Another Thought About Milk
Replies
-
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
depends on your definition of "everywhere".
Scientology is pretty widely accepted inside the halls of the Scientology headquarters.
outside of there, not so much.0 -
This is FASCINATING!It's not normal. Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans. Sweden has one of the world's highest percentages of lactase tolerant people.
Evolution at work.
So no, we're not "meant" to drink milk, but we white folk have adapted over thousands of years to be able to digest it. So we're all right. Haha
all you white folk arguing that you don't know anyone who's lactose intolerant - just look at the information. it's not surprising.
10% of europeans are lactose intolerant.
but overall, 60% of all people are lactose intolerant.
and as for newspaper articles - where do you think they get their information? the studies they cite... which were performed by scientists.
y'all don't need to agree with me - that's fine - but to say that I don't use studies is patently false.
Pro-tip: Look at the actual studies themselves.0 -
0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
You do realize that a down regulation of lactase production =/= lactose intolerance don't you? Obviously not from your comment.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
You do realize that a down regulation of lactase production =/= lactose intolerance don't you? Obviously not from your comment.
full blown intolerance? maybe not - lactose sensitive? absolutely0 -
I almost just died from laughing.no joke.XD
However...I should add that I don't drink milk,it makes me feel sick and I hate the taste.So it's not for everybody,I would just see how it personallly affects you.One size doesn't fit all.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
You do realize that a down regulation of lactase production =/= lactose intolerance don't you? Obviously not from your comment.
full blown intolerance? maybe not - lactose sensitive? absolutely
Which is very different to what you have been saying0 -
Our INSIDES have trouble breaking down dairy. Its a common fact. Jesus people.. its called education.
I drink it and eat dairy! I just know we were not meant to...just like we our guts have a hard time with processed food and refined this and refined that. You can eat kale, certain seeds, other leafy greens vegetables...tons of things the body breaks down with ease.
Wow, only on page five of this fun zone topic and this had to be the most ridiculous post yet. All of the foods mentioned as being easier to digest than milk... flat wrong (assuming that body produces lactase). The ignorance, selective reasoning and flawed logic rampant within this thread is hilarious and sad.
Drink it or don't but please stop with this pseudo science, type whatever drivel comes to your finger tips in order to state your flawed case. Or don't stop because then the world would be slightly less amusing.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
They may be widely accepted in your friends group but they're not widely accepted in the scientific community. You can argue until you're blue in the face against logic and science but you have to understand that it sounds naive at best. And frankly, that is being very generous.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
They may be widely accepted in your friends group but they're not widely accepted in the scientific community. You can argue until you're blue in the face against logic and science but you have to understand that it sounds naive at best. And frankly, that is being very generous.
haha it's wiki-friggin-pedia. that's crowd-sourcing. IE: information comes from a multitude of sources, and ALL of those sources are not only listed, but come from the scientific community!
obviously wikipedia isn't perfect, but you can see the sources. you just have to do a little legwork. you expect it of me, i expect it of you.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
You do realize that a down regulation of lactase production =/= lactose intolerance don't you? Obviously not from your comment.
full blown intolerance? maybe not - lactose sensitive? absolutely
Which is very different to what you have been saying
given that you're a scientist - how does our body break down lactose if (hypothetically) i'm a person who doesn't have the lactase enzyme?0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
They may be widely accepted in your friends group but they're not widely accepted in the scientific community. You can argue until you're blue in the face against logic and science but you have to understand that it sounds naive at best. And frankly, that is being very generous.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
They may be widely accepted in your friends group but they're not widely accepted in the scientific community. You can argue until you're blue in the face against logic and science but you have to understand that it sounds naive at best. And frankly, that is being very generous.
haha it's wiki-friggin-pedia. that's crowd-sourcing. IE: information comes from a multitude of sources, and ALL of those sources are not only listed, but come from the scientific community!
obviously wikipedia isn't perfect, but you can see the sources. you just have to do a little legwork. you expect it of me, i expect it of you.
O.M.G. You consider wikipedia a reliable source for what is scientifically accepted BECAUSE it's open source information? LOLz. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
You do realize that a down regulation of lactase production =/= lactose intolerance don't you? Obviously not from your comment.
full blown intolerance? maybe not - lactose sensitive? absolutely
Which is very different to what you have been saying
given that you're a scientist - how does our body break down lactose if (hypothetically) i'm a person who doesn't have the lactase enzyme?
lolz - good retort /sarcasm. You do not have to be a scientist, you just need some critical thinking and to do your homework.
If you do not produce enough lactase then you will be lactose intolerant...pretty basic so I am not sure why you need me to explain it, especially as you have been arguing throughout this thread about this enzyme which apparently you know nothing about, otherwise why would you have to ask.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
You do realize that a down regulation of lactase production =/= lactose intolerance don't you? Obviously not from your comment.
full blown intolerance? maybe not - lactose sensitive? absolutely
Which is very different to what you have been saying
given that you're a scientist - how does our body break down lactose if (hypothetically) i'm a person who doesn't have the lactase enzyme?
lolz - good retort /sarcasm. You do not have to be a scientist, you just need some critical thinking and to do your homework.
If you do not produce enough lactase then you will be lactose intolerant...pretty basic so I am not sure why you need me to explain it, especially as you have been arguing throughout this thread about this enzyme which apparently you know nothing about, otherwise why would you have to ask.
Momma always says, " stupid is as stupid does." - Forrest Gump0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
They may be widely accepted in your friends group but they're not widely accepted in the scientific community. You can argue until you're blue in the face against logic and science but you have to understand that it sounds naive at best. And frankly, that is being very generous.
haha it's wiki-friggin-pedia. that's crowd-sourcing. IE: information comes from a multitude of sources, and ALL of those sources are not only listed, but come from the scientific community!
obviously wikipedia isn't perfect, but you can see the sources. you just have to do a little legwork. you expect it of me, i expect it of you.
Honestly, I've stopped expecting anything of you. You change your mind mid thread, write incomprehensible responses and posts, cite Wikipedia and USA Today articles as studies, PM me about being polite and then are rude on threads, and just do not understand why people treat you the way they do. You also claim not to be selling Shakeology but you use "coach" in your user name and refuse to address that question. Congratulations, you have now lost the last vestiges of respect from someone who, while disagreeing with you, was willing to engage with you.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
They may be widely accepted in your friends group but they're not widely accepted in the scientific community. You can argue until you're blue in the face against logic and science but you have to understand that it sounds naive at best. And frankly, that is being very generous.
haha it's wiki-friggin-pedia. that's crowd-sourcing. IE: information comes from a multitude of sources, and ALL of those sources are not only listed, but come from the scientific community!
obviously wikipedia isn't perfect, but you can see the sources. you just have to do a little legwork. you expect it of me, i expect it of you.
O.M.G. You consider wikipedia a reliable source for what is scientifically accepted BECAUSE it's open source information? LOLz. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Wow. My son's school won't accept Wikipedia as a source for ANY academic project.0 -
You'll pry my delicious delicious raw milk from my cold dead branches. I do hear trees aren't supposed to drink milk past sapling stage, but it hasn't affected me so far. Fun note: raw milk contains enzymes that allow many lactose-sensitive folk to drink it without discomfort.
In before I'm getting tb- I get my milk from a trusted source blah blah blah.
I do find it a little ironic that I often times see milk-isn't-natural-folks' food diaries full of animal products where the animal hasn't eaten what is "natural" for them eg: vegetarian fed hens, factory chicken, etc.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
You do realize that a down regulation of lactase production =/= lactose intolerance don't you? Obviously not from your comment.
full blown intolerance? maybe not - lactose sensitive? absolutely
Which is very different to what you have been saying
given that you're a scientist - how does our body break down lactose if (hypothetically) i'm a person who doesn't have the lactase enzyme?
lolz - good retort /sarcasm. You do not have to be a scientist, you just need some critical thinking and to do your homework.
If you do not produce enough lactase then you will be lactose intolerant...pretty basic so I am not sure why you need me to explain it, especially as you have been arguing throughout this thread about this enzyme which apparently you know nothing about, otherwise why would you have to ask.
Dear lord, this thread is still going??
Lactose metabolism primer (from a real, live scientist!)
1. Lactose is broken into usable sugars (glucose and galactose) by the enzyme lactase, which is expressed in the lining of the intestine.
2. Lactase is expressed highly in infants, and then its expression declines to ~10% of infant levels in humans that are NOT lactase persistent. Therefore, humans who are 'lactose intolerant' still express low levels of lactase, and can derive some energy from lactose. Undigested sugars produce gas, discomfort and other digestive issues.
3. A subset of humans have persistent expression of high levels of lactase. They are lactose tolerant beyond infancy. This genetic mutation is common in Europeans, is under positive selection and is autosomal dominant. It is therefore increasing in frequency.
So - to sum up: even people who are 'lactose intolerant' still have some lactase, and digest some lactose. They also digest all the non-sugar components of milk just fine.0 -
i said the medical and scientific communities at large don't have the incentive to do it, that doesn't mean some individual people don't do it anyway
edit: and all of us cherry-pick our research on these boards. we HAVE to pick articles and studies that support our views don't we?
We only HAVE to cherry pick articles and studies if we have a pre formed opinion. What you are describing is bias. It's insidious. It means you can't be swayed. It means you are set in your ways. It means that your personal opinion is king. You are the opposite of what the scientific method strives to create: a better understanding of our world.0 -
http://rense.com/general63/milkmyth.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/new-study-increased-milk-intake-does-not-protect-against-osteoporosis-but-does-promote-ovarian-and-p.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intoleranceMost mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[5] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[6] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[7] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India, and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[8]
the things I'm suggesting are pretty widely accepted everywhere but this board.
You do realize that a down regulation of lactase production =/= lactose intolerance don't you? Obviously not from your comment.
full blown intolerance? maybe not - lactose sensitive? absolutely
Which is very different to what you have been saying
given that you're a scientist - how does our body break down lactose if (hypothetically) i'm a person who doesn't have the lactase enzyme?
lolz - good retort /sarcasm. You do not have to be a scientist, you just need some critical thinking and to do your homework.
If you do not produce enough lactase then you will be lactose intolerant...pretty basic so I am not sure why you need me to explain it, especially as you have been arguing throughout this thread about this enzyme which apparently you know nothing about, otherwise why would you have to ask.
Dear lord, this thread is still going??
Lactose metabolism primer (from a real, live scientist!)
1. Lactose is broken into usable sugars (glucose and galactose) by the enzyme lactase, which is expressed in the lining of the intestine.
2. Lactase is expressed highly in infants, and then its expression declines to ~10% of infant levels in humans that are NOT lactase persistent. Therefore, humans who are 'lactose intolerant' still express low levels of lactase, and can derive some energy from lactose. Undigested sugars produce gas, discomfort and other digestive issues.
3. A subset of humans have persistent expression of high levels of lactase. They are lactose tolerant beyond infancy. This genetic mutation is common in Europeans, is under positive selection and is autosomal dominant. It is therefore increasing in frequency.
So - to sum up: even people who are 'lactose intolerant' still have some lactase, and digest some lactose. They also digest all the non-sugar components of milk just fine.
Thank you for the very clear explanation :flowerforyou:0 -
i said the medical and scientific communities at large don't have the incentive to do it, that doesn't mean some individual people don't do it anyway
edit: and all of us cherry-pick our research on these boards. we HAVE to pick articles and studies that support our views don't we?
We only HAVE to cherry pick articles and studies if we have a pre formed opinion. What you are describing is bias. It's insidious. It means you can't be swayed. It means you are set in your ways. It means that your personal opinion is king. You are the opposite of what the scientific method strives to create: a better understanding of our world.
^This0 -
Honestly, I've stopped expecting anything of you. You change your mind mid thread, write incomprehensible responses and posts, cite Wikipedia and USA Today articles as studies, PM me about being polite and then are rude on threads, and just do not understand why people treat you the way they do. You also claim not to be selling Shakeology but you use "coach" in your user name and refuse to address that question. Congratulations, you have now lost the last vestiges of respect from someone who, while disagreeing with you, was willing to engage with you.
You have now gotten to where many of the have rest of us have gotten to with this guy. He loves to post and argue but has very little of a reasonably intelligent nature to offer. The scary thing is he so willing to argue but he is clueless as to volume of things about which he is clueless. Ever hear the old saying 'empty barrels make the most noise"?
PS: Some of have gotten the same stupid PMs.0 -
He loves to post and argue but has very little of a reasonably intelligent nature to offer. The scary thing is he so willing to argue but he is clueless as to volume of things about which he is clueless. Ever hear the old saying 'empty barrels make the most noise"?
Pretty much sums it up, I think.
/thread!0 -
Let's not hate on the non-milk drinkers. I like the no dairy fad because it makes it easier to find dairy-free foods. I'm allergic to casein (milk protein).
0 -
Ever hear the old saying 'empty barrels make the most noise"?
haha love it.0 -
all you white folk arguing that you don't know anyone who's lactose intolerant - just look at the information. it's not surprising.
10% of europeans are lactose intolerant.
but overall, 60% of all people are lactose intolerant.
and as for newspaper articles - where do you think they get their information? the studies they cite... which were performed by scientists.
y'all don't need to agree with me - that's fine - but to say that I don't use studies is patently false.
Last time I looked the US, UK and other European countries healthy eating guidelines applied to the population of those countries, our dieticians aren't trying to tell the Chinese or Africans how to eat! The clue is in the name too GUIDELINES, there are standard adaptations for people who have allergies, intolerances or moral objections.
Newspaper journalists are well known for deliberately or erroneously twisting the results of a study or taking the results totally out of context. Where possible I check the research for myself. You want to debate science use PubMed and Google Scholar not Wikipedia and tabloid journalism. You'd score an automatic fail at degree level if you used those as references.0 -
"HI!"
"OH HI! Good to see ya!"
"So what did you do this weekend?"
"I argued over MILK! It was SOOOO EPIC!"
:grumble:0 -
"HI!"
"OH HI! Good to see ya!"
"So what did you do this weekend?"
"I argued over MILK! It was SOOOO EPIC!"
:grumble:
Fun isn't it :laugh:0 -
"HI!"
"OH HI! Good to see ya!"
"So what did you do this weekend?"
"I argued over MILK! It was SOOOO EPIC!"
:grumble:
Fun isn't it :laugh:
It;s the MFP version of jerry springer! :happy:0
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