Do you think milk is safe?
Options
Replies
-
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
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 -
blah0
-
ack. I can't put my funny popcorn eating gif in! FAIL.0
-
As with all people who state this tripe, correlation is not causation. A visual study is not the same as a clinical. To find a more direct correlation one must have a control group (none milk drinkers) and a group that does drink milk and track them over a number of years and all other variables stay the same. Needless to say, this is unlikely!0
-
I think milk is safe to drink. Before you know it, everything (according to scientists) will be unhealthy. It's rediculous how people want to get scared over everything. I don't think drinking a cup or two of milk a day will do any damage.0
-
Who the Hell drinks 4 cups of milk daily? Even before it ever made me I'd never do that.
I've been known to drink a quart of milk with lunch. And then have a glass when I get home and another cup in my cereal before I go to bed.0 -
breast milk is good0
-
^^^^ we need a study ^^^^
we should be more careful, water is the leading cause of drowing in humans, we need to ban water :indifferent:0 -
What does milk have to do with church? If you're concerned about the hormones put in milk just use organic or hormone free milk. There are much worse foods out there than dairy products.
people have conversations other than God/Jesus @ church. SIlly willy.
My 2 cents...many cheaper milks (i.e. in the jug) come from cows treated with hormones to increase milk production. Just sayin. I buy the organic milk and almond milk.0 -
What does milk have to do with church? If you're concerned about the hormones put in milk just use organic or hormone free milk. There are much worse foods out there than dairy products.
people have conversations other than God/Jesus @ church. SIlly willy.
My 2 cents...many cheaper milks (i.e. in the jug) come from cows treated with hormones to increase milk production. Just sayin. I buy the organic milk and almond milk.
now that make sense.. in order to save costs and make the end product cheaper they cut corners...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
Causation does not equal correlation. All that study showed is that there is a correlation between casein consumption and cancer growth. The study interviewed X amount of cancer patients about what they normally like to eat. Where are the controls to guarantee accurate data collection? What was the margin of error in that study? What was the sample size and is it enough to reflect the entire population?
A single correlative study is not nearly enough evidence to embrace the belief that milk causes cancer.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions