Another Thought About Milk

you've literally posted all the people who rail against me religiously. haha

i think we simply believe two ideologically opposite things when it comes to health and nutrition. I understand how they have much more credibility than me, but that actually doesn't inherently guarantee that they're correct - it's just more likely.

unfortunately, like I said, I don't think the scientific and medical communities at large have any incentive to do studies on these things that aren't funded by the industries that want the studies - which thus creates a conflict of interest. The government has a huge stake in the dairy, corn and meat industries doing well because they're a driving force in our economy, health be damned.

THE government? Do we have one government ruling the whole world now and nobody told me?

Why exactly do you think people get into medicine or subjects allied to medicine, academia or other medical research? Do you imagine we are all driven by money just because your US healthcare system is largely private? Plenty of us are just geeks or want to be of service, some of course want recognition and respect for their academic brilliance which they won't get by being the dairy industry's puppet. Whist we may be a tiny country compared to the US, the UK national health service is actually the largest employer in Europe. There is a fine line between a healthy level of suspicion and closed minded paranoia.

you've literally posted all the people who rail against me religiously. haha

i think we simply believe two ideologically opposite things when it comes to health and nutrition. I understand how they have much more credibility than me, but that actually doesn't inherently guarantee that they're correct - it's just more likely.

unfortunately, like I said, I don't think the scientific and medical communities at large have any incentive to do studies on these things that aren't funded by the industries that want the studies - which thus creates a conflict of interest. The government has a huge stake in the dairy, corn and meat industries doing well because they're a driving force in our economy, health be damned.

THE government? Do we have one government ruling the whole world now and nobody told me?

Why exactly do you think people get into medicine or subjects allied to medicine, academia or other medical research? Do you imagine we are all driven by money just because your US healthcare system is largely private? Plenty of us are just geeks or want to be of service, some of course want recognition and respect for their academic brilliance which they won't get by being the dairy industry's puppet. Whist we may be a tiny country compared to the US, the UK national health service is actually the largest employer in Europe. There is a fine line between a healthy level of suspicion and closed minded paranoia.

I apologize for casually referring to the US since that's where I live, I'm sure the UK is NOT as bad as the US in this regard. Wasn't referring to the UK in any way.

Okay, fair enough but let's discuss this here then. Let's drop the animosity at least for a few minutes. Can we at least agree that a diet made of up 80% "quality" foods (or "clean" if you like) and 20% not so "quality" or "clean" is still going to cover your bases and allow you to live a healthy, fit and, for many athletes, competitive life? It seems to be what you're doing and is at least what I strive for.

I usually shoot for 90/10, but yes, I agree with you completely.

Then on IIFYM, we don't seem to have an argument and I also agree with your approach.

As for milk, I think your concerns with milk are based on popular misconceptions. I've certainly had mine and can't fault you. I'm not a scientist though, but there are two participating in this thread and I think its worth listening to what they have to say.

Does that make sense?

the problem - unfortunately - is that I don't really buy into a lot of what the medical establishment has to say about food. for example, the food pyramid is a horribly misguided and outdated method of determining diet - but for some reason it's still widely accepted as fact.

although I'd love to know who the scientists are so I could value those opinions more highly!

There are some things that are outdated but to throw everything away because of that I think goes too far.

May I suggest you do what I did. That is find the scientists and listen to them. Read the peer reviewed studies carefully and then find additional people that make it their job to review and interpret studies. i've friended both Robync79 and FireFox7275 as they are scientists, so I'm going to listen more closely to what they have to say. SideSteel and Sarauk2sf run a thread on here called "Eat, Train, Progress" where they read and digest information and then try to make it easier to understand. There's also Alan Aaraon and Lyle McDonald who have become fitness and nutrition gurus through keeping up with published scientific studies and both have their own websites. There's just too much misinformation out there to cut through by yourself unless it is your career and academic specialty.

you've literally posted all the people who rail against me religiously. haha

i think we simply believe two ideologically opposite things when it comes to health and nutrition. I understand how they have much more credibility than me, but that actually doesn't inherently guarantee that they're correct - it's just more likely.

unfortunately, like I said, I don't think the scientific and medical communities at large have any incentive to do studies on these things that aren't funded by the industries that want the studies - which thus creates a conflict of interest. The government has a huge stake in the dairy, corn and meat industries doing well because they're a driving force in our economy, health be damned.

Okay, fair point on people railing against you but you've done a bit there to create that issue yourself, no?

So let's move away from that for a few moments. And no I don't think this is ideological. I do agree that industries will hire people to do studies but that doesn't mean that they are the only ones doing any studies. Its why no educated scientist will rely on just one study to prove any proposition. They instead look at numerous studies in detail. And those industries do sometimes interpret studies in a way to cover their claims but again that doesn't necessarily mean that someone else can't look at the same study and say, "wait, this doesn't prove what you say it proves". Interpretation of studies is a lot of what you will see discussed on sites like Alan Aaragon's and Lyle McDonald's. If on the other hand, we believe that "everyone is lying to us and its one big conspiracy" then we are left with no information whatsoever.

posts like this are what lead me to actually want to learn more about Aragaon, et al. It's those flaming posts condemning "broscience" that piss me off. :P

I'm going to definitely look into it. If you're interested in my side of the story - look into the following TED talks - really interesting stuff by highly regarded people:

William Li - Can We Eat to Starve Cancer?
Mark Bittman - What's Wrong with What We Eat?
Dean Ornish - Any of his multiple TED talks
Terri Wahls - Don't remember the name but has to do with eating to improve her MS

I agree more reasoned debate is necessary. To be honest though I think a lot of the "broscience" flaming comes from the fact that a lot of us believed it for long enough to really upset us. And for the ones that really do know what they're talking about its upsetting to see so much misinformation in play.

I'll take a look at the threads. On the cancer based nutrition study though I have some experience. My wife survived breast cancer last year and the first person I called after she was diagnosed was my aunt. She's done extensive research on cancer and nutrition and its very mixed. The pop culture types jump all over the positive studies and ignore the negative ones. In the end, and after discussions with my aunt, it was surgery and chemotherapy. My wife also took the additional advice of eating lots of vegetables and exercising and we continue to do it but we all know that didn't make the cancer go away. Its just not as easy as saying "its all nutrition".

And by the way, glad this turned around into a good discussion. Cheers!

In the hundred years since 1900, the human population in the US has doubled, while meat consumption has quintupled (five times). Increases in diseases like heart attack, cancer, etc have risen at the same rate.

Causation or correlation?

It's milk, meat and corn causing that?

Or more likely, the increase in sedentary jobs and the easily accessible fast food.

^ this is where i'd put my money.

also i don't know if i believe the statistic that we consume 5x the amount of meat now per capita than we did 100 years ago (i am skeptical of that claim unless it comes from some legitimate non-partisan source).

finally, we have to understand that our advances in medicine and life expectancy likely have a large impact on the incidence of cancer and other diseases that typically manifest later in life. in 1900, the average life expectancy in the USA was 46 for men and 48 for women. by 1998, that had increased to 74 for men and nearly 80 for women.

absolutely plays a role, but studies have shown (look at the TED talks I listed) that when you take someone with heart disease who is in line for surgery, and has eaten a meat-heavy diet, and treat them with a plant based diet, it can not only slow and stop, but REVERSE the damage and the blockage in their arteries.

yes we're living longer, which causes more disease, but those diseases are often times preventable when certain nutrition is applied.

Are their diet's just meat heavy or are they eating a poor diet over all? Protein is very important in a good diet and the main source of that is meat. Do they start by being over weight and lose weight eating mostly plants? Do they exercise at all?

I can't believe that it's just eating lots of meat that cause the heart disease, but a poor lifestyle over all.

In the hundred years since 1900, the human population in the US has doubled, while meat consumption has quintupled (five times). Increases in diseases like heart attack, cancer, etc have risen at the same rate.

Causation or correlation?

It's milk, meat and corn causing that?

Or more likely, the increase in sedentary jobs and the easily accessible fast food.

^ this is where i'd put my money.

also i don't know if i believe the statistic that we consume 5x the amount of meat now per capita than we did 100 years ago (i am skeptical of that claim unless it comes from some legitimate non-partisan source).

finally, we have to understand that our advances in medicine and life expectancy likely have a large impact on the incidence of cancer and other diseases that typically manifest later in life. in 1900, the average life expectancy in the USA was 46 for men and 48 for women. by 1998, that had increased to 74 for men and nearly 80 for women.

absolutely plays a role, but studies have shown (look at the TED talks I listed) that when you take someone with heart disease who is in line for surgery, and has eaten a meat-heavy diet, and treat them with a plant based diet, it can not only slow and stop, but REVERSE the damage and the blockage in their arteries.

yes we're living longer, which causes more disease, but those diseases are often times preventable when certain nutrition is applied.

Are their diet's just meat heavy or are they eating a poor diet over all? Protein is very important in a good diet and the main source of that is meat. Do they start by being over weight and lose weight eating mostly plants? Do they exercise at all?

I can't believe that it's just eating lots of meat that cause the heart disease, but a poor lifestyle over all.

there are actually plenty of protein sources besides meat and soy even. I'm in the process of vegan-izing my diet and I'm going to do as little soy as possible as well.

and absolutely lifestyle plays a part in getting to that point of discussing surgery - but when nothing else is changed, and just diet is modified, the results are incredibly impressive, and surgery can - at the minimum - be delayed, and in some cases it became unnecessary entirely.

all i've ever said is that this kind of thing is worth doing the research about and WORTH learning about, and it shouldn't just be dismissed as broscience because it's anything BUT.

Paleo, vegan or any diet that involves removing foods is really contributing to food neuroticism and that avoidance behavior can become acute and dysfunctional. One of the big problems is they can't help themselves but to look at biased literature or tag themselfs with like minded organizations or people, it's not a good place to be. in my opinion of course.

Paleo, vegan or any diet that involves removing foods is really contributing to food neuroticism and that avoidance behavior can be quite acute and people can become quite dysfunctional. One of the big problems is they can't help themselves but to look at biased literature or tag themselfs with like minded organizations or people, it's not a good place to be. in my opinion of course.

maybe in some people, but i'm actually having fun trying this vegan thing. everyone handles things differently i guess. I've never had a bad relationship with food though, so I do understand how that can happen in folks who have overcome a lot. makes sense

The average life expectancy in a white male (guessing obviously) is 80 years, so... I'd say it likely had nothing to do with drinking milk.

Interesting. He also ate eggs, drank diet soda, enjoyed beer and smoked and people crucify these things because they're "bad for you." Yet, our life expectancy is the highest ever.

Life expectancy is rising because we as humans are no longer toiling sun up to sun down, doing hard labor (in general). Taking it easier reduces the strain on our bodies, therefore adding to the natural life expectancy.

The average life expectancy in a white male (guessing obviously) is 80 years, so... I'd say it likely had nothing to do with drinking milk.

Interesting. He also ate eggs, drank diet soda, enjoyed beer and smoked and people crucify these things because they're "bad for you." Yet, our life expectancy is the highest ever.

Life expectancy is rising because we as humans are no longer toiling sun up to sun down, doing hard labor (in general). Taking it easier reduces the strain on our bodies, therefore adding to the natural life expectancy.

disagree entirely. I'm going to preface this with: this is not meant to be a racist statement - but Hispanics actually have the highest life expectancy in the United States. They also (on the whole - again - not being stereotypical, just a fact) tend to work more hours in more manual labor-type jobs on average than other demographics.

I'd argue that toiling sun up to sun down actually helps you live longer. More exercise, more calorie burn, etc.

you've literally posted all the people who rail against me religiously. haha

i think we simply believe two ideologically opposite things when it comes to health and nutrition. I understand how they have much more credibility than me, but that actually doesn't inherently guarantee that they're correct - it's just more likely.

unfortunately, like I said, I don't think the scientific and medical communities at large have any incentive to do studies on these things that aren't funded by the industries that want the studies - which thus creates a conflict of interest. The government has a huge stake in the dairy, corn and meat industries doing well because they're a driving force in our economy, health be damned.

CoachReddy, I have nothing against you personally and I certainly don't seek to rail against anyone here. However, if you (or anyone else) posts misleading or false information about biology or physiology that I know to be incorrect I will make an effort to refute it, for the benefit of other posters who may not be trained (as scientists are) to make immediate sense of studies and their write-ups.

As for our incentives - science is funded in many ways and in some cases, companies and lobbies do sponsor their own research. However, most scientists are funded by impartial (and extremely competitive) research grants from government agencies of science and health. And studies that are sponsored by lobbies, pharmaceutical companies or otherwise are EXTREMELY closely scrutinised for bias. It's not a perfect system, but there is no conspiracy in scientific research.

There are a number of scientists like me on these boards (several of us are named by sunsnstatheart), and we are generally quite reasonable in the way we present our opinions. People who are not so circumspect (as you tend not to be, as I have noted above), are often the focus of our efforts to clarify what is being said.

But it's not personal. I have no time for vendettas.