this was inspired by another thread on milk here. would a human benefit from never stopping breast milk intake? is it better than most nutritional sources as an adult the same way it is for children? would breastmilk + supplementation of needed essentials be a healthy diet?
no i cant think of any either, except possibly some of the african mothers ive seen feeding kids that must have been over five years old. however, that doesnt mean it may not be a better food source. i think the reason behind stopping breastfeeding has a LOT more to do with other factors then nutrition. we see cows milk as a valid source, and a pretty good one too. ive heard mothers milk is much more nutritious, although i must admit i havent done much research at all on this subject. for all i know cows milk is far superior but just poorly tolerated in infants
I've always wondered this too. I guess my question pertains to whether humans have a natural kill switch for making milk? I know that a woman's body knows when the child is still breast feeding but can it be perpetual? Tl;dr i really love sucking on my girls titties and would love to combine that with a healthier version of my current favorite beverage how do I change my signature
afaik, until menopause they can produce as long as needed. ive always wondered why it isnt just a normal thing for us to be doing and buying in stores. well....taste may factor in some? perhaps it leeches too many nutrients from the mother after many years of sustained production?
We've evolved your stop breastfeeding. All mammal species do. If it was truly much more beneficial, why wouldn't more species take advantage of this beyond childhood? Too straining of mother, definitely. Plus that whole thing in nature about how offspring who move on from their parents have more success of spreading their genes. But I just really don't think milk is all that good for the adult body. There is a large percentage of the country who is lactose intolerant. Higher than in the past. But we're also using more dairy than ever before.
Just throwing this out there, eventually we grow to need more than what the milk provides. perhaps that has something to do with animal discontinuation. perhaps there are other more complex reasons involving the child/parent relationship, or gaining independence. i mean an animal cant establish a family when theyre still reliant on mothers milk... beside all that even if we aren't "meant to" naturally perhaps it would still be of benefit as a part of a balanced diet.
I don't know. There's been a lot of questioning on calcium and it's benefits, from natural and supplemental sources, and they think they may have the wrong idea on the source of bone growth issues. But what about those who are lactose intolerant? They can't have dairy. But you can get all your fatty acids from better sourced like fish and nuts and protein frog meat and veggies and nuts. Maybe we evolved to not tolerate dairy as much was was push towards a more complex diet involving other fat sources from whole food not liquid.
is breast milk good with cereal? real question. and im lactose intolerant but those fruity pebbles though
Pretty sure i remember learning about some diseas back in biology class caused by breast feeding for to long Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
i read somewhere that breastmilk contains cannibanoids. but we get enough of those Sent from my iPhone.
Yes, I wonder why we dont have millions of farms hooking machines up to womens teats and providing America, and the world with Breast milk. It boogles my mind how we could miss out on such an obvious, easy source of nutrition. I hear there is nutrition in semen as well.....
seems like an easy enough way to make a dollar that industry could develop. mothers pump a few times a day, deliver to wherever for processing get paid per fl oz. or a plasma donation type deal we can sell blood and plasma....and organs if you try hard enough....i dont see why this would be
Lots of mis-represented science in this thread. For instance, women don't produce breast milk all the time. This is pretty obvious. The production of milk is stimulated my hormone changes that result from pregnancy. This is true not only of humans, but of cows and pretty much every other mammal. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes alot of sense, as the milk requires energy/nutrients to produce, so it makes sense to only produce it when it is immediately necessary. Theoretically milk can still be produced until menopause, this is true, but only if the woman is pregnant her entire life until menopause. Milk cows are kept literally perpetually pregnant for this reason, except for perhaps a few weeks between pregnancies to allow the brand new calf's time to mature. So unless you're willing to find literally millions of women volunteers willing to be fucked and impregnated every 9 months, carry all those babies to term, all the while being strapped to a milking machine, i'd say this idea is pretty unfeasible. Mother's milk doesn't even provide significantly more nutrition than cow's milk. The reason breast milk from the mother is favored for newborns is that it contains antibodies that the mother has built up to disease presented to her over her lifetime, and these antibodies can be passed to the newborn through the milk, thereby strengthening the child's immune system and giving him/her a greater chance of survival. Blood and plasma are different in that they are produced by every human, at all times, regardless of hormonal fluctuations.
It is not feasible when you look at the amount of milk a fully grown adult would need, and the amount of people that would be consuming this, and compare that with a womans output. The average cow is milked up to 5 times day, on a farm with hundreds or thousands of other cows...multiply that by the farms in the US, etc and you would need to remove a lot of bitches from the kitchen to meet that demand. The idea is ridiculous. Intriguing yes, but certainly nothing that would be a realistic option.
nobody said anything contradicting that? also, they dont need to be pregnant to make milk. that is when production is triggered yes, but after that women produce milk as long as they dont stop feeding for more then a week or so. how else do you think theyd be able to feed their children if it stopped after pregnancy lol? im not saying it has to be a major industry. more an at home thing for nourishment. but i imagine there truly are areas of the country that would be able to support a breastmilk boutique. nobody would he hooked up to milkers like a cow lol, unless you consider current typical breast pump use similar. either way im not saying that should happen by any means, i was just curious as to the feasibility of a human relying mostly on teat for life
Trying to justify the unquenchable thirst for your own mother's breasts! You are a sick, sick fuck man. Pun intended.
A women actually can produce milk without having ever been pregnant, or giving birth to the child. With hormone therapy, pumping practice's, daily massages, and significant time prior to the child's arrival, a mother who is adopting a child can Breastfeed. There is no guarantee as to how much milk she can produce, but it can be done. https://breastfeedingusa.org/content/article/breastfeeding-your-adopted-baby "Picture you and me in a cabin by the sea, sit up on the porch and we can burn a couple trees."
thats quite interesting. maybe the better question is....is it a more efficient use of food to feed a lactating woman? are some nutrients lost normally in humans that could be preserved and utilized if lactating?