Dairy Alarmism

maz504

MMMMMMM, that big glass of milk after my run was awesome! Seriously, perfect balance of carbs fats and proteins for recharging my system. Lucky for me I'm not allergic and my body produces it's own lactase, so there's absolutely no good reason to avoid it.

but dairy is a death sentence!

Well you know, none of us are getting off the planet alive anyway!

With that attitude, what's keeping you from getting into drugs? I'm not advocating that! I'm just saying that we can make choices that about what we put into our bodies, and those choices effect our lives, more than we realize during the pleasurable moment of ingestion

Juuuust out of curiosity (so I know what to avoid)... What exactly are you putting in your body that's making you so ridiculous?

Wetcoaster

http://www.simplyshredded.com/qa-with-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon-milk.html


Q&A With Nutrition Expert Alan Aragon: Milk





Nutrition expert Alan Aragon, who’s responding to claims that milk isn’t good for you. Alan is what I call a common sense nutritionist. He combines science and the real-world experience of his clients to create his recommendations, and also takes every case individually. Here, he tackles the arguments that “milk doesn’t contribute to bone health,” and that “we shouldn’t be drinking it because it comes from another species.”




Argument #1: If milk is so great, why is it that America has such a high rate of osteoperosis?

There are many factors. Osteoporosis is a multi-factorial disease. Implying that milk consumption has failed to eradicate osteoporosis in the US is like saying fruit and vegetables consumption has failed to eradicate cancer. Shouldn’t eating your five-a-day “save it?” Not necessarily, but it can certainly hedge your bets against it–IF and only if a host other beneficial lifestyle habits are maintained. There’s always a mix of genetic and environmental factors that interplay in the manifestation of diseases like osteoporosis.

It’s commonly thought that a high protein intake contributes to osteoporosis as well, but can we sit here and blame protein consumption?

Let me add a little wrinkle here for you to chew on: calcium and protein work synergistically to strengthen bones. It’s not a matter of calcium being ineffective, it’s a matter of making sure its cofactors and synergists are present in adequate amounts in the diet. Adequate amounts of cofactors & synergists, sad to say, is not a common characteristic of the American diet. No wonder population studies give mixed results.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Something that needs to be cleared up here is this… If you’re gonna mention population research to support an anti-milk stance, consider the inherent lack of control of the universe of variables involved. There’s a nearly infinite set of monkey wrenches (or “confounders” as scientists call them) that makes the epidemiological data roughly an even split between saying milk is good for bone health and milk does nothing at all.

However, the story changes drastically when you look at randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All types of research have their strengths and weaknesses. Epidemiological research is an attempt to spot potential correlations amidst an ocean of variables. In contrast, experimental research in the form of RCTs attempts to suppress the possibility of all other variables messing with the determination of two variables: the cause, and the effect. In contrast to the mixed bag of population data, nearly 100% of the RCTs on milk intake and bone health show a positive effect. Same story with calcium’s positive effect on bone.
Funding bias?


And then comes the question of funding source. Are Dairy Council dollars really that good at keeping the overwhelming majority of RCTs in favor of milk for improving bone integrity? If it were true, then we’d at least see a reasonable set of independently-funded experimental data consistently showing that the Dairy Council is wrong. Too bad it doesn’t exist. And keep in mind that the dairy industry doesn’t have its political talons sunk into every peer-reviewed journal, so there’s actually plenty of room for opposing results if they indeed could be derived without the bias. You would think that after decades of *****ing over industry bias, staunch anti-milk groups would be able to pool together the resources to spawn at least a small handful well-controlled experimental trials that consistently support their agenda and amusing position that milk does not do the human skeleton good. Nope, hasn’t happened.







Argument #2: Milk (or cow babyfood) has a different composition compared to human milk. Different nutirents for different species.

Hypocrisy versus individual tolerance. I love it when I hear folks say that human adults weren’t meant to consume milk, much less the milk derived from a different animal species. Are you kidding me? So who gets to decide which parts of the cow we should consume? Let me get this straight–we can eat the cow’s muscles, but not the milk that laid the foundation for the growth of those same muscles? Huh? The logic is just too rock-solid for me. Folks who carry the torch against milk consumption typically will have some degree of allergy or digestive intolerance to it, and they take the liberty to project their personal problems onto the world around them. Many of these same “health-minded” people consume whey protein by the tubload –and this is not only a milk product, but an engineered refined milk product to boot. I suggest you raise a salute to cow’s teats the next time you flex your muscles, and let the rest of us enjoy our milk in peace.

jim180155

Michael Shermer had a special section in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" on why SMART people believe weird things... basically they are very good at constructing rationales for themselves on why they believe what they believe (to avoid the cognitive dissonance) and so it becomes even harder to reason them out of it. Throw in a healthy dose of Dunning Kroger and a dollop of confirmation bias and there you go.

Have you read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind? (If not, I think you'd like it.) According to Haidt, the more educated you are, the more prone you are to rationalize beliefs, although we all do it to some extent. Our lizard brain reacts within a fraction of a second to issues we have made into moral issues, things like political, religious, or family issues. Our rational brain then tells us why we believe what we believe.

Note: I may have added something from another book in there, but I think it's all Haidt.

richardheath

Michael Shermer had a special section in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" on why SMART people believe weird things... basically they are very good at constructing rationales for themselves on why they believe what they believe (to avoid the cognitive dissonance) and so it becomes even harder to reason them out of it. Throw in a healthy dose of Dunning Kroger and a dollop of confirmation bias and there you go.

Have you read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind? (If not, I think you'd like it.) According to Haidt, the more educated you are, the more prone you are to rationalize beliefs, although we all do it to some extent. Our lizard brain reacts within a fraction of a second to issues we have made into moral issues, things like political, religious, or family issues. Our rational brain then tells us why we believe what we believe.

Note: I may have added something from another book in there, but I think it's all Haidt.

Don't think I've read that one, but I do remember maybe reading about it, or something similar! I'll look into it, thanks! Have to leave now, so thanks for the chat, y'all!

TheGymGypsy

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

maz504

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. Although this goes for eggs and meat too. Health factors aside, this is all I need to stay away from the stuff.

Honestly though, I have a lot of respect for abstaining from meat/dairy because of the industry's practice/treatment toward animals. That's standing up for your beliefs, and you go girl.

Untrue bro science on the other hand.... :noway:

jim180155

I don't think you were picking on her. It bugs me when I see the other guys piling on though. It's like a bunch of grade school bullies in here.

Somebody should be able to post an opposing view in here without all the personal crap. If you disagree, say so and say why, but don't attack the person just because she has a different opinion. (Again, not you, Richard. You've approached it strictly from the facts and refuted those. That's the way it should work.)

I'm only pointing this out as I'd actually like to read some scientific articles about the unhealthfulness of dairy, but all the actual scientific links provided in this debate are articles that seem to support dairy being a useful and beneficial food source.

Again, you learn best from people you don't agree with, and I would LOVE to read some peer reviewed articles that go against what consensus of that science that I've read has lead me to agree with.

John, I don't have any links or articles for you, but you'll find a lot of what you're looking for in The China Study by T.Colin Campbell.

<ducking>

Campbell has been involved in a lot of research using casein, the protein from milk, and found high correlations and probable cause between moderately high levels of casein and cancer, diabetes, dementia, etc. Campbell concluded that animal protein in general is the cause, but most of his work used casein in particular.

It's a good read, and almost* convincing.

* I was convinced enough to turn vegan for three months. Then it wore off and I added meat and dairy back into my diet.

TheGymGypsy

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. Although this goes for eggs and meat too. Health factors aside, this is all I need to stay away from the stuff.

Honestly though, I have a lot of respect for abstaining from meat/dairy because of the industry's practice/treatment toward animals. That's standing up for your beliefs, and you go girl.

Untrue bro science on the other hand.... :noway:

I'd also like to add that I have nothing against people that consume dairy/ meat/ eggs. It's a lot to sacrifice for most people, so I don't expect them to. It's a personal choice, and I would never try to force it on anyone.

lemurcat12

Somebody should be able to post an opposing view in here without all the personal crap. If you disagree, say so and say why, but don't attack the person just because she has a different opinion. (Again, not you, Richard. You've approached it strictly from the facts and refuted those. That's the way it should work.)

I'm mostly just reading along (although I did make a silly comment upthread) and I'm still trying to feel out the personality/culture of these forums, but I didn't see a personal attack here at all.

A poster said some reasonable stuff (if you want to drink milk, do; if not, don't), but then went on to make three less reasonable arguments. Specifically, (1) you don't have to drink milk to be healthy, which is of course true, but non-responsive in that no one had claimed differently*; (2) some stuff about BigDairy and ads, which again seems unrelated to the point being debated, which is whether dairy is unhealthy for all people or not; and (3) the hormone claim.

Some people just dismissed the comment as a whole. Yeah, that's not particularly substantive, but it's not personal--it's basically pointing out that the claim--and it's worth noting that it was a factual claim, not just an opinion (like I don't like dairy or all dairy seems to me unethical)--in question is unsupported. I actually haven't noticed anyone attacking people for expressing opinions, but only attacks on factual claims or on stuff like "it's not natural." Aren't those kinds of statements fair game?

Anyway, I'm fascinated by this discussion because of how little it's focused on the health argument against dairy, which I've yet to see particularly well defended (which doesn't mean it can't be). I guess I'm also sort of fascinated by the whole natural=good and then efforts to define natural in ways that fit one's intuitions about what's good. I get it, as I also have to catch myself from kneejerking to natural is better type positions that are irrational when considered more carefully, but so far I've just seem them asserted here and not any interest from those who assert them in an analysis of whether they really make sense.

*A possibly weird pet peeve of mine is people arguing against things that have never been claimed, as it always strikes me as an intentional misstatement of the opposing argument.

Platform_Heels

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

:yawn:

eric_sg61

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

Animals aren't harmed during the harvesting of fruits, grains and vegetables?

neandermagnon

You can't fight faith with facts...

At least that made sense. And it's true. It's true of vegans and it's true of meatheads. It's true about people in general. Facts do very little to move people off their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. Of course, some are more open minded and less resistant to change than others.

As a matter of fact, people often become *more* entrenched in their incorrect beliefs when presented with facts which oppose their thinking. There's an interesting article here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

It's been the subject of a lot of research lately.

I've noticed that about people, but I think it's because of how primate social systems operate, and the fact that humans seem to use verbal arguments as a means to establish themselves in the social hierarchy, rather like how gorillas use chest beating, and that humans won't back down or admit that they're wrong, because that's akin to letting the other human be dominant over you.

Here's a blog post I wrote about it: http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/why-cant-humans-just-disagree-nicely/

TheGymGypsy

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

Animals aren't harmed during the harvesting of fruits, grains and vegetables?

What do you think I should eat then? I'm open to suggestions. I try to make food choices that do the LEAST harm.

nikkihk

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

Animals aren't harmed during the harvesting of fruits, grains and vegetables?

Of course not, they politely ask the animals and insects to move out of the way long before the tractors roll though.... yeah.

nikkihk

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

Animals aren't harmed during the harvesting of fruits, grains and vegetables?

What do you think I should eat then? I'm open to suggestions. I try to make food choices that do the LEAST harm.

According to this, you probably shouldn't breath really... killing too many organisms.

jim180155

What do you think I should eat then? I'm open to suggestions. I try to make food choices that do the LEAST harm.

That's sort of what I do. I now each just a small fraction of the meat and dairy I used to consume. There are still animals suffering on my behalf, but there are far fewer animals suffering than there used to be.

jim180155

I've noticed that about people, but I think it's because of how primate social systems operate, and the fact that humans seem to use verbal arguments as a means to establish themselves in the social hierarchy, rather like how gorillas use chest beating, and that humans won't back down or admit that they're wrong, because that's akin to letting the other human be dominant over you.

Here's a blog post I wrote about it: http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/why-cant-humans-just-disagree-nicely/

I think most of the time it's a matter of people not knowing they're wrong. Most of the time it's not that they know they're wrong and won't admit it, the problem is that they still think they're right, and no amount of reason or evidence can or will convince them otherwise.

susannamarie

I've noticed that about people, but I think it's because of how primate social systems operate, and the fact that humans seem to use verbal arguments as a means to establish themselves in the social hierarchy, rather like how gorillas use chest beating, and that humans won't back down or admit that they're wrong, because that's akin to letting the other human be dominant over you.

Here's a blog post I wrote about it: http://cavepeopleandstuff.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/why-cant-humans-just-disagree-nicely/

I think most of the time it's a matter of people not knowing they're wrong. Most of the time it's not that they know they're wrong and won't admit it, the problem is that they still think they're right, and no amount of reason or evidence can or will convince them otherwise.

But I don't think that your two viewpoints are necessarily that different. It's that they *can't* know they're wrong, because their subconscious won't let them know it. So they're wrong, and they don't realize it, because subconsciously they throw out any contrary evidence so they don't have to admit it.

tigersword

Somebody should be able to post an opposing view in here without all the personal crap. If you disagree, say so and say why, but don't attack the person just because she has a different opinion. (Again, not you, Richard. You've approached it strictly from the facts and refuted those. That's the way it should work.)

I'm mostly just reading along (although I did make a silly comment upthread) and I'm still trying to feel out the personality/culture of these forums, but I didn't see a personal attack here at all.

A poster said some reasonable stuff (if you want to drink milk, do; if not, don't), but then went on to make three less reasonable arguments. Specifically, (1) you don't have to drink milk to be healthy, which is of course true, but non-responsive in that no one had claimed differently*; (2) some stuff about BigDairy and ads, which again seems unrelated to the point being debated, which is whether dairy is unhealthy for all people or not; and (3) the hormone claim.

Some people just dismissed the comment as a whole. Yeah, that's not particularly substantive, but it's not personal--it's basically pointing out that the claim--and it's worth noting that it was a factual claim, not just an opinion (like I don't like dairy or all dairy seems to me unethical)--in question is unsupported. I actually haven't noticed anyone attacking people for expressing opinions, but only attacks on factual claims or on stuff like "it's not natural." Aren't those kinds of statements fair game?

Anyway, I'm fascinated by this discussion because of how little it's focused on the health argument against dairy, which I've yet to see particularly well defended (which doesn't mean it can't be). I guess I'm also sort of fascinated by the whole natural=good and then efforts to define natural in ways that fit one's intuitions about what's good. I get it, as I also have to catch myself from kneejerking to natural is better type positions that are irrational when considered more carefully, but so far I've just seem them asserted here and not any interest from those who assert them in an analysis of whether they really make sense.

*A possibly weird pet peeve of mine is people arguing against things that have never been claimed, as it always strikes me as an intentional misstatement of the opposing argument.

That's a valid pet peeve. It's a logical fallacy called ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion. Also known as a red herring.

Natmarie73

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

I'm interested in hearing more about this. How is the dairy industry cruel and abusive? Not trying to roll, but genuinely interested in learning more as I have not read or heard anything about dairy cruelty where I live.

I'm in Australia and there are lots of dairly farms near where I live and a big dairy industry further south. I always see fat cows with their calves grazing in lush green paddocks waiting to get milked. Is it different in your country? I only eat free range and organic chicken, eggs and pork because of the cruel farming practises used in that industry such as sow stalls, caged chickens etc etc but as far as I know this does not happen in our dairy industry?

That said, I only consume organic, raw and grassfed dairy mainly because it tastes so much better than the conventional stuff and I don't like the thought of drinking hormones and antibiotics.