Superfoods - Part II: Honoring Animals for Concentrating Nutrition

This is a continuation of my post, Superfoods - Part I: Luxuries or Necessities?


When examining a list of Superfoods (fish eggs, organ meats, cream, shellfish, etc.) it quickly becomes apparent that all of these foods come from animals. There are a lot of myths surrounding the health benefits of vegetarianism, and one of the big ones is that you can "get everything you need from vegetable sources." Well, the short and simple answer is: you can't. In fact, any reputable (if they can be called that) vegan information source will tell you that you need to fortify your diet with B12. The real deal is that vegans will need to take far more supplements, like omega-3 oils, vitamin A and D, iron, and calcium, to name a few, in order to maintain their health. There are pills that one can take for all of these things, but the best sources, that are most efficiently utilized by our bodies, are from animals.

There is plenty of vegetarian and vegan media that claims that no animal sourced or synthesized supplementation is necessary, but their theories rarely hold up to scrutiny. For example, I often hear it claimed that flax seed oil is a good source of omega-3. Unfortunately, it is not. Flax seed oil is rich in the omega-3 oil alpha-linoleic acid (ALA), but lacks the other omega-3's eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Our bodies, especially our brains, have an absolute need for EPA and DHA. This means that we cannot function without these fats. It is possible, in a healthy body, for ALA can be converted in to EPA or DHA, but not in the amounts that are necessary to maintain optimal functioning and certainly will not be adequate for a growing fetus (don't get me started on vegan pregnancy). On the other hand, fish oils, like cod liver oil or seal oil, are rich in EPA and DHA. Another ready example is the myth that plants are a good source of iron. In reality, it is difficult for our body to utilize the iron from plants, but heme iron, from animals, is readily available.

While our bodies can convert small amounts of nutrients from plants into usable forms (i.e. converting beta-carotene to vitamin A), many animals can do this much more efficiently. They are able to convert and concentrate these nutrients into quantities that are not available in plants. Also, the protozoa in the gut of ruminants (like sheep or cows) are able to convert plant oils into saturated fat. This is a very good thing. There is a lot of bad information out there on fats, which will be a subject for another post, but right now you need to know that saturated fat is necessary for the absorption of vitamins and minerals. In fact, saturated fat is so crucial to digestion that it is possible to starve if one's diet is lacking. A famous example of this was Randolph Marcy's 1856 expedition to Wyoming. While attempting to cross snowy mountains, the explorers ran out of provisions and were forced to eat their pack animals that were also in a starved condition. Marcy wrote this about the experience in his book, The Prairie Traveler.

"We tried the meat of horse, colt, and mules, all of which were in a starved condition, and of course not very tender, juicy, and nutritious. We consumed the enormous amount of from five to six pounds of this meat per man daily, but continued to grow weak and thin, until, at the expiration of twelve days, we were able to perform but little labor, and were continually craving for fat meat."

Even though the explorers were consuming a huge amount of meat, their bodies could not utilize the food because there was no fat to allow digestion. They were on their way to starvation.

I empathize with vegans' desires to walk the path of least harm and not cause any animal to suffer. I emphatically agree that animals should be treated humanely. However, the assertion that killing animals for food is morally wrong, is foolishly simple and dangerously ignorant. This theory only holds up if one believes that it is possible to survive off of plants alone. As you know, I heartily disagree with this theory. I believe that we are suffering from serious nutritional deficiencies. Animal foods and Superfoods are especially important for us in our era of devitalized and processed food. It is up to each one of us to end the cycle of deficiency in ourselves and in our children. We can do this by adopting the traditional diets of indigenous people, especially the practice of utilizing Superfoods during childhood, pre-conception, pregnancy, and lactation. The vegan diet dooms us and our children to poor health and that is unethical.

I think the simplest way to understand Superfoods and honor animals is to recognize all of the work that animals do for us. They convert beta carotene, plant iron, plant oils and numerous other nutrients into forms that are usable by our human bodies. Not only are they providing us with available nutrients, but they are also concentrating these nutrients into the amounts that humans (and other omnivores and carnivores) need to maintain optimum health. There is a certain justice to the fact that, generally, mistreated animals are significantly less nutritious to eat. Choosing Superfoods from conscientious farmers and sustainable fisheries is key.

Superfoods - Part I: Luxuries or Necessities?

Every time I read Weston A. Price or Sally Fallon's writing I focus in on something new. When I was pregnant I got caught up on phytates and the enzyme enhancing properties of fermentation. More recently, I was fascinated by the traditional practice of eating raw meat. When my daughter's teeth began to decay, I knew immediately that it had to be a result of poor nutrition, mine, and subsequently, hers. My research into alternative treatment for her teeth quickly led me back to the work of Weston A. Price. This time I have focused on his research on nutrient dense foods rich in vitamins A, D and Activator X.

Dr. Price found that all traditional cultures fed women, and sometimes men, a special diet before marriage, during pregnancy, and throughout the nursing period. These special foods, or 'superfoods' as we call them in my household, varied depending on geographic location and included fish eggs, various organ meats - especially liver, milk and cream from cows eating fast growing grass, bird eggs, shellfish and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that I don't know about. When Dr. Price asked these people why they gave childbearing couples special foods, they responded simply, "So that they will have perfect babies." It's interesting that they understood so clearly the relationship between nutrition, health, and fertility, when we are still telling breastfeeding mothers that they can eat junk food without harming their babies.

The sacred foods of the past have been transformed into the luxury foods of today. While these foods are still valuable monetarily, they have lost their association as being valuable nutritionally. Because these foods are associated with wealth and decadence, in a roundabout sort of way, they have gained the stigma of being superfluous. While these foods are expensive, they should not be considered extravagant. Superfoods are densely nutritious. They contain significantly more amounts of vitamins and minerals than do "regular" foods like muscle meat, vegetables or grains. This is especially important to us now with a bulk of our food being being grown on depleted soils and then processed and shipped long distances causing the nutrient content to be further reduced. Our modern diet is severely lacking vitamins and minerals and we also consume significant amounts of "anti-nutrients" like phytic acid, not to mention, sugar, coffee and alcohol. Diets that are devoid of vitamins and minerals can give us the energy to get through the day, but they won't give us the body-building elements that we need to maintain our health. For this reason, it is vitally important to our health to consume nutrient dense diets, and part of this means choosing superfoods.

The good news is that you should feel no guilt over your occasional (or not so occasional) decadent food purchases. Instead of buying, at best, minimally beneficial, or at worst, extremely toxic, vitamin and mineral supplements, invest in some raw cream or liver pate. Actually, you will probably save money as supplements are extremely expensive. I've found that if I eliminate chips and store bought sweet treats, I can eat savory pate or homemade whipped cream on bananas without breaking the bank. Sometimes I get snide remarks about my "bourgeoisie" food choices. I've had a taste for the finer things since before I knew why they were so good. I'm glad to know that my taste buds have been right on. Superfoods are our best preventative medicine, not just for us, but for our future children.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to get into great detail here but if you want to read more I would suggest checking out these articles:

Guide to Superfoods

Feeding Babies

Diet for Pregnant and Nursing Mothers

The Liver Files

Ancient Dietary Wisdom for Tomorrow's Children

Also, stay tuned for Part II - Honoring Animals For Concentrating Nutrition

Bad(Ass!) Breastfeeding Mama

I took my daughter to the dentist last week. She has visible caries in her two front teeth. This is indicative of a mysterious modern disease that is now being called Early Childhood Caries (ECC). I am currently working on a series of blog posts about ECC and pediatric dentistry in general, but my experience last week was so appalling that I want to write about it separately from what will be a more scholarly essay.

After calling every pediatric dentist within an hour from my home, I discovered that every practice was a total mixed bag in terms of x-rays, amalgam, fluoride, etc., and that they all looked down on breastfeeding. Knowing that, I made my decision on where to take her based on how soon I could get an appointment. I knew we were not going to use the practice that I ended up taking her to. They have a policy of not allowing parents to be present if their child needs any treatment more extensive than a simple cleaning. This is unacceptable to me; I would not allow any stranger to take my child into a room by herself and do things to her, even if he or she has graduated from medical school. My job as her parent is to protect her and advocate for her, which I cannot do if I am sitting in a waiting room. When my daughter needed a blood test to check her lead levels our family doctor did not ask us to leave the room, in fact, there was an implicit understanding that my partner and I would need to be present in order to hold and soothe our daughter during the procedure. There is absolutely no reason why this would not be possible for a dental treatment. What are they trying to hide?

Since I was not concerned that we would need to maintain a relationship with this dentist, I decided that I was not going to be a placid, submissive patient. I, actually, intentionally choose to appear ignorant to most doctors because I know that most of them will not react well if I challenge their medical recommendations. I avoid the doctor as much as possible and when we do have to go in, I take what I need and ignore the rest. I really did want their medical opinion so I assumed that I would be able to go through most of the initial exam before I would become difficult. That initial period where we all smiled at each other congenially turned out to be about 30 seconds. They gave LZ (my daughter) a new toothbrush, asked me why I was there (caries, I told them), and the immediate follow up question was: Do you breastfeed? It was that fast and downhill the rest of the way.

The ADA and the AAPD believe that ECC is caused by "on demand" nursing, particularly night-nursing. This logic flies in the face of millions of years of human history (and I'm going to get into that in much more detail so stay tuned). After I told the dental technician that we were breastfeeding she immediately said "Oh, that's why she has the cavities" and then wrote on LZ's chart "Mother nurses on demand." I just about lost it. In any other situation, a medical professional writing on a chart that a baby breastfeeds would be like putting a gold star on the paper. It is finally widely accepted that breastfeeding is the absolute best way to nourish human babies. In every other medical office I would have been treated like a good mom.

I was thinking last night as I read this incredible news that throughout modern history every time doctors come up with a reason to dissuade mothers from breastfeeding or to persuade them that there are superior alternatives, they end up having to completely rescind their previous recommendations and grudgingly endorse breast milk. The very beginning of this lie being the fallacy that formula is just as good or better than breast milk. Many doctors are still telling moms with sick babies that they should discontinue nursing and give their babies pedialyte because breast milk is too rich or heavy or will produce mucus or some other baseless excuse. Pedialyte may hydrate a baby but it has no nutritional value. Breast milk is easy for babies to assimilate, is not analogous to cow's milk, and medically is considered to be a clear fluid. This means that in a medical situation where a doctor would prescribe a diet of clear fluids, breast milk is the top of the list for nursing children.

I argued with the hygienist for a few minutes until she ended the discussion with a pat "well we'll agree to disagree". Then the dentist came in and things continued basically the same way. He tried his best to give me explanations for why breastfeeding caused caries. I challenged each assertion he made and he quickly abandoned each point for a different one. I found this to be indicative of his ignorance on the subject, as it did not take much to make him switch theories. He was too focused on convincing me that breastfeeding causes caries, I think that a good doctor (or any wise expert person) should know enough about their specialty to thoroughly explain their own theories and should be able to answer questions and consider criticism. He even tried to tell me that her two front teeth were decaying because that is where the nipple sits. I almost laughed at him. The nipple from a bottle might sit near there, but an actual human nipple is pulled all the way to the back of the mouth and the milk is expressed directly into the back of the throat. Without skipping a beat he changed his tune to: The top teeth are prone to decay because they can dry out if the child is a mouth breather. I asked why it was only the middle top two and not the others, and could it be that her enamel had not formed properly? Oddly he seemed to have never thought of this possibility and could barely even manage a coherent comment about it. When I posited that it just did not make evolutionary sense, he explained to me, with a big smile on his face, that he was an anthropology major and that the American Indians in southern California where he studied dentistry, got caries just like all the white people. I pointed out that they were eating the same diet (or worse) that the white people were eating. He looked confused and told me we were digressing.

It was a fruitless appointment. My daughter is too young to be treated (or so says this dentist), so for now we will just watch and wait. We're also supplementing her diet with cod liver oil, high-vitamin butter oil, and bone-broths to try to boost her mineral absorption. My best case scenario is that her teeth will remineralize or at least the decay will slow to a rate where she will be able to keep her teeth until they fall out naturally. If not, we will have to choose between an array of invasive and costly procedures. I'm hoping that we will ,at least, be able to postpone treatment until she is old enough to hold her mouth open and sit still.

The Baby Bucket

This takes the abusurdity of the baby bucket, aka infant car seat travel system, to a new level. I feel like we've come full circle; from carrying babies in a sling, to carrying babies in a car seat, to carrying babies in a car seat in a sling.

These days the stork flies in with a baby in a car seat instead of a cloth bundle. Everywhere I go I see mothers lugging these heavy accessories around. On countless occasions I've seen parents take their baby and seat out of the car, pop them into a stroller, walk around town, go into a restaurant/coffee shop, put baby in the seat on the floor next to them, finish eating and leave, put baby and seat back in the stroller, back to the car, pop the seat into its base, and drive away. Not once do they touch or hold their child. I've seen babies fuss and strain against their car seat straps and parents react by rocking the seat or giving them more toys, rather than releasing their children from their restraints.

There are several compelling reasons to not use car seats as a baby carrier. The most basic one is that they are cumbersome and extremely heavy. If you've never held a baby in a seat before I suggest that you try to lift one if you have the opportunity. They are considerably heavier than they look. While I fully intended on baby-wearing as much as possible, prior to my daughter's birth, I considered the car seat to be a good carrying option for short distances. Until I tried it. Even with my little newborn, it was so heavy I had to stop and rest halfway up the stairs into the house. If I didn't hold it away from my body, which was hard to do because it was so heavy, it would bang into my legs and bruise me. Despite the cold weather, I quickly abandoned the car seat as a carrying device, and focused my energy on learning how to use various baby slings.

An even more important reason to keep your baby out of the seat, is the increasing incidence of positional plagiocephaly aka Flat-Head Syndrome. This is surprisingly common in this country, if you take the time to look around, you'll be surprised at how many babies you'll see who's heads have flattened out in the back. Babies heads are normally round, and generally their occiput protrudes quite a bit. The most frequent cause of plagiocephaly is very simply that babies are spending too much time laying on their backs. A lot of babies spend most of their day laying in a car seat, a bouncy seat, a swing, or a stroller instead of being held in arms, playing on their tummy or propped in a supported sitting position. Also, there has been a huge "Back to Sleep" campaign by the AAP and the NICHD that has parents and daycare providers laying babies supine, instead of a side-lying or prone position. If babies are going to spend all night and several hours a day sleeping on their backs, it is critical for their growth and development that they spend their waking hours in a different position!

It's strange that this isn't a given, but babies need to be held and touched. It is a well known fact that baby mammals need physical contact in order to thrive. The same is true for baby humans. There is a reason that simply holding babies is often enough to soothe their cries. A baby in arms experiences the world from the level of the parent, they are in the midst of conversation and activity, they can make eye contact with other people, and they learn that they are a part of things. A baby on the floor in the car seat has a very limited view of the world; they cannot turn their head to see who is speaking or what made a noise. Car seats inhibit curiosity and restrict movement; a restrained baby cannot even try to roll over, or sit up, or crawl.

On a more philosophical level, I wonder about the effects of teaching our infants to passively accept physical confinement. I wonder about the emotional health of docile 6-12 month old babies who lay in their car seats all day and have not learned to sit or crawl. From the first time we had to strap my daughter into her seat, she made it quite clear that she did not like being restrained in the plastic device. Her instincts were absolutely right on. What human, child or adult, would not fight being physically confined against their will? It was clear to me then, and still is, that car seats are a necessary safety device for small children riding in cars. However, I made a concious choice that I did not want to stifle her instinctual need to be held. If my daughter was awake I would take her out of her seat and wear her on my body in a wrap.

Other than while driving, there are two instances where it makes sense to use a car seat carrier. It's really convenient to be able to move a sleeping baby out of the car without having to fuss with buckles, and when it's cold or rainy it's much easier (and safer, bulky layers make it difficult to get the straps secured properly) to put your kid in the seat, put blankets on top of them and carry them in the seat from indoors to the car or vice versa. Other than these situations it almost always makes sense to leave the damn seat in the car and to take your baby out of the seat as soon as you're in a warm and dry space.


Here is a good article with more information on this topic.

Car Seats Are For Cars - from Mothering Magazine