Is dairy actually bad for you?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.
I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.
This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?
I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.
I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)
So much this. Drives me crazy.If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.
I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?
Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.
If you're referring to condensed milk in cans, the main ingredient in there is still cows milk. The amount of hormones that is absorbed in the human body is not known and there's not enough research to show the effects of hormones from food consumption, but there certainly is a link between dairy and hormone sensitive cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.
I did mean chock and you can indeed blame that on the fact that I spent too much time reading useless websites in the past. I've expanded my knowledge since then and most of what I wrote yesterday is based on a combination of what I'm learning in school and more reliable sources than say, Dr. Oz.
I meant milk surpassing digestion in the stomach and reaching the small intestine where most of the nutrients and chemicals are absorbed. The unnaturally small globules in homogenized milk may have an effect on chemical reaction time in the intestines due to to the fact that it digests much quicker than non-homogenized milk which increases surface area and therefore reaches the bloodstream faster.
Non-homogenized milk takes longer to digest due to the size of the fat globules. The slower digestion is, the longer it takes to reach the blood. This could increase satiety and POSSIBLY decrease the amount of hormones that is being absorbed from the milk. There is not enough research done to prove this theory. That's why it's just a theory.
I agree with you there. Some companies do state that their dairy is free of added hormones, but it's not a common practice. It's still good to check labels and contact companies for more information about the product if their label doesn't include it.
I just meant too much sugar in general increases the bad gut bacteria. I'm aware that absorbing wasn't the right word to use in this situation. I was in a rush while writing my post and my English isn't perfect. The piece of fruit won't negate it, especially if it's low on the glycemic index (ex. berries). The prebiotic fibre present in fruit is basically "food" for the probiotics which means fruit is beneficial for the overall gut flora as long as it's not consumed in excess. The problem nowadays is that fruit has been modified to be much sweeter than it was decades ago, so it can cause other digestion related issues. The takeaway here is that the sugar from fruit is still better than refined sugar due its fiber content which supports healthy gut flora and satiety as long as it's not consumed in excess.16 -
Hmmmmm. This got me digging in to what a "fermentable fiber" is and why it is so beneficial. It turns out the cells lining our guts love butyrate, produced by the fiber-loving probiotics that live in our colon.
This article is decent, and cites it's sources nicely:
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/other-nutrients/fiber
Fruits, vegetables, oats and barley are rich in fermentable fiber. We might be familiar with another one of the byproducts of all this fermenting action.....
I protest that wild strawberries are far sweeter than their cultivated cousins.3 -
TenderBlender667 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.
I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.
This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?
I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.
I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)
So much this. Drives me crazy.If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.
I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?
Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.
If you're referring to condensed milk in cans, the main ingredient in there is still cows milk. The amount of hormones that is absorbed in the human body is not known and there's not enough research to show the effects of hormones from food consumption, but there certainly is a link between dairy and hormone sensitive cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.
Can you cite the studies establishing such a link?TenderBlender667 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.
I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.
This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?
I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.
I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)
So much this. Drives me crazy.If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.
I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?
Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.
I did mean chock and you can indeed blame that on the fact that I spent too much time reading useless websites in the past. I've expanded my knowledge since then and most of what I wrote yesterday is based on a combination of what I'm learning in school and more reliable sources than say, Dr. Oz.
And what sources are those?TenderBlender667 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.
I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.
This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?
I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.
I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)
So much this. Drives me crazy.If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.
I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?
Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.
I meant milk surpassing digestion in the stomach and reaching the small intestine where most of the nutrients and chemicals are absorbed. The unnaturally small globules in homogenized milk may have an effect on chemical reaction time in the intestines due to to the fact that it digests much quicker than non-homogenized milk which increases surface area and therefore reaches the bloodstream faster.
Non-homogenized milk takes longer to digest due to the size of the fat globules. The slower digestion is, the longer it takes to reach the blood. This could increase satiety and POSSIBLY decrease the amount of hormones that is being absorbed from the milk. There is not enough research done to prove this theory. That's why it's just a theory.
Is there ANY research to validate it at all? This sounds more like something a blogger would make up than the results of a legitimate study.TenderBlender667 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.
I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.
This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?
I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.
I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)
So much this. Drives me crazy.If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.
I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?
Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.
I just meant too much sugar in general increases the bad gut bacteria. I'm aware that absorbing wasn't the right word to use in this situation. I was in a rush while writing my post and my English isn't perfect. The piece of fruit won't negate it, especially if it's low on the glycemic index (ex. berries). The prebiotic fibre present in fruit is basically "food" for the probiotics which means fruit is beneficial for the overall gut flora as long as it's not consumed in excess. The problem nowadays is that fruit has been modified to be much sweeter than it was decades ago, so it can cause other digestion related issues. The takeaway here is that the sugar from fruit is still better than refined sugar due its fiber content which supports healthy gut flora and satiety as long as it's not consumed in excess.
There are flaws in the logic here.
Cultured, sweetened yogurts actually contain and provide probiotic cultures to the gut. Yet you say this is hindered by the presence of bad bacteria eating the sugar.
Fruit contains sugar (so presumably the same bad bacteria) but you say it's ok because fiber will feed the probiotics already in your gut.
How is adding live cultures to your gut not more beneficial from a gut flora perspective than adding fiber??7 -
In the article I linked above, they have found with additional research that the fiber-cancer prevention link is doubtful.0
-
TenderBlender667 wrote: »There is not enough research done to prove this theory. That's why it's just a theory.
I just wanted to address this line from your post. This is not how the scientific community uses the word "theory" at all. A scientific theory does not mean, as it would colloquially, "a postulated idea with little or no supporting data." Instead, scientific theories are well-supported explanations for various phenomena, backed up by repeated observation and/or experimentation. If there is "not enough research" to support a given hypothesis, that means the hypothesis shouldn't be postulated as true -- not that it's okay because it's "just a theory."
18 -
TenderBlender667 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »It's a slippery slope. One of the main reasons dairy is bad is because it's chalk full of hormones especially non-organic varieties. The process of homogenization makes it easier for the fat molecules to surpass digestion, which causes steriods/hormones from dairy to get absorbed into the bloodstream more readily than non-homogenized dairy. Rbgh is a common artificial hormone that is present in some dairy products. While no scientific evidence is available to prove its negative effect on health, it has been discovered that cows injected with this hormone are more likely to produce offspring with birth defects and other health problems. Many countries have banned the use of rbgh so make sure to check the labels.
I personally think dairy in small amounts is good, especially greek yogurt and fermented yogurts with live bacterial cultures in them. Keep in mind if you buy the sweetened yogurts, your intestines do not absorb the bacterial cultures which is supposed to provide the "digestive support" it claims to. Also, sheep and goat dairy naturally contains less hormones and casein which may be a good alternative for those who are sensitive to cows milk. My personal favorite is a local brand of non homogenized organic goat milk. It's not something I drink everyday, but I do like to have it on occasion.
This doesn't even make sense. 100+ years ago consumers were being defrauded by the sale of "milk" that was just chalk dissolved in water, but that was before milk was regulated. And even if it were still happening, chalk is a mineral -- it doesn't come with hormones. Why would someone trying to pass off chalky water as milk bother mixing in hormones at an added cost?
I think the poster meant "chock full of hormones," but that led me to wonder why someone not a native speaker would use a folksy turn of phrase that isn't all that common and sounds rather weird, and it struck me that I'd seen that usage before and searched and, yep, as expected, a LOT of the bad information dairy scare sites use exactly that language. You can very often tell that someone is parroting some website from the use of jargony sounding language. Another example I've seen and that bugs me is everyone going on about foods being "just packed with" something -- that's not a natural way of talking outside diet sites, but seems really common on them, and is a good sign of where someone is getting their information.
I'm trying to figure out how homogenizing milk makes it easy to avoid digesting fat. Seems to make skim milk kind of unnecessary, no, as whole but homogenized would have the same calories. Of course, that's nonsense.And if something is "surpassing" digestion, then it would just pass out of the body as waste, not be absorbed more readily. (I see this fallacy all the time on here, more typically in the form of "X is unnatural, so our bodies don't recognize it and can't digest it, and therefore it gets stored as fat." No, it doesn't work that way. No absorbing or storing if it resists digestion.)
So much this. Drives me crazy.If rBGH is banned in a country, what's the point in checking the label? If a manufacturer is using milk from cows illegally dosed with rBGH, I doubt they would admit it on the label.
I tend to prefer plain yogurt myself, but do you have any proof of your claim that sweetened yogurt somehow blocks your intestines from "absorbing" the bacterial cultures (which isn't really what happens; the bacteria colonizes your gut -- if your intestines "absorbed" them, they would move into your blood stream, and do you no good from a digestive standpoint). If you have a piece of fruit with your plain yogurt, does that negate the value of the bacteria? Why is the sugar in the fruit different? What about the naturally occurring sugar in the yogurt (6 to 9 grams per cup in plain, traditional - i.e., unstrained -- yogurts in my refrigerator right now? Why is that sugar different?
Yes, exactly. I hope you get responses to your questions.
If you're referring to condensed milk in cans, the main ingredient in there is still cows milk.
What on earth? Please identify what part of my post you interpreted to be me talking about condensed milk in cans? At this point you don't seem to even be responding to what is written.
Not going to respond to the rest now, maybe later if I think there's still something to say when I have a few more minutes.8 -
savedbygrace1007 wrote: »Watch the documentary Forks over knives
Forks Over Knives isn't a "documentary". It's a biased, one-sided hack job with an agenda, filled with junk science and half-truths.
If I'm going to watch fiction, I at least want it to be enjoyable.
Your opinion.
There is a quite science behind those movements. It is reckless to get the baby thrown out with the bathwater.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-productsConclusions
Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to health. It is best to consume a healthful diet of grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fortified foods including cereals and juices. These nutrient-dense foods can help you meet your calcium, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin D requirements with ease—and without facing the health risks associated with dairy product consumption.
So basically, you jump from the propaganda piece 'Forks over Knives' to the propaganda site PCRM to try and prove your point?!?7 -
TenderBlender667 wrote: »There is not enough research done to prove this theory. That's why it's just a theory.
I just wanted to address this line from your post. This is not how the scientific community uses the word "theory" at all. A scientific theory does not mean, as it would colloquially, "a postulated idea with little or no supporting data." Instead, scientific theories are well-supported explanations for various phenomena, backed up by repeated observation and/or experimentation. If there is "not enough research" to support a given hypothesis, that means the hypothesis shouldn't be postulated as true -- not that it's okay because it's "just a theory."
Did I ever say "scientific" theory? I'm just referring to a colloquial "theory" used in everyday day language and speculations.5 -
Now I'm craving both egg nog and arequipe! (in all their sugary, fatty tastiness). damn you all ;P2
-
savedbygrace1007 wrote: »Watch the documentary Forks over knives
Forks Over Knives isn't a "documentary". It's a biased, one-sided hack job with an agenda, filled with junk science and half-truths.
If I'm going to watch fiction, I at least want it to be enjoyable.
Your opinion.
There is a quite science behind those movements. It is reckless to get the baby thrown out with the bathwater.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-productsConclusions
Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to health. It is best to consume a healthful diet of grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fortified foods including cereals and juices. These nutrient-dense foods can help you meet your calcium, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin D requirements with ease—and without facing the health risks associated with dairy product consumption.
So basically, you jump from the propaganda piece 'Forks over Knives' to the propaganda site PCRM to try and prove your point?!?
Don't make me say stuff I didn't wrote, that's silly. Seeing your little attitude, I am not interested to discuss further with you.15 -
I can't believe nobody in this thread has referenced milking a cat!1
-
savedbygrace1007 wrote: »Watch the documentary Forks over knives
Forks Over Knives isn't a "documentary". It's a biased, one-sided hack job with an agenda, filled with junk science and half-truths.
If I'm going to watch fiction, I at least want it to be enjoyable.
Your opinion.
There is a quite science behind those movements. It is reckless to get the baby thrown out with the bathwater.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-productsConclusions
Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to health. It is best to consume a healthful diet of grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fortified foods including cereals and juices. These nutrient-dense foods can help you meet your calcium, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin D requirements with ease—and without facing the health risks associated with dairy product consumption.
So basically, you jump from the propaganda piece 'Forks over Knives' to the propaganda site PCRM to try and prove your point?!?
Don't make me say stuff I didn't wrote, that's silly. Seeing your little attitude, I am not interested to discuss further with you.
YOU were the one who quoted the PCRM site as the quote directly from you shows. And you are not interested in a discussion because you have already made up your mind on the matter and don't care what anybody who disagrees with you has to say...8 -
paperpudding wrote: »The main reason, I think, for the evolutionary advantage was the cold weather climate - pre refridgeration, when most human evolution took place since refrideration is new in historical terms, milk could not be kept in hot climates. Most people don't drink milk directly from the animal so if it can't be stored it is useless as a food.
Not because there wouldn't be access to the source - goats live in hot dry climates and some cattle live in India, for example and not because there were so many alternative foods as there are obviously parts of the world outside Europe where that is not so.
But cheese and yogurt (among others) are milk-storage strategies with long history, certainly pre-refrigeration. Cheese has been around for at least 7000 years, and yogurt is believed to have been, also. An early version of paneer seems to have been developed in South Asia perhaps 1500-2000 years ago, though I'm not sure about paneer's keeping qualities.
And why do you say people don't drink milk directly from the animal? My parents/grandparents certainly did, pre-refrigeration in their world . . . unless we're quibbling about the pail, ladle, and glass between cow and lips?
Certainly - as with many other foods - the supply was seasonally variable.
Many regions (not all) had food-cooling strategies of long history pre-refrigeration, too: Caves, springs, ice-houses, at least, and probably others.1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »You can develop an intolerance or allergy at any time of your life, regardless of whether you've been eating it for years.
IMO dairy is very tasty, relatively cheap and an easy source of protein for humans but NOT healthy or ideal. No other species goes and sucks on another species once it's weaned so why do we gobble the milk of other animals? The answer is because it's been heavily marketed to us and it tastes great especially with all that other *kitten* added to it. Hence why so many people do develop an intolerance to it at some point.
We are biologically programmed to eat our own species milk (ie breast milk) until weaning age which should be around 2-6 years of age. After that we have absolutely no evolutionary or biological need for milk.
In other news, humans are also the only species which use computers, drive cars, have a written language, exchange currency, own televisions, refrigerate/preserve/cook our food, etc.
That logic is completely invalid.
Seriously. The answer to the bolded part is simply "because we can". I've seen cattle where one cow is sulking from her mother while her calk is sulking from her. I'm sure if the horse could get in there they would.
I have actually seen a cow feed a foal after its mare died until another mare could be found to do foster the foal. It's not unheard of for any mammal to drink other mammals' milk. It's not what I would call common, but growing up on a farm I saw it often enough that it stopped surprising me.2 -
And why do you say people don't drink milk directly from the animal? My parents/grandparents certainly did, pre-refrigeration in their world . . . unless we're quibbling about the pail, ladle, and glass between cow and lips? Certainly - as with many other foods - the supply was seasonally variable.
My family certainly used milk the day we milked the cow, but we also slow pasteurized and sold/bartered milk/butter/cottage cheese to other people. We also made butter and cottage cheese for ourselves. Butter probably two times a week for the family and cottage cheese once a week to 10 days.
We could and did refrigerate it by the time I came along, of course. Raw milk is a trade off, IMO. It tastes better, but you have to use it fast.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »You can develop an intolerance or allergy at any time of your life, regardless of whether you've been eating it for years.
IMO dairy is very tasty, relatively cheap and an easy source of protein for humans but NOT healthy or ideal. No other species goes and sucks on another species once it's weaned so why do we gobble the milk of other animals? The answer is because it's been heavily marketed to us and it tastes great especially with all that other *kitten* added to it. Hence why so many people do develop an intolerance to it at some point.
We are biologically programmed to eat our own species milk (ie breast milk) until weaning age which should be around 2-6 years of age. After that we have absolutely no evolutionary or biological need for milk.
Most animals, when given the chance, will drink another animal's milk.
And most dint tolerate it. They simply like the taste. Both nu cat and my dog will gobble cows milk but will have violent diarrhea from it.
My dog tolerates dairy just fine. We also have no biologic need for carrots, or kale, or chicken, but we eat those, too.
7 -
stevencloser wrote: »You can develop an intolerance or allergy at any time of your life, regardless of whether you've been eating it for years.
IMO dairy is very tasty, relatively cheap and an easy source of protein for humans but NOT healthy or ideal. No other species goes and sucks on another species once it's weaned so why do we gobble the milk of other animals? The answer is because it's been heavily marketed to us and it tastes great especially with all that other *kitten* added to it. Hence why so many people do develop an intolerance to it at some point.
We are biologically programmed to eat our own species milk (ie breast milk) until weaning age which should be around 2-6 years of age. After that we have absolutely no evolutionary or biological need for milk.
Most animals, when given the chance, will drink another animal's milk.
And most dint tolerate it. They simply like the taste. Both nu cat and my dog will gobble cows milk but will have violent diarrhea from it.
My dog tolerates dairy just fine. We also have no biologic need for carrots, or kale, or chicken, but we eat those, too.
My dog will shift mountains for cheese, and has no gastric issues from it. He will also eat carrots, kale, chicken, dill pickles and anything else that lands on the floor.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do people hand out pamphlets with that crap about puss and hormones and "only for baby cows"? The amount of people saying exactly the same thing in every thread about milk is astounding.
Yeah, I think it's spread on certain kinds of websites. It's sad some people give things they want to believe so little critical thought as most of these things just don't pass the red face test.
It's PUS, PUS, see, gross, you don't want to consume something GROSS.
No, get it, cows are FAT, if you drink milk you will be FAT like cows.
Other animals don't have dairy farms, so humans shouldn't either. (I still want a response to the fact that other animals don't have ANY farms, or that cats don't eat vegetables. Does that mean we should do that too?)
One of my cats loved McDonald's fries, so I guess those must be OK. 4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do people hand out pamphlets with that crap about puss and hormones and "only for baby cows"? The amount of people saying exactly the same thing in every thread about milk is astounding.
Yeah, I think it's spread on certain kinds of websites. It's sad some people give things they want to believe so little critical thought as most of these things just don't pass the red face test.
It's PUS, PUS, see, gross, you don't want to consume something GROSS.
No, get it, cows are FAT, if you drink milk you will be FAT like cows.
Other animals don't have dairy farms, so humans shouldn't either. (I still want a response to the fact that other animals don't have ANY farms, or that cats don't eat vegetables. Does that mean we should do that too?)
One of my cats loved McDonald's fries, so I guess those must be OK.
We had a cat that would lose its beans over baked pumpkin. Go figure.4 -
Haven't seen it mentioned yet but salt / sodium / preservatives in fast food, heat and eat food, soups etc. can cause water retention. It's a problem for me anyway.
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do people hand out pamphlets with that crap about puss and hormones and "only for baby cows"? The amount of people saying exactly the same thing in every thread about milk is astounding.
Yeah, I think it's spread on certain kinds of websites. It's sad some people give things they want to believe so little critical thought as most of these things just don't pass the red face test.
It's PUS, PUS, see, gross, you don't want to consume something GROSS.
No, get it, cows are FAT, if you drink milk you will be FAT like cows.
Other animals don't have dairy farms, so humans shouldn't either. (I still want a response to the fact that other animals don't have ANY farms, or that cats don't eat vegetables. Does that mean we should do that too?)
One of my cats loved McDonald's fries, so I guess those must be OK.
We had a cat that would lose its beans over baked pumpkin. Go figure.
One of my cats enjoys pumpkin too. It's supposed to have some health benefits. My parents' cat had an issue with his anal glands (TMI, cat version) and the vet suggested including some pumpkin in his diet.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do people hand out pamphlets with that crap about puss and hormones and "only for baby cows"? The amount of people saying exactly the same thing in every thread about milk is astounding.
Yeah, I think it's spread on certain kinds of websites. It's sad some people give things they want to believe so little critical thought as most of these things just don't pass the red face test.
It's PUS, PUS, see, gross, you don't want to consume something GROSS.
No, get it, cows are FAT, if you drink milk you will be FAT like cows.
Other animals don't have dairy farms, so humans shouldn't either. (I still want a response to the fact that other animals don't have ANY farms, or that cats don't eat vegetables. Does that mean we should do that too?)
One of my cats loved McDonald's fries, so I guess those must be OK.
We had a cat that would lose its beans over baked pumpkin. Go figure.
One of my cats enjoys pumpkin too. It's supposed to have some health benefits. My parents' cat had an issue with his anal glands (TMI, cat version) and the vet suggested including some pumpkin in his diet.
I feed my dog canned pumpkin if she's constipated - she loves the stuff and it works great.
My cat is nuts about tomatoes, but won't touch pumpkin.0 -
I find it interesting that in a book I have about eating according to your blood type (I'm an O) Dr. Christenson says my blood type shouldn't eat dairy, except sour cream, which I LOVE & one type of cheese. Some ppl swear by eating according to their blood type, some not. Also interesting is I eat mostly the foods that are on my beneficial or neutral list & don't care so much for foods that aren't (before I read the book) this is not here or there, just made me think of it.16
-
I find it interesting that in a book I have about eating according to your blood type (I'm an O) Dr. Christenson says my blood type shouldn't eat dairy, except sour cream, which I LOVE & one type of cheese. Some ppl swear by eating according to their blood type, some not. Also interesting is I eat mostly the foods that are on my beneficial or neutral list & don't care so much for foods that aren't (before I read the book) this is not here or there, just made me think of it.
There was a woman who swore by eating by her blood type, had never felt better. Swore by it.
... found out she was wrong about her bloody type and ought to have been eating the opposite way according to that book.16 -
I find it interesting that in a book I have about eating according to your blood type (I'm an O) Dr. Christenson says my blood type shouldn't eat dairy, except sour cream, which I LOVE & one type of cheese. Some ppl swear by eating according to their blood type, some not. Also interesting is I eat mostly the foods that are on my beneficial or neutral list & don't care so much for foods that aren't (before I read the book) this is not here or there, just made me think of it.
It really makes no sense that blood type would have anything to do with diet.
I'm type B, and apparently the blood type diet says I should consume lots of dairy, am of the blood type that does best with it. Oddly enough, B is quite uncommon in many of the same parts of Europe that have very low levels of lactose intolerance and is most common in some of the specific parts of Asia where people are mostly lactose intolerant.
It also says I should not eat chicken, but should eat goat. I actually like goat (and enjoy goat's milk and cheese and yogurt), but I don't seem to have any negative reactions to chicken either. (Forget if eggs are also supposed to be an issue.)3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I find it interesting that in a book I have about eating according to your blood type (I'm an O) Dr. Christenson says my blood type shouldn't eat dairy, except sour cream, which I LOVE & one type of cheese. Some ppl swear by eating according to their blood type, some not. Also interesting is I eat mostly the foods that are on my beneficial or neutral list & don't care so much for foods that aren't (before I read the book) this is not here or there, just made me think of it.
It really makes no sense that blood type would have anything to do with diet.
I'm type B, and apparently the blood type diet says I should consume lots of dairy, am of the blood type that does best with it. Oddly enough, B is quite uncommon in many of the same parts of Europe that have very low levels of lactose intolerance and is most common in some of the specific parts of Asia where people are mostly lactose intolerant.
It also says I should not eat chicken, but should eat goat. I actually like goat (and enjoy goat's milk and cheese and yogurt), but I don't seem to have any negative reactions to chicken either. (Forget if eggs are also supposed to be an issue.)
It's like astrology for food.11 -
paperpudding wrote: »The main reason, I think, for the evolutionary advantage was the cold weather climate - pre refridgeration, when most human evolution took place since refrideration is new in historical terms, milk could not be kept in hot climates. Most people don't drink milk directly from the animal so if it can't be stored it is useless as a food.
Not because there wouldn't be access to the source - goats live in hot dry climates and some cattle live in India, for example and not because there were so many alternative foods as there are obviously parts of the world outside Europe where that is not so.
But cheese and yogurt (among others) are milk-storage strategies with long history, certainly pre-refrigeration. Cheese has been around for at least 7000 years, and yogurt is believed to have been, also. An early version of paneer seems to have been developed in South Asia perhaps 1500-2000 years ago, though I'm not sure about paneer's keeping qualities.
And why do you say people don't drink milk directly from the animal? My parents/grandparents certainly did, pre-refrigeration in their world . . . unless we're quibbling about the pail, ladle, and glass between cow and lips? Certainly - as with many other foods - the supply was seasonally variable.
Many regions (not all) had food-cooling strategies of long history pre-refrigeration, too: Caves, springs, ice-houses, at least, and probably others.
yes but storage in ice houses requires a cold climate.
and generally, food in cultures develops around food that can be stored easily - caves probably arent easy access for most of the worlds population.
I actually did mean directly from the animal, as in from the teat - or at least immediatly after milking - because in very hot climates you couldnt keep it even for an hour.
yes cheese and yogurt are early storage forms ( I dont know what panneer is) - and indeed many people who are lactose intolerant can cope with products like cheese and yoghurt, but not fresh milk.
Which would seem to lend credence to my theory that the cold climate was the driving factor behind gene mutation spreading rather than accessibity of milk sources or availabilty of alternative foods.
But anyway was just a passing comment on the tangent running at that point in thread - not really relevant to OP's question.
0 -
There are more than a few African peoples who are quite dependent on milk... the Maasai probably being the best known. I wouldn't consider Africa a very cold climate. It's suggested that their ability to process milk is linked to livestock domestication.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/africans-ability-digest-milk-came-livestock-agriculture-180950064/1 -
stevencloser wrote: »You can develop an intolerance or allergy at any time of your life, regardless of whether you've been eating it for years.
IMO dairy is very tasty, relatively cheap and an easy source of protein for humans but NOT healthy or ideal. No other species goes and sucks on another species once it's weaned so why do we gobble the milk of other animals? The answer is because it's been heavily marketed to us and it tastes great especially with all that other *kitten* added to it. Hence why so many people do develop an intolerance to it at some point.
We are biologically programmed to eat our own species milk (ie breast milk) until weaning age which should be around 2-6 years of age. After that we have absolutely no evolutionary or biological need for milk.
Most animals, when given the chance, will drink another animal's milk.
And most dint tolerate it. They simply like the taste. Both nu cat and my dog will gobble cows milk but will have violent diarrhea from it.
My dog tolerates dairy just fine. We also have no biologic need for carrots, or kale, or chicken, but we eat those, too.
My dog is happiest in the cheese making season. He's all excited when we start making cheese because he knows he would get trimmings and drink whey. He keeps pacing around until cheese is done.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions