>  > think) and I started sitting him too- turns out he's NOT lactose
 >  > intolerant. BUT his mom says she feels it would be unfair to her
 >  > daughter to let her son eat all those lactose goodies.
 >  CS>  >
 >  > What do you think?
 > 
 >  CS> This time the Mom is probably right.  Lactose intolerance develops in
 >  CS> many people as a function of age.  That a person as a child can
 >  CS> tolerate it, doesn't mean they do not develop the trait whern older.
 >  CS> It definately runs in families so exposure to too much lactose with
 >  CS> the other child can *cause* earlier reaction.
 > 
 >  IIRC that only happens if the child drinks very little to no
 > milk at all/was given cows milk too young?

Nope.  2 different things there.  Mostly we tend to call both 'lactose
intolerance' but the fact is some are allergic to cow milk, and some become
less able to handle lactose as they age.

Because both allergies *and* true lactose intolerance are genetically passed
on, the mother this time is right though not for the right way of stating it.


 > The idea is in order to tolerate lactose you need to have
 > the enzyme for it and the only away to get that is by ingesting foods
 > with lactose (where in we get the lacto bacilli for the enzyme. But
 > granted some people even if they have they have the enzyme, something
 > else is going on where the enzyme doesn't work.

If you do not produce the enzyme correctly, no amount of feeding the kid milk
products is going to fix it.  Nor will a derth of milk products, cause one to
not produce it.  Sorry, you are going to need to look more up on this.

 > But thanks for pointing this aspect out to me Carol. I Hadn't thought
 > of latent intolerance (that is developing it later on. ALso both


This is the normal way for it to develop.  In the animal kingdom (of which we
are also members) the ability to break down milk, fades with age.  European
extract humans are actually unique in the ability to normally handle it life
long.  This is probably a genetic shift as those who could in an area where
that was a major food group available, selected for those who could as better
survivors.

Contrast that with sodium intake and long term problems with populations such
as the Japanese as compared to Europeans and you can see what the aim is. 
Japanese tolerate HUGE sodium levels life long with rarely any adverse
effect.  Europeans do not.  In coastal or island Asia, if you couldnt
tolerate seafood and seaweed as a major portion of your diet, you just didnt
survive to have offspring.

You will find exceptionally rare iodine reaction in the Japanese too for the
same reason.  Yet, shellfish allergies among inland european stock are quite
common.


 > children had been breast fed and maybe she weaned the daughter off too
 > soon? That could have been a factor so yeah she'd be more careful with
 > her son. Come to think of it now, that's probably the case.

Nope.  With the advent of soy milk replacements, infants with serious milk
intolerance issues didnt survive.  Unless they could make
it to old enough to adapt to other foods.

 > By the way. Why did she give as a reason "because it's not fair"..
 > that's perplexing. She could have said, Because I'm worried about the
 > baby becoming intolerant too, so want to take things slow. hmm!
 > 

Because she misunderstood the doc possibly.  Not everyone is perfect.

 > 
 >  CS> Asians have a classic reaction there.  As infants they tolerate it but
 >  CS> as they reach adulthood, that tolerance drops off.  It's pretty normal
 >  CS> to remove all milk from the diet by age 5.  Dont worry, they use other
 >  CS> things for calcium levels.
 > 
 > 
 >  That's interesting and yes there are other sources such as green
 > veggies. I also found out- has anyone read up more on this?- that when

Plenty of them, all used in Asia.  Shrimp shells are great for example.  In
Asia, you eat the tails.  So do I now .

            xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32