who have more testosterone in their bodies during pregnancy feel the effects of a hormone that limits breastfeeding. That is clearly why it is not as easy to breastfeed.”

Real Reason

The placenta has more of an effect on children’s health. It may not be the breast milk that is key to the baby’s health. It seems that the hormones that come from the fetus are converted to testosterone and oestrogen in the placenta. If there isn’t enough energy in the placenta a portion of the testosterone is not converted to oestrogen. That effects both mother and baby.

The mother will not develop enough glandular tissue in the breast, and this will effect the ability to make milk. For the child increased exposure to testosterone in utero can increase the incidence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and polycystic ovary syndrome in girls.

New Message

There is not a real benefit from breast milk. The studies in the past that said the more children are nursed the healthier they will be. Now it is noted that it not because of the breastfeeding. Carlsen says “but even if this is statistically true, it is not because of breastfeeding itself. What has to be examined is the breastfeeding ability of the mother. With that ability it means that the child is already healthy.

Caveat

The one area that the study concluded a benefit  “It appears that children who are breastfed have a small IQ advantage,” Calsen says. “But this needs to be confirmed in new, carefully panned and conducted studies.”

“There are many good reasons to breastfeed, But concern for the child’s health is not one of them. There is no reason why women who are struggling to breastfeed should have to feel guilty, or think they are giving their child a poor start in life if they can’t nurse. Baby formula is as good as breast milk, “ Carlsen says. The implication is you can get mother nature out of a can or powder.

Winpedia.org

“The exact chemical properties of breast milk are still unknown.”

“ The mother’s breast milk changes in response to the feeding habits of her baby and over time, thus adjusting to the infants’ individual growth and development.

Breast milk includes a mother’s antibodies that help the baby avoid or fight off infections, and gives his immature immune system the benefit of his mother’s immune system, which has many years of experience with the germs common in their environment.

Try These Facts

Bishenol A (BPA), a ‘gender bender’ chemical, leaches into canned liquid baby formula. The Environment Working Group (EWG) has research that shows Bipherol-A used to line most infant formula cans,was found at levels “far Higher”  in the product than those that leach from plastic bottles under normal use.

EWG had previously estimated that one out of every 16 infants fed ready-to-eat formula are exposed to BPA at doses that exceeded those that caused increased aggression and significant changes in testosterone levels in laboratory animals.

Formulas contain significantly higher levels of manganese than breast milk, As much as 80 times as much in soy-derived, and 30 times as much in animal milk-derived. This level of manganese in infant formula has been implicated in learning disabilities such as ADHD.

In 2008 there were published articles stating that the “FDA” found traces of melamine in formulas made by the main three American firms. These firms are responsible for 90% of infant formula in the U.S.

Bottom Line

“We would also like to have funding to implement a larger study on the effect of diet and nutrition counseling for pregnant women. There is still much we do not Know,” Carlsen said. Breast feeding science is a waste of funds, since the practice plays out the way nature intended.

The fruitarian diet is heavy on the fruit, with the inclusion of some greens, and nuts. There are people who thrive on this fare. However, most people should not count on doing well on this diet. There are a number of reasons why this diet is not part of the mainstream. The fruit of today is very sweet; it is purposely grown to be that way. The sugar content would be too high for diabetics. A large portion of the population is diabetic or pre-diabetic, this diet would be a disastrous for them. 

The fruit in many of the markets is of poor quality. It travels long distances, sometimes over continents. It is has undergone hybridization, chemical fertilization, applied pesticides, and is harvested before it is fully ripe. There are times it is frost bitten, having been frozen on route. Of course there is locally grown and certified organic fruit, found both at farmers’ markets and health food stores.

While that sounds fine it is expensive, and I doubt that soil is as nutrient rich as it was in the past. Even with the best fruit money can buy, it does not have everything that is needed for adequate nutrition. Vitamin B12 is one of its short falls. Meat is the number one source for this vitamin.

 Most fruit is high on the glycemic index. In all long lived societies the diet is not high on this index.  This diet lacks not just protein, but minerals, and fat-soluble vitamins. This is a short term diet for most people. Diabetic or hypoglycemic symptoms appear with this type of eating. This is not the Garden of Eden diet. Man did not subsist on any one type of food with the exclusion of all others.  Food was scarce in certain parts of the world, and what was eaten was the food that was available. This wasn’t always pretty. The pickings were slim, and no one turned their noses up when offered food.

Fruitarians are on a sugar high, and that feels good. What they call feel good foods, are the ones that can produce euphoria. This is nice for awhile, but gets in the way of grounded thinking. When the diet has adequate greens and other sources of nutrition then many people can meet their nutritional needs. Maintaining nutritional levels are relevant, and any eating plan that does not supply vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and riboflavin would not be good for the long haul.

There are people that can thrive on a fruitarian diet, but most people will have problems on a purely fruitarian diet. The real issue is the few are leading the masses. These hardy individuals assume what is good for them is good for everyone. The fact is many do consume things that are not on the fruitarian diet. The diet is anecdotal; no one is being followed around 24 hours a day.

The cookies we eat when no one is looking don’t count. Most everyone has done that from time to time. When they have unpleasant symptoms it is called detoxification. That seems to go for years for some people. Fruitarian diets are neither evolutionary, nor even plausible for the whole human race. I can just see the whole European continent, the Baltic, Japan, and the indigenous people in the remote Northern Hemisphere insisting on becoming fruitarians. By being able to picture that, you can see the fallacy of living off only the fruit of the land 

WATER FASTING

Water fasting is a well debated topic. It is something that should be approached with extreme caution, especially if you are going to try it for an extended perior of time.

In the world of diets there is a schizophrenic element to all of the advice. The conflicting dietary recommendations are enough to drive you crazy. I became disillusion after trying many of the various diets, in a quest for better health.

Being adventurous, I embarked on many very questionable lifestyle diets. The first one was a fruitarian diet, starting with the water fast at a well known retreat. This was a 30 day only water diet, followed with a fruitarian diet.

RETREAT

The retreat I chose was in the Florida Keys. Everyone at the retreat was supposedly fruitarians. That was until they got an overwhelming urge for some chips or protein. There was no medical supervision. Weakness was your constant companion, though you were told you should be able to paddle a boat, walk a few miles, and jump on a trampoline. Sleep eluted you because you were running on empty. If you are not active enough you may be exhausted, but sleeping is not in the cards.

OWNER

The best part is how they diagnose your health condition. The owner was a chiropractic doctor, and not in a position to know by looking at you the extent of your issues, it is a hit or miss game. Since my diagnosis was a congested liver, it covered everything. If he was in a position to diagnose my underlying problem he would have ran for the hills.

His liability would be the issue; red flags would have been flying. The one thing that a fast is not really good for is a congenial condition. Suffice it to say that an atrial septal defect is not going to improve on a fast, and reserves have to be good to fast for an extended period of time.

When you are done fasting and that is at the discretion of the director of the facility, you start a fruitarian diet. Getting your strength back on a fruitarian diet is the next issue you will face. The other is you lost minerals on the fast. Now add a high sugar fruit diet and watch your smile go as you become a periodontal candidate. This is one way to become disillusioned with extreme dietary intervention. There are people that claim great successes with both water fasting, and a fruitarian lifestyle. They are the individuals who have strong constitutions, and some of them say one thing and practice another.

TRUTH

The chiropractor that conducted the fast shows off his feats of strength. He shows the signs of aging from a receding hairline to wrinkling.

I have seen people on the hunter gather diet look better and perform well on feats of strength. Yet, everyone is impressed with the promised of pristine health. The truth shows, and turning a blind eye to what you may or may not want to see, does not make a diet good. 

Most people do not hear from  individuals that these approaches have failed to deliver the expected results. The hype from the gurus and followers is where you find the information on these diets. There is always another side to any program, but finding examples of these mishaps are not always easy to locate.

I think both points of views should be represented. There is always a danger to not understanding that everything has its drawbacks. The fruitarian diet by itself does not present the panacea for every ailment known to mankind. These diets happen because of allopathic medicines insistence that nutrition has little to do with health. In an attempt to improve how we feel we turn to alternative programs to compensate for this failing. By focusing of a single minded approach we are also embarking on a path that recommends a seriously flawed view