Do you think milk is safe?
Replies
-
And for the source of the 30% figure: David Krogh's Biology: A Guide to the Natural World 5th Ed. page 294 states that virtually no adults in China and most adults in Africa cannot digest lactose. Most adults of Northern European descent can, though. And Sizer & Whitney's Nutrition Concepts and Controversies 12th ed estimates, on page 123, that upward of 75 percent of the world's people lose their ability to digest lactose as they age. (In the US, that number is only around 12%).
Sorry it took me so long....I was at work and my books were on my desk at home.
That's interesting. I'm going to surmise that the reason for this is because not many can afford cattle in Africa and because Hinduism is or was a primary religion of most Asian countries (cows were worshipped rather than used for food). Europeans, on the other hand, have been consuming milk since agriculture was developed. Perhaps it is simply a matter of acquiring a tolerance. Either way, that doesn't mean that milk is harmful.
As I stated earlier in this thread, if you can drink it AND want to drink it, then you should.0 -
The book The China Study by T. Collin Campbell is a good reference.0
-
I really need people who want to use studies to support their claims to take a college level statistics course
Yes, and I really need people who comment on my posts to take a 1st grade level reading course :bigsmile:
I did put in parentheses that I wasn't identifying you with that statement, but if you feel the need to attack me, then perhaps you should work a little harder at making your statements clear and concise rather than overburdening them with citations from others.0 -
Fck him. He should have been higher on the food chain. We'll eat him later.Don't consume any dairy. Unless you are a baby cow.
Every time you are drinking milk, the baby cow that it was meant for isn't drinking it.
Yummmm cheeseburger
0 -
Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.0
-
Agreed. All should read this book.The book The China Study by T. Collin Campbell is a good reference.0 -
I love milk. I won't ever stop drinking it!0
-
It's poison!
Delicious delicious poison, and I drink it all the time.0 -
Stop scaring yourself. if it is a part of a health BALANCED diet, high in whole grains, fruit and veggies, not an issue. If you load up on cheese and dairy at the expense of everything else maybe.0
-
The book The China Study by T. Collin Campbell is a good reference.
No, it's really not. Campbell positively waterboarded those statistics.
My favorite criticism:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
example quotes:Why does Campbell indict animal foods in cardiovascular disease (correlation of +1 for animal protein and -11 for fish protein), yet fail to mention that wheat flour has a correlation of +67 with heart attacks and coronary heart disease, and plant protein correlates at +25 with these conditions?
People need to be VERY careful when attempting to infer causation from correlation. Campbell was not careful.0 -
And for the source of the 30% figure: David Krogh's Biology: A Guide to the Natural World 5th Ed. page 294 states that virtually no adults in China and most adults in Africa cannot digest lactose. Most adults of Northern European descent can, though. And Sizer & Whitney's Nutrition Concepts and Controversies 12th ed estimates, on page 123, that upward of 75 percent of the world's people lose their ability to digest lactose as they age. (In the US, that number is only around 12%).
Sorry it took me so long....I was at work and my books were on my desk at home.
That's interesting. I'm going to surmise that the reason for this is because not many can afford cattle in Africa and because Hinduism is or was a primary religion of most Asian countries (cows were worshipped rather than used for food). Europeans, on the other hand, have been consuming milk since agriculture was developed. Perhaps it is simply a matter of acquiring a tolerance. Either way, that doesn't mean that milk is harmful.
Here's one theory I really like- Europeans acquired a mutation that kept the lactase gene permanently switched on. The mutation stayed in the gene pool is because it was ADVANTAGEOUS among cultures that raised domestic animals.
Here's a good article for those interested from the UC Museum of Palentology: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose0 -
Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.
I do. In fact I had 6 1/2 cups today. Deeelish. Helps me towards my protein goal quite well.0 -
Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.
I do. In fact I had 6 1/2 cups today. Deeelish. Helps me towards my protein goal quite well.
I only had 3.5 today.
But, mine are all whole milk so I think I get bonus milk points. 0 -
Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.
I do. In fact I had 6 1/2 cups today. Deeelish. Helps me towards my protein goal quite well.
I only had 3.5 today. But, mine are all whole milk so I think I get bonus milk points.
I will see your 3.5 cups of whole milk and up you a serving of B&J and 6oz of greek yoghurt!0 -
Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.
I do. In fact I had 6 1/2 cups today. Deeelish. Helps me towards my protein goal quite well.
I only had 3.5 today. But, mine are all whole milk so I think I get bonus milk points.
I will see your 3.5 cups of whole milk and up you a serving of B&J and 6oz of greek yoghurt!
5 egg breakfast. Boom.
Eta: its come to my attention that eggs are irrelevant because they're not dairy. I concede. My eggs are still an honorable mention though. So I got a ribbon anyway.0 -
Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.
I do. In fact I had 6 1/2 cups today. Deeelish. Helps me towards my protein goal quite well.
I only had 3.5 today. But, mine are all whole milk so I think I get bonus milk points.
I will see your 3.5 cups of whole milk and up you a serving of B&J and 6oz of greek yoghurt!
5 egg breakfast. Boom.
Eta: its come to my attention that eggs are irrelevant because they're not dairy. I concede. My eggs are still an honorable mention though. So I got a ribbon anyway.
0 -
At the end of the day, the OP states (or worries about) a claim about the cancer-causing properties of milk.
Some people may be lactose-intolerant - that's tough for them.... however, ultimately irrelevant to whether milk is carcinogenic, or not.
Unless someone can show the latest research that PROVES milk causes cancer (and surely I would have seen something like that in the paper) then all you're talking about is idle supposition and your "feelings" about milk. Sorry, but these things don't cut it......
I also note that the OP is long gone.... probably been scared off by now!0 -
T. Colin Campbell did a study where he proved that a diet consisting of 20% casein promoted cancer growth, whereas a diet of 5% casein did not. It didn't show that milk CAUSED cancer, but that a diet high in milk protein was conducive to cancer growth.At the end of the day, the OP states (or worries about) a claim about the cancer-causing properties of milk.
Some people may be lactose-intolerant - that's tough for them.... however, ultimately irrelevant to whether milk is carcinogenic, or not.
Unless someone can show the latest research that PROVES milk causes cancer (and surely I would have seen something like that in the paper) then all you're talking about is idle supposition and your "feelings" about milk. Sorry, but these things don't cut it......
I also note that the OP is long gone.... probably been scared off by now!
If you consider yourself a compassionate person, if you have cats or dogs that you love, or if you are a mother, watch this video. For dairy specific information, jump straight to 1:00:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4 0 -
I do not buy organic EXCEPT MILK. for this very reason. Especially for my kids.0
-
T. Colin Campbell did a study where he proved that a diet consisting of 20% casein promoted cancer growth, whereas a diet of 5% casein did not. It didn't show that milk CAUSED cancer, but that a diet high in milk protein was conducive to cancer growth.At the end of the day, the OP states (or worries about) a claim about the cancer-causing properties of milk.
Some people may be lactose-intolerant - that's tough for them.... however, ultimately irrelevant to whether milk is carcinogenic, or not.
Unless someone can show the latest research that PROVES milk causes cancer (and surely I would have seen something like that in the paper) then all you're talking about is idle supposition and your "feelings" about milk. Sorry, but these things don't cut it......
I also note that the OP is long gone.... probably been scared off by now!
If you consider yourself a compassionate person, if you have cats or dogs that you love, or if you are a mother, watch this video. For dairy specific information, jump straight to 1:00:45http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4
The higher casein diet also protected against the acutely toxic effects of aflatoxin, which at the unrealistically high AFB1 concentrations given to the rats in the study, would prolong life.
It's just not that simple.
Also iirc, subsequent studies showed any complete protein promoted cancer given similar conditions, which proves adequate protein nutrition (plant or animal irrelevant in a mixed diet) promotes cell growth (a no-**** Sherlock conclusion) as aflatoxin is generally considered to be a complete carcinogen requiring little to promote cancer.
Aflatoxin exposure from corn and peanuts and arsenic in drinking water likely represent the two most important low dose exposures resulting in unexpected( scientifcally vs. background incidence) cancer in the world btw...0 -
T. Colin Campbell did a study where he proved that a diet consisting of 20% casein promoted cancer growth, whereas a diet of 5% casein did not. It didn't show that milk CAUSED cancer, but that a diet high in milk protein was conducive to cancer growth.At the end of the day, the OP states (or worries about) a claim about the cancer-causing properties of milk.
Some people may be lactose-intolerant - that's tough for them.... however, ultimately irrelevant to whether milk is carcinogenic, or not.
Unless someone can show the latest research that PROVES milk causes cancer (and surely I would have seen something like that in the paper) then all you're talking about is idle supposition and your "feelings" about milk. Sorry, but these things don't cut it......
I also note that the OP is long gone.... probably been scared off by now!
If you consider yourself a compassionate person, if you have cats or dogs that you love, or if you are a mother, watch this video. For dairy specific information, jump straight to 1:00:45http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4
Didn't Campbell give rats who had already been exposed to a cancer-causing agent, high doses of casein? He then examined the rats livers and found those exposed to higher levels of casein had more pre-cancerous lesions.
Now, call me a sceptic.But rat studies are not human studies. Exposing rats to an active carcinogen and then dosing them with high levels of casein is not the same as giving humans whole milk (which contains whey protein, for example, which is said to reduce the instance of pre-cancerous lesions).
A specific component of milk was isolated, amped up, given to cancerous rats and then this SPECIFIC situation was taken out of context and applied globally. The studies have not been replicated in humans exposed to that specific carcinogenic compound, and equivalent doses of casein. And anyway, you'd have to expose various groups to a) the carcinogen alone b) casein alone c) carcinogen + all milk proteins/components d) milk proteins/components alone e) etc to be sure that there are no statistical anomalies and variations (including age/gender/lifestyle/or diet factors/activity levels/etc)...... this detailed, far-reaching work has not been done to my knowledge..... citing a controversial and limited study in rats done without much follow up and used to promote the book and speaking career of a single academic is not enough, I'm afraid......
This is the problem with discussions like this on the internet. People pull a single study out of their *kitten* and try to use it to knock everyone else down. Science is a community effort, that consists of peer review and replication or results. A single study can never be enough. A slowly mounting store of studies with a slowly emerging consensus leads to confidence in a claim being made. And this claim too, is ultimately revisable with more work and greater understanding. This is what makes it science and not a religion.0 -
I try not to drink a lot of milk, even if it is organic, because of the sugar content. It's not always added sugar, it can be naturally occurring sugar as well. Going overboard with milk may hinder my weight loss goals, regardless of the protein it provides.
Here's a source in case anyone is going to get fussy:
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/sugar-shockers-foods-surprisingly-high-in-sugar0 -
T. Colin Campbell did a study where he proved that a diet consisting of 20% casein promoted cancer growth, whereas a diet of 5% casein did not. It didn't show that milk CAUSED cancer, but that a diet high in milk protein was conducive to cancer growth.At the end of the day, the OP states (or worries about) a claim about the cancer-causing properties of milk.
Some people may be lactose-intolerant - that's tough for them.... however, ultimately irrelevant to whether milk is carcinogenic, or not.
Unless someone can show the latest research that PROVES milk causes cancer (and surely I would have seen something like that in the paper) then all you're talking about is idle supposition and your "feelings" about milk. Sorry, but these things don't cut it......
I also note that the OP is long gone.... probably been scared off by now!
If you consider yourself a compassionate person, if you have cats or dogs that you love, or if you are a mother, watch this video. For dairy specific information, jump straight to 1:00:45http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4
Didn't Campbell give rats who had already been exposed to a cancer-causing agent, high doses of casein? He then examined the rats livers and found those exposed to higher levels of casein had more pre-cancerous lesions.
Now, call me a sceptic.But rat studies are not human studies. Exposing rats to an active carcinogen and then dosing them with high levels of casein is not the same as giving humans whole milk (which contains whey protein, for example, which is said to reduce the instance of pre-cancerous lesions).
A specific component of milk was isolated, amped up, given to cancerous rats and then this SPECIFIC situation was taken out of context and applied globally. The studies have not been replicated in humans exposed to that specific carcinogenic compound, and equivalent doses of casein. And anyway, you'd have to expose various groups to a) the carcinogen alone b) casein alone c) carcinogen + all milk proteins/components d) milk proteins/components alone e) etc to be sure that there are no statistical anomalies and variations (including age/gender/lifestyle/or diet factors/activity levels/etc)...... this detailed, far-reaching work has not been done to my knowledge..... citing a controversial and limited study in rats done without much follow up and used to promote the book and speaking career of a single academic is not enough, I'm afraid......
This is the problem with discussions like this on the internet. People pull a single study out of their *kitten* and try to use it to knock everyone else down. Science is a community effort, that consists of peer review and replication or results. A single study can never be enough. A slowly mounting store of studies with a slowly emerging consensus leads to confidence in a claim being made. And this claim too, is ultimately revisable with more work and greater understanding. This is what makes it science and not a religion.
Isn't it just easier to admit your stance irrelevant of any study? Obviously studies wont change your mind, one or one hundred youre going to think what you think.
****STAFF NOTE: Post has been edited due to violations of guideline #17****
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines0 -
The problem is people, like you, whine and ***** all day "oh someone list proof, a study" then when they do they do the whole "oh that's one study its probably flawed blah blah blah". Isn't it just easier to admit your stance irrelevant of any study? Obviously studies wont change your mind, one or one hundred youre going to think what you think.
This.0 -
Didn't Campbell give rats who had already been exposed to a cancer-causing agent, high doses of casein? He then examined the rats livers and found those exposed to higher levels of casein had more pre-cancerous lesions.
Now, call me a sceptic.But rat studies are not human studies. Exposing rats to an active carcinogen and then dosing them with high levels of casein is not the same as giving humans whole milk (which contains whey protein, for example, which is said to reduce the instance of pre-cancerous lesions).
A specific component of milk was isolated, amped up, given to cancerous rats and then this SPECIFIC situation was taken out of context and applied globally. The studies have not been replicated in humans exposed to that specific carcinogenic compound, and equivalent doses of casein. And anyway, you'd have to expose various groups to a) the carcinogen alone b) casein alone c) carcinogen + all milk proteins/components d) milk proteins/components alone e) etc to be sure that there are no statistical anomalies and variations (including age/gender/lifestyle/or diet factors/activity levels/etc)...... this detailed, far-reaching work has not been done to my knowledge..... citing a controversial and limited study in rats done without much follow up and used to promote the book and speaking career of a single academic is not enough, I'm afraid......
This is the problem with discussions like this on the internet. People pull a single study out of their *kitten* and try to use it to knock everyone else down. Science is a community effort, that consists of peer review and replication or results. A single study can never be enough. A slowly mounting store of studies with a slowly emerging consensus leads to confidence in a claim being made. And this claim too, is ultimately revisable with more work and greater understanding. This is what makes it science and not a religion.
Here, here!
1. Correlation does NOT equal causation
2. The problem with studies using things other than humans is that all metabolic processes are not equal, even if we're all mammals.
3. Too many studies are of limited sample size, scope and far too short of a duration to provide meaningful data.
4. There are 'researchers' like Campbell who start with the end in mind and will torture the data to reach their pet conclusions, so any relationship between what they're doing and proper science is purely coincidental.0 -
The problem is people, like you, whine and ***** all day "oh someone list proof, a study" then when they do they do the whole "oh that's one study its probably flawed blah blah blah". Isn't it just easier to admit your stance irrelevant of any study? Obviously studies wont change your mind, one or one hundred youre going to think what you think.
My point is you can't have A study or A proof. To think such a thing is to mis-understand science. Don't worry, here on the internet, you're in great company! My stance is open to re-interpretation in light of a significant body of work from a community of scientists that is tested and re-tested to destruction. Until that happens, it's just not science. If you think it is, then we have nothing more to learn from each other.....
PS. rather than pull another rubbish study from my *kitten*, I actually showed how you would design and carry out the experiment properly. Get back to me when someone does it......
PPS then get back to me again when it's been independently tested and verified over and over......
PPPS Although how you'd get giving carcinogenic compounds to humans past the ethics board of your grant committee might be a problem.....0 -
IDK what the phuck a cup equates to in ml's, but I usually have about 800ml a day.Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.0 -
.0
-
IDK what the phuck a cup equates to in ml's, but I usually have about 800ml a day.Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.
1 cup = 250 ml0 -
didn't you know-- everything causes cancer
stop listening and live your life0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions