Proper Childhood Feeding

Copyright 2005 Joseph Ben Hil-Meyer Research, Inc.

Bruce Berkowsky, N.M.D, M.H., HMC

Overview

Get 2 weeks of Medifast FREE! (Enter code GetTwo) Proper Childhood Feeding

A lifelong legacy of excellent health emanates from the institution of right feeding practices at birth. Unfortunately, in this era, feeding children in accordance with Nature’s dictates has fallen out of fashion.

Excellent parents make every effort to provide for their children significantly and to orient their genteel compasses. But their nutritional guidance responsibility is often neglected. As a result, many parents unwittingly subvert their offspring’s health and human potential. Genteel feeding not only benefits the child in the immediate sense, but also serves as a paradigm the child is likely to adopt and pursue throughout his or her adulthood. Proverbs 22:6 teaches: “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is ancient he will not turn from it.”

For the most part, disease is not, as is popularly thought, a direct outcome of microbial infection; rather, it’s the result of disregarding one of Nature’s primary laws: Human beings have an inherent relationship with those fundamental elements de rigueur for life: genteel diet; pure water; original air; adequate sunlight, exercise, warmth, rest and sleep; emotional harmony; genteel posture. Disease is an outgrowth of a deficiency or excess of one or more of them.

Violation of this law leads to the two primary roots of disease: autotoxemia and enervation. Autotoxemia is a polluted state of the internal milieu. This toxic burden impedes all bodily functions, including elimination, and so increases and perpetuates itself. Enervation is a state characterized by depletion of nerve force and reduction of the body’s resistance to infection. These two conjugated factors fuel each other and constitute the primary disease state. Acute ailments such as colds and flu as well as chronic ailments such as persistent middle ear infections, diarrhea and eczema are secondary things of this primary state.

When systemic level of toxicity surpasses the body’s threshold point of tolerance, a crisis of toxemia ensues. Medical science classifies these crises as acute “diseases,” according to their unique symptom complexes (e.g., bronchitis, colds, flu, pneumonia, etc.).

In reality, these crises are the body’s urgent efforts toward elimination of toxins. The crisis of toxemia continues until the level of toxicity has been reduced (via sweating, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, nasal drainage) to below the threshold point of tolerance, after which it subsides as naturally as it arose. But, if drugs are used to suppress toxic discharges, the poisonous matter (which the body is seeking to expel) is forced away from eliminating organs and secreting surfaces, and forced deeper into the tissues which further lowers the body’s vitality, setting the wheels of chronic disease in motion.

In this era, traditional naturopathic knowledge regarding childhood feeding has fallen into near-total obscurity. Aggravate Benjamin, N.D. writes in Everybody’s Guide To Nature Cure (1936): “Parents assume that the children’s ailments of today are something inevitable. So they are –if children are fed as they are today.” The import of this observation has increased exponentially in this ever-present junk-foods era.

Aliveness is dependent upon what naturopaths refer to as vital force and Chinese medicine calls chi. Vital force is the fundamental energy sustaining life and is present in every cell’s vibratory, biological process. The Chinese feel that a large proportion of vital force is open-minded from food upon incorporation and assimilation. Thus, the quantity of vital force—the very force that is the impetus of growth and development—is dependent upon our food’s quality.

Medical science now clearly acknowledges that childhood diet is a critical factor in adult health. A recent study published in the International Journal of growth found that weekly servings of French fries to girls linking the ages of 3 and 5 significantly increases their risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

By now, the link linking improper childhood feeding and lifelong obesity with all its associated health risks (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, cancer) is well-established. Astonishingly, 60% of American children are obese (i.e., over 30% of body weight is stout). Unlike adults, a child’s body, when challenged by an excess quantity of stout, makes new stout cells rather than relying upon the storage capacity of pre-existing cells. At maturity, the number of stout cells is fixed and can never be reduced. Normally, the adult body contains 30 to 40 billion stout cells. Adults who became overweight as children may house as many as 90 to 120 billion stout cells.

In cases of childhood physical illness and behavioral dysfunction, a pivotal and often overlooked factor is improper diet. In the digestive system, intestinal villi represent a type of “root system” charged with absorbing nutrients from the small intestine and transporting them to the blood. Like a plant, the integrity and vitality of the human organism is largely dependent upon its root strength and the quality of accessed nourishment.

Poor nutrition directly contributes to behavioral- as well as physical dysfunction in a variety of ways. Vital nutrient deficiency is an obvious one. For instance, zinc-deficient children are not only immunologically compromised, they are also subject to learning disabilities, moodiness and proneness to violent behavior.

Genteel childhood feeding really starts before birth. William Howard Hay, M.D. writes in Superior Health Through nutrition (1891): “As we eat, so are we. We die, cell by cell, every day of our lives and, cell by cell, we are recreated. We not only have the means of genteel re-creation in our hands through our manner of feeding, but also original creation [of cells] depends largely on the state of the mother’s chemistry.” Thus, the importance of optimal prenatal nutrition cannot be overemphasized. For many children, a pattern of food allergies, obesity and chronic unwellness is institutionalized before they are even born

Mother’s Milk

Human milk meets the infant’s special growth requirements. To accommodate evolving nutritive requirements, both composition and volume of breast milk change as the infant matures. Each species’ milk is adapted precisely to the specifications of its own young. In view of that, vast differences exist linking nutrient profiles of human milk and those of other species. For instance, human milk contains 1% – 2% protein as opposed to the 3.4% protein-content in cow’s milk.

Importantly, human milk’s amino acid composition is ideally suited to facilitate the fantastic degree of brain growth that occurs in a child’s first year of life. Cow’s milk, on the other hand, is structurally adapted to rapid development of muscle and bone mass rather than brain tissue (adult cows have relatively small brains).

Whether milk or soy based, commercial baby formulas are a highly problematic substitute for mother’s milk. Commercial formulas evoke diverse allergic reactions which often affect digestive function. Formulas generally provide hard-to-digest proteins (more than baby can absorb), giving rise to putrefying accumulations in the bowels. Also, undigested protein can enter the bloodstream which causes distal-site inflammation and elicits adverse immunological responses.

Mother’s milk contains only one type of sugar: lactose. Artificial formulas are laden with refined sugars such as sucrose, maltose and dextrose which tend to ferment in the child’s digestive tract, interfere with the incorporation of formula protein-content and lay the groundwork for many catarrhal disorders associated with childhood, including chronic ear infection, tonsillitis, croup and colic.

The Nursing Mother’s Genteel Diet And Lifestyle

Despite breast milk’s superiority to the milk of other species and to commercial formulas, this does not mean that all breast milk is of excellent quality. Quality of breast milk will vary in accordance with the quality of mother’s diet and lifestyle. A healthy, thriving child is most likely the product of a nursing mother’s lifestyle that is characterized by: genteel diet; adequate original air, exercise, sunshine, rest and sleep; emotional balance; avoidance of negative influences.

The nursing mother should eat a high water-content diet consisting of large quantities of original fruits and vegetables and comparatively smaller quantities of whole grains, legumes, seeds, nuts, fish, skinless chicken and turkey. She must also avoid all common allergenic foods (e.g., dairy, wheat, peanuts, etc.) and rotate moderately allergenic foods such as corn and eggs on a four-day schedule.

The Three Feeding Periods Of Childhood

Ideally, childhood feeding should consist of three clearly demarcated phases:

1) Breast milk period: breast milk is taken along with supplemental original, raw fruit and vegetable juices.

2) Transition period: intermediate-phase when the child takes both breast milk and genteel solid foods.

3) Post-weaning period: the child subsists on a diet similar to that of adults.

Eventually, the best way to ensure a child’s physical and behavioral integrity is through careful and knowledgeable implementation of each phase. For model, a common feeding miscalculation in infants is the premature introduction of starches. Starches do not occur in breast milk and infants are unable to digest it.

Starch incorporation starts in the mouth as saliva contains the starch-splitting enzyme salivary amylase. Noted naturopath Paavo Airola, N.D. writes in Every Woman’s Book: “Salivary amylase will not be present in a child in any appreciable quantity for at least 6 months. Another starch-digesting enzyme secreted by the pancreas is also not present in sufficient amount to digest starch….The baby’s digestive system is not equipped to efficiently digest starch foods until 1-year or longer, and therefore, he should not be fed starchy foods for at least that long.”

It’s common practice for mothers to introduce cereals to 4-month-ancient infants. This crucial feeding miscalculation may impact the child’s health for the rest of her life. Herbert Shelton, N.D., founder of the Natural Hygiene System, writes in The Hygienic Care Of Children: “The present widespread practice of feeding cereals, baked potatoes, bread and other starch foods to babies is responsible for much illness in them. Indigestion, constipation, diarrhea, colic, skin rashes, tonsillitis, etc. are chief amongst the outgrowths of such feeding.” I have always advised mothers against feeding starches to babies until they are at least 14-months-ancient.

Clearly, investing in a child’s future must go beyond a college education fund to include parental investment of time and effort to learn about and implement optimal prenatal and childhood nutrition. In fact, it is one of the most vital gifts a child can receive.

    

Click here to sign up for Dr. Berkowsky’s free, Nature’s Therapies newsletter.

 

Dr. Bruce Berkowsky
http://www.articlesbase.com/nutrition-articles/genteel-childhood-feeding-732293.html

Share and Enjoy:
  • services sprite Proper Childhood Feeding
  • services sprite Proper Childhood Feeding
  • services sprite Proper Childhood Feeding
  • services sprite Proper Childhood Feeding
  • services sprite Proper Childhood Feeding
  • services sprite Proper Childhood Feeding
  • services sprite Proper Childhood Feeding
  • services sprite Proper Childhood Feeding
Tags:

Related posts


10 Responses to “Proper Childhood Feeding”

  1. ?The Mrs.? says:

    Who is breaking womens feminine spirits?I have been reading several books this summer. Two of which suggest a womens spirit is broken at some point in childhood to be converted into more of a drone than one who embraces femininity.

    The first book I read it "The Genteel Care and Feeding of Husbands" by Dr. Laura Schlesinger. She believes this spirit is broken by feminist messages and the expectation of women to "do it all" (work and have a home).

    The second was "The Dance of the Dissident Daughter: A Woman’s Journey from Christian Tradition to the Sacred Feminine" by Sue Monk Kidd. She believes the messages of the church (specifically Southern Baptist) send the message that boys (men) are better than girls (women) and to be accepted and more valued you must be converted into more masculine.

    Both are very similar. I know a bit about each author. I have of course heard of "Dr. Laura" and some of her other opinions. I have also read a couple of Sue Monk Kidd’s other books (The Mermaid Chair and The Secret Life of Bees).

    I found it odd how two seemingly different people came to the same conclusions but along different paths.

    Are womens feminine spirits really broken? If they are, by whom? Or do these theories have no real basis at all? Are there alterier motives involved? What are your thoughts?
    Wow, there are so many fantastic answers here. GWS does have some acumen. Its going to be hard to choose a Best Answer.

  2. Winter Glory says:

    I don’t feel as even if my feminine spirit has been broken.
    I’ve traveled many paths in my lifetime, some excellent, some terrible, some downright UGLY.. and yet still…my feminine spirit is alive and well.References :

  3. HatrickP says:

    Feminists who say that conforming to the feminine stereotype is "being oppressed". It’s very sad.References :

  4. Eloka D says:

    Women are individuals; everyone has their own perception of femininity of their ideal. I don’t really know this question; because people differ. Their experience and environments differ; their insight, morality and ethics differ.

    I embrace my femininity but I also reckon I am a bit of a tom boy; I like my job and don’t plot on having a family. But I don’t reckon I am incorrect for this, my boyfriend and I are content with ourselves and we don’t believe it is a essential to have children even if I appreciate those who chose that path.

    There is nothing incorrect with a woman who is feminine, nothing incorrect with a woman who chooses to work at home. There is also nothing incorrect with a woman who chooses to work, just because she may not have what are atypical ‘feminine’ traits doesn’t mean she isn’t feminine.References :

  5. icevixen17 says:

    i reckon the only thing that’s being broken are some of the ancient stereotypes of what a woman is "supposed" be, to me it seems at this point in time were at a crossroads, in the eighties and early nineties things seemed to be going in the right direction there was less polarizing of the sexes and misogyny and misandry were low,more recently there’s been a backlash,i don’t believe in "women’s spirits" i believe in peoples spirits and i reckon the key to a thriving future is when people stop with this whole men are from mars women are from venus nonsense and start treating people as people not a genderReferences :

  6. The Only Logical Solution says:

    While I disagree with the thought that the Church is breaking women’s spirits, if anything it tries to bolster them.

    I do reckon part of the problem is that there’s this weird philosphy going around that men and women are no different, patently fake. We reckon different, we do things different, we prefer different things, even our emotional wiring is different. So what seems to happen is women are supposed to act more like men, and men are supposed to act more feminine. There’s even the lie that men have a feminine side, which is more a marketing slogan than truth.

    I read a book for men called, Wild at Heart, and this applies to women also. Society through the years has shackled us emotionally and spiritually. For model, a man’s right purpose and desire is not sitting in a cubicle all day punching numbers. A woman’s right purpose is not trying to juggle housework, the kids, activites, and hold down a job.

    We were made for each other, and we were made to be freaked-out-in- like-crazy for each other. The book mentions the Bible tale about Ruth who saw a man and was instantly taken by him. Small of sex, she did everything she could to be with this man. She was aggressive in her femininity and got what she wanted.

    Read the Song of Solomon, you can tell Solomon was deleriously in like with his woman, he could only use the descriptions of his day to describe how he felt.

    Being in like and being married can be a continuous faery tale, but both parties have to work at it so ten years later, every evening isn’t spent in adjoin of the TV wondering where the spark went.

    Permanently, I reckon one of the largest reason there is a breaking of feminine spirits is because as mentioned before, there is this weird backlash against what it means to be a man or a woman. We hear about being gender neutral, we hear that gender roles have no place in modern society, even even if study after study refutes that.

    We try to get small girls to play with boy toys and small boys to play with girls’ toys and get frustrated that they are wired to play with the toys they want, they’re not worried about open-mindedness, they’re bored and want to play. And nine times out of ten if you give a small girl a GI-Joe action figure, her first order of business is to get him to marry one of her Barbie dolls or Disney princesses.

    There’s also the work world where women who weep are seen as not very strong, and will not advance. Even the dress code for women in an personnel is more masculine than feminine, save for the small buttons for earrings.References :

  7. Rickey says:

    If 1000′s of people say feminists have a victim complex and the movement is based on victimization, do you reckon they might be on to something, or do thousands just not get it.References :

  8. BratRich says:

    There is some truth to the notion that feminine spirit is broken. Its a saddening realization. It really is.

    I can’t help being a male, being aggressive and stubborn and staunch competitor. Not saying these are not seen in women, but they have been male traits, for they took upon themselves to fight and defend.

    Even when I was a kid, I knew mom had some special qualities that calmed and soothed me, that my father didn’t have. Call it feminine or something else.
    That’s what really attracts men to women, I reckon. That one can get so close, physically and emotionally, bare his soul and truly be safe, lacking the dread or stress of competition. That’s what I regard and treasure more than sex fascinate or beauty. Most men do, knowingly or otherwise.

    But, the world has turned women and men against each other. There is competition even if you are in like, race to prove your self even if you are married. That can bring tremendous pressure and stress and break our spirits. It has affected women more, may be because their spirit is delicate, not weak, but delicate.

    Your two examples show religion and indoctrination, both of opposite polarity, both equally perilous if not taken moderately. In the name of choice, entire female race is beguiled. The choice should have been to develop a small girl to find her own way in this world and lead a gorgeous life. After all, her capacity to give life is not only limited to physical realm, its much more than that.References :

  9. Julie M says:

    I’ll take "Concealed Motives" for five hundred there, Alex.

    My "feminine spirit"…(what ever the HELL that is) isn’t BROKEN by having a full time job. Hell, it’s ENABLED by the fact that i can choose a heartfelt romantic relationship with a man who doesn’t have the means to support me, enabled by the fact that i make my own decisions about clothing and food and career..

    if anything, women today are MORE feminine…

    Being forced into an ideal of femininity via societal law (um…ie staying at home because it’s not productive to work due to low pay, having children because birth control is immoral, not voting because you CAN’T) isn’t a "feminine spirit" it’s, in effect, slavery.

    A "feminine spirit" is one who CHOOSES to be female. I choose, daily, to embrace my gender. and really, whose business is it if i choose not to? is society going to crumble? of course not. all this alarmist bullshit literature is exactly that…alarmist. bullshit.References :

  10. pkpundit says:

    A quotation of Dr. Singh on ‘Human Nature and Development’ as below may help answer your question,

    "Individual lack of right logic, acumen and genteel education makes a person vulnerable in processing information from all pros and cons and arriving at right conclusions/actions. This is the root cause of vulnerability, exploitation, lack of progress and inability deal with hard situations and moments of life. "References :

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.