What SHOULD go into the decision (m)
Find a Conversation
What SHOULD go into the decision (m)
| Tue, 01-01-2008 - 6:33pm |
OK, I don't think anyone really denies that it is ultimately every mom's decision.
| Tue, 01-01-2008 - 6:33pm |
OK, I don't think anyone really denies that it is ultimately every mom's decision.
Pages
Tell me, Adrienne...are you a scientist?
"As far as not being able to use formula w/o water, big ol' DUH.
Ok, for the umpteenth time, here's my shred of evidence:
Really, really excellent post. And I really wish you all would stop posting at night, because when I log on in the morning there's nothing left to say! LOL
I did want to just add my comment to this part of your post...
<<Actually, alot of people will debate that it's not what's IN formula that causes risk, but what's NOT IN formula.
Yes. I've OFTEN said I don't necessarily think it's the formula *per se* always (though I do think the *lack* of breastmilk and its antibodies is a strong contributing factor) but more the toxins that leach out of plastic baby bottles. All bottle fed kids have a lot more exposure to those than do all breastfed kids (kids who get breastmilk in a bottle always have exposure to it but IMO it stands to reason that some of the *anti-toxin* properties of breastmilk, which do exist, will help to lower the risk a bit there).
If I were using bottles on a regular basis I'd probably go for old glass bottles. And make sure *I* held them and didn't let the baby walk around with them. ;-) Since then, you have the risk of breakage. ;-)
I do sometimes store my breastmilk in glass. Small mason jars in the freezer.
Powered by CGISpy.com
The difference here would be, let's say someone is totally allergic to *oranges* and citrus fruit, but could tolerate "artificially flavoured orange coloured and flavoured DRINK mix that has added ascorbic acid (vitamin C)". That person is not really doing a huge disservice to their body by avoiding citrus fruit and drinking the occasional glass of orange drink mix because they are an adult or older child and should in theory be getting a well balanced diet ELSEwhere. They quite likely can eat apples, plums, grapes and many other fruits and veggies, even if they have to avoid oranges. The baby who for whatever reason has to avoid BM (and there are those who do it out of allergy reasons, those who do it out of metabolic disorders, and those who do it because their mom "just didn't want to BF") are avoiding a healthy well-balanced meal in exchange for a much less healthy and well-rounded meal EVERY SINGLE DAY for the better part of a year.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Yeah but spud, at the risk of pushing your buttons again ;-), you can also live off Micky D's for 6 months or more. There are definite health risks, but there *are* people who eat there *all the time*. Lots of the employees who are students eat at *least* 1-2 meals a day there, sometimes more, since they get discounts. Eating Micky D's for 6 months straight, as your only meal, is no more a "guaranteed death sentence" than giving formula, smoking, or becoming an alcoholic. SOME people with bad genetic predispositions for obesity and heart disease will see a huge difference in their health, some will see virtually none, and there may be a few who would die, yes, from 6 mos of Micky D's every day. But the vast marjority would "survive" and you could say thrive, if the alternative was starvation.
I read a really REALLY interesting (but somewhat gruesome) book called "From Bialystock to Birkenau" by Michael Mielnicki, a Holocaust survivor (as you might guess from the title). He was VERY near death's door in a camp when the 2nd world war ended. He hadn't eaten ANYTHING in weeks, and hadn't eaten well in months. He was NOT in good health. And you know what he ate to help give him strength and gradually make it back into the world of the living and those who could eat normally again? Someone fed his "almost corpse" wafer-thin slices of *raw potato* for a few days to start off with. And he got *better* on the potato. Not because anyone would ever recommend eating only potato as a healthy well balanced diet (not that potato is bad for you, just that it is far from WELL BALANCED with all the protein, vitamins and minerals you would ever need), but because it was what he could tolerate at the time being. He not only grew stronger and eventually worked his way up to more complexe meals, he got *better* somewhat while eating only thin slices of potato for a while. I don't think that proves, in any way shape or form, that everyone should live off potato even if you could say he virtually "thrived" off it (not that he was healthy to begin with and stayed healthy, but that he actually showed massive improvement on only potato...as compared to NOTHING!). It just is testament to a) the adaptability of the human body and b) that *any* food, when you have had none, is better than none. People who are at death's door also do better if put on a sugar IV solution. But you can't live for months on end and be healthy on THAT either.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
~*bEcQUi*~
2 KiDs, a HuBbY, & a NeUroTiC doG
www.apileofe
Pages