Maybe people have differing levels of bone density and tooth enamel thickness as they have hair types,color etc.Also stuff like different PH levels in mouth would add/subtract from ability to neutralize acids.

I thought this was interesting:


http://www.parentingscience.com/cal...reast-milk.html

So maybe the answer is babies breast milk is higher in carbs because moms are eating lots of carbs.

But I'd also venture a guess that babies need to pack on a lot of fat and those carbs (sugars) are a good way of doing that.

I have my doubts that such a low amount of fat would exist in a *correctly* breastfed baby. There are a two main things that affect the fat content in breast milk:
- The types of fat mom consumes
- The frequency and voracity with which the baby feeds

A baby without a pacifier can nurse often. Very often. I believe, at one point, my son was nursing once every 20 to 30 minutes. (I was a bad mother and gave in to the paci when I needed to get work done.) Since he was feeding so often, the milk was, most likely, nearly entirely comprised of fat.

If a baby goes a long time without nursing, the milk will be watery and sweet. The sweetness naturally encourages the baby to suck harder (they want more goodies), and, as this happens, the milk becomes comprised largely of fat.

A mother eating a low-fat diet will have less fat circulating in her blood steam and sticking to the duct walls. Since it's extraordinarily rare to find a breastfeeding woman who both a) uses her breast as a pacifier and b) eats even a moderate-fat diet, modern breast milk is going to be lacking in fat content.

I could make an analogy between another bodily substance, produced by the opposite sex, but that might be in poor taste.

I do not know a ton about the compostition of breastmilk but I, and many other mothers who have nursed call it "liquid gold". Babies typically triple their birth weight by 1 year. There is no other point in life in which humans grow as fast. Nutritional needs change as humans grow. I do not need to triple my weight...ever so a carb rich diet is not ideal (not that I could do this anyway..but you get the picture.)
I definately do not think nature got it wrong with breastmilk. I think it is the best food on earth *but only babies/young toddlers need it*

Well, besides the fact that it is lactose and not glucose or fructose, and we do lose the ability to properly digest lactose as a child (around 4 I believe?)...

You can ask anyone: would YOU be interested in doubling your weight a few times over the course of a few years?

Metabolism of galactose in the brain and liver of rats and its conversion into glutamate and other amino acids



This is a little funky. Sugar is particularly high in human milk, protein particularly low, maybe the high lactose makes up for the low protein to some degree?

I think the best come-back might be that mother's milk is great for doubling body weight in 6 months. Enjoy!

It's right up there as a perfect example of carb impact as are grains being used to fatten livestock.

It sounds like you are saying mother's milk causes insulin resistance and therefore is useful for fattening up babies just like grain for cattle. Hmmm...

But I don't buy it. I hold to my opinion that carbs in moderation does not cause health problems in people who do have not abused it.

It's also obvious that some of you are filtering your answers through the lens of modern American breastfeeding practices. Or to be more accurate, the LACK of breastfeeding in our society.

"Primitive" cultures breastfeed a newborn for YEARS. I've heard as old as 12 even - though that would admittedly seem very weird to me. )<:

And like jcass, I do NOT ascribe to the theory that all carbs are evil. There were too many cultures studies by Weston Price, Sir Robert McCarrison, etc. that prove to me that NATURAL carbs from birth are just fine. Not to mention the Kitava Islanders.

The REAL problem with carbs in OUR society is that we're all a bunch of metabolic wrecks from the SAD diet, which has at least partially destroyed the NORMAL ability to handle carbs. Even natural carbs.

Humans are NOT pure carnivores. We have amylase enzymes in our mouth to break down starch for gosh sakes. Is that just some "accident" of evolution or God's design?

I agree that humans are not pure carnivores, but I hold that we are optimally carnivores. Otherwise, there would be an essential carbohydrate requirement in our system, like there is for fat and protein and water. But no carbohydrate requirement exists, and many thrive with zero carbohydrates at all. In fact, I can see no health purpose to adding carbs. The only reason to add carbohydrates would be if someone wants variety or "taste." That is fine for the individual, but that is a psychological need, not physiological.

Could also be an economic need for many.

Also, I am not convinced that zero carbs is optimal.

Weston Price said the Dinkas were the most robust people he studied, and that they were better proportioned than the more carnivorous Masai.

I also have seen papers on Eskimo mummies...they had bone loss and calcified arteries. It's also been noted by at least two explorers that lived with them for years, that they aged terribly fast.

My post doesn't say that at all. What it does say is that mother's milk is good food for a baby, a fast growing baby, a baby that doubles it's weight in about the first six months of life.

What should be inferred is adult biology is quite obviously different from that of infants.

My grandson has already more than doubled his birth weight, and he is only *four* months old. 8 lbs, 10 oz at birth and 18 lbs, 10 oz. now at four months. So clearly mother's milk seems to be agreeing with him and making him grow pretty swiftly.

Both my daughters nursed and not only did they grow well, they managed plenty of baby chubbiness too.

You might be interested to read my recent post in the Parent section about being diagnosed with insulin in my breastmilk. It appears that there has not been much research done on this subject at all. My allergy specialist has now tested 2 women (including me) and discovered insulin in the breastmilk despite many doctors (including my GP) and health nurses insisting that it is not possible. So, yes, I believe that mother's milk could cause insulin resistance in children if the mother's diet is high in carbohydrate (which seems to be the case in modern western society these days). My post is written here:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=406164


In relation to the posts regarding teeth..... I believe that our first teeth are called "milk teeth" for that reason. It seems that when children lose their milk teeth then that may be the natural age of weaning for humans. On saying that, I don't plan on feeding my babies until they are 7 but admire anyone that does as I still feed my 2 1/2 year old and it's hard work!