Humans are not designed to drink cows milk

18911131425

Replies

  • dolfn1972
    dolfn1972 Posts: 84 Member
    I not totally sure what humans ARE and are not designed to do. Last time I checked (about 6 months ago when my grandson was born) humans ...or any other being did NOT come with an instruction manual. And just because the experts and so called experts tell us what we should and shouldnt do ...and are and are not designed to do...does not make them right.

    I like cow milk....I like meat ...and therefore I will continue to eat and drink those things we are NOT designed to eat and drink
  • lemur_lady
    lemur_lady Posts: 350 Member
    Human milk has a higher lactose content than cows milk.... So we have not evolved to drink cows milk specifically per se but have adapted to retain our lactase (digestive enzyme) past infancy. Cultures which drink more milk have less incidence of lactose intolerance I have heard.
  • NMJiggles
    NMJiggles Posts: 8 Member
    Sorry but I don't fully agree. They're part of the food chain and the ever changing circle of life. May not be good for me, but it's good for others. I like almond milk too! My blood feeds mosquitos...
  • Greygrappler
    Greygrappler Posts: 4 Member
    100% Almond milk .... vanilla flavored/unsweetened 30/cal per cup. The BEST stuff in the world!
  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    I've tried a number of the different 'milks' out there and while I like them, I find them awfully sweet, so I'm going to stick to my cow's milk, thank you very much.

    Though I'm pretty certain that years of generations drinking cow's milk has made it okay for us to have it.

    That is odd, because milk is loaded with sugar.... Maybe you should try unsweetened almond.

    Blech!! Unsweetened almond milk is just down right nasty on it's own... and I like almonds... and almond milk in things (like Oatmeal) but on it's own... blech!!!
  • MissTomGettingThin
    MissTomGettingThin Posts: 776 Member
    We weren't designed at all.
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Humans weren't designed to work night shift....It goes against our natural cicadian rhythm...we are also supposed to sleep when the sun goes down and wake upon its rising
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,026 Member
    I not totally sure what humans ARE and are not designed to do. Last time I checked (about 6 months ago when my grandson was born) humans ...or any other being did NOT come with an instruction manual. And just because the experts and so called experts tell us what we should and shouldnt do ...and are and are not designed to do...does not make them right.

    I like cow milk....I like meat ...and therefore I will continue to eat and drink those things we are NOT designed to eat and drink
    We're designed to do what most life does..................................pass on our genes and help our species survive.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • not-a-milk-machine.jpg

    This is speaking to the problem of industrial agricultural practices, not necessarily how we aren't designed to drink milk. When you consider the amount of hormones, anti-biotics, and other chemical cocktails that go into milk production, and how much of the nutrient value in the actual milk is reduced by the pasteurization process, drinking industrially produced cows milk isn't good for us, the environment, or the cows. However, I love the milk I get from local producers who raise their dairy cows the way I raise my dogs and rabbits; as a loved contributing member of the farm family.

    As a side note, if humans stuck to specifically what we were designed for we would never evolve into something more, we would have gone extinct ages ago when we failed to try new things that allowed us to adapt and get to where we are today.
  • hseipel12
    hseipel12 Posts: 26
    Cows milk is full of female hormones and antibiotics which make the cows produce more milk and the antibiotics is to prevent them getting diseases due to forced large amounts of milk to be produced, then we drink the dam stuff and wonder why our men get male-boobs, prostrate cancer. Little boys being born with 'willy' deformaties and a general increase in cancer everywhere. If you have to animal milk at least go organic.

    As a matter of fact, antibiotic residue is forbidden in both organic and non-organic milk. The milk needs to be discarded for several days after the last antibiotic treatment (specific period depends on which antibiotic). When the milk truck picks up at each farm, the driver will take a sample from the bulk tank. At the end of his route, the milk on his truck is tested. If there is detectable antibiotic residue, the entire truck is dumped. The sample from each farm is tested, and the farm which included the offending milk is billed for the value of the dumped milk.

    As for hormones, more and more farmers are stopping using them because of how much it cuts off the productive lifetime of the cow, and many brands are hormone-free.

    Animals, just like people, need antibiotics and vaccines. I honestly think it's cruelty to hold this kind of treatment to stay "organic." I heard a story from an organic farmer that she let half of her chickens die from pneumonia because they are antibiotic free, free range chickens. That is ridiculous to just let animals suffer and die to be organic. Every shot I have ever given to my livestock has on the label how long the hold is for milk and meat is. I never immorally sell milk or meat within the hold time after a shot is given. Conversations about this topic make me angry, because people have no idea what they are talking about.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    100% Almond milk .... vanilla flavored/unsweetened 30/cal per cup. The BEST stuff in the world!

    The day I consider switching to almond milk because of calories/can't fit a glass of 2% into my calories is the day I decide to just stay fat. That said I tried it in my shakes cause it's what my former workout buddy drank, and then opted to just use water.

    Tepid tap water+protein powder>vanilla almond milk+powder, imho
  • NeverGivesUp
    NeverGivesUp Posts: 960 Member
    i think animal activists are worse than the "clean eaters"

    at least clean eaters don't try and guilt trip me with sad pictures

    I am by no means an activist but without activists no one would fight for the lives of these animals and there wouldn't be as many organic products as there are now. There should be a more humane way of treating animals all over the world and burying our heads in the sand will never help accomplish this.
  • Calliope610
    Calliope610 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Milk - Whole, 3.25% milkfat, 1 cup 146cal 11carb 8pro 8fat 98sodium 349potassium
    Almond Breeze Original - Almond Milk, 1 cup 60cal 8carb 1pro 3fat 150sodium 180potassium

    What is the big deal about almond milk? Ok, 1/2 the cals, but also most of the carbs, none of the protein of whole milk, 1/2 the fat, more sodium and less potassium.

    Whole milk seems like the better option IMHO.

    None of the pain and death is the main benefit IMO. But if that isn't a benefit to you I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

    What pain? And death is inevitable.
  • EngineerPrincess
    EngineerPrincess Posts: 306 Member
    In what way are humans "designed" to drink almond milk?

    Humans have been eating almonds for billions of years

    This made me laugh quite a bit, humans have existed for no where CLOSE to even a billion years. Almonds in their current form probably haven't either. Evolution happens much more quickly than you'd think, whether cows milk is okay on your digestive system has more to do with if people in your ethnicity/ancestry drank it regularly.


    As for "poor cows," I'm tired of animal abuse propaganda, as much of it is exaggerated or made up. I get my milk from cows I happen to know are happy, I've seen the farm. It's not a pristine pasture, but it's better than most children playgrounds. If you're vegan good on you I can respect that, but please do not use propaganda to spread the word.
  • corgicake
    corgicake Posts: 846 Member
    I've tried a number of the different 'milks' out there and while I like them, I find them awfully sweet, so I'm going to stick to my cow's milk, thank you very much.

    Though I'm pretty certain that years of generations drinking cow's milk has made it okay for us to have it.
    The majority of human beings living today are considered to be lactose intolerant. It is actually a minority of people who can drink cow's milk without getting sick.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Milk - Whole, 3.25% milkfat, 1 cup 146cal 11carb 8pro 8fat 98sodium 349potassium
    Almond Breeze Original - Almond Milk, 1 cup 60cal 8carb 1pro 3fat 150sodium 180potassium

    What is the big deal about almond milk? Ok, 1/2 the cals, but also most of the carbs, none of the protein of whole milk, 1/2 the fat, more sodium and less potassium.

    Whole milk seems like the better option IMHO.

    None of the pain and death is the main benefit IMO. But if that isn't a benefit to you I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

    What pain? And death is inevitable.

    I took that post to mean the pain and death of the cow.
  • wamydia
    wamydia Posts: 259 Member
    What troubles me with this argument is that it seems to revolve around the implication that humans should not drink cow's milk because the milk didn't come from a human. So, applying this logic, we would have to argue that humans are not designed to eat beef because it did not come from a human or that we are not designed to eat apples because they did not come from a human. Which leaves us with a moral dilemna because, last time I checked, it is not OK for humans to eat other humans.

    Now, if you're talking about nutrition for a baby, I would agree that it is better for a baby to drink it's own mother's milk. However I am still trying to understand that actual biological or scientific issue with adult humans consuming cow's (or goat's or whatever) milk. I have never had any bad reactions to it and there is plenty of nutrition in milk and milk products. It is a great source of fat, for a start. There are people who have dairy allergies, but pick a food, any food, and you can say the exact same thing.

    In all seriousness, does anyone have links to any actual scientific papers describing the design flaws in human beings that make us unsuited specifically to drinking cow's milk? Just curious and all I can find are "baby cows are meant to drink cow's milk" blog posts.
  • NeverGivesUp
    NeverGivesUp Posts: 960 Member
    I also think we should be drinking human milk instead of cow milk. It is way more natural that we drink our own milk opposed to milk produced from cows. I know people swear by soy milk but that is so overprocessed. I like cows milk in my tea though and lattes. Just a splash. But if breast milk were available in the stores, I would most likely choose that option instead. :)
  • MelsAuntie
    MelsAuntie Posts: 2,833 Member
    Milk - Whole, 3.25% milkfat, 1 cup 146cal 11carb 8pro 8fat 98sodium 349potassium
    Almond Breeze Original - Almond Milk, 1 cup 60cal 8carb 1pro 3fat 150sodium 180potassium

    What is the big deal about almond milk? Ok, 1/2 the cals, but also most of the carbs, none of the protein of whole milk, 1/2 the fat, more sodium and less potassium.

    Whole milk seems like the better option IMHO.

    None of the pain and death is the main benefit IMO. But if that isn't a benefit to you I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

    What pain? And death is inevitable.

    I took that post to mean the pain and death of the cow.
    [/quote


    Milking cattle does not cause pain and death. More bunny-hugger nonsense.]
  • wamydia
    wamydia Posts: 259 Member
    I've tried a number of the different 'milks' out there and while I like them, I find them awfully sweet, so I'm going to stick to my cow's milk, thank you very much.

    Though I'm pretty certain that years of generations drinking cow's milk has made it okay for us to have it.
    The majority of human beings living today are considered to be lactose intolerant. It is actually a minority of people who can drink cow's milk without getting sick.

    [citation needed]
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Animals, just like people, need antibiotics and vaccines. I honestly think it's cruelty to hold this kind of treatment to stay "organic." I heard a story from an organic farmer that she let half of her chickens die from pneumonia because they are antibiotic free, free range chickens. That is ridiculous to just let animals suffer and die to be organic. Every shot I have ever given to my livestock has on the label how long the hold is for milk and meat is. I never immorally sell milk or meat within the hold time after a shot is given. Conversations about this topic make me angry, because people have no idea what they are talking about.

    We treat animals with antibiotics to save their lives, but not as a preventative measure. We then inform anyone who's thinking of buying from us if the animal has ever had antibiotics and how long it has been. Most of our customers are totally okay with eating a steer that had a shot of penicillin 9 months ago.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Cows milk is full of female hormones and antibiotics which make the cows produce more milk and the antibiotics is to prevent them getting diseases due to forced large amounts of milk to be produced, then we drink the dam stuff and wonder why our men get male-boobs, prostrate cancer. Little boys being born with 'willy' deformaties and a general increase in cancer everywhere. If you have to animal milk at least go organic.

    As a matter of fact, antibiotic residue is forbidden in both organic and non-organic milk. The milk needs to be discarded for several days after the last antibiotic treatment (specific period depends on which antibiotic). When the milk truck picks up at each farm, the driver will take a sample from the bulk tank. At the end of his route, the milk on his truck is tested. If there is detectable antibiotic residue, the entire truck is dumped. The sample from each farm is tested, and the farm which included the offending milk is billed for the value of the dumped milk.

    As for hormones, more and more farmers are stopping using them because of how much it cuts off the productive lifetime of the cow, and many brands are hormone-free.

    Animals, just like people, need antibiotics and vaccines. I honestly think it's cruelty to hold this kind of treatment to stay "organic." I heard a story from an organic farmer that she let half of her chickens die from pneumonia because they are antibiotic free, free range chickens. That is ridiculous to just let animals suffer and die to be organic. Every shot I have ever given to my livestock has on the label how long the hold is for milk and meat is. I never immorally sell milk or meat within the hold time after a shot is given. Conversations about this topic make me angry, because people have no idea what they are talking about.

    Either your friend is crazy or you misunderstood. Chickens that die of disease may not be sold into the food chain. Giving antibiotics to cure disease can still be sold as "antibiotic free" though not as "organic". It's the use of antibiotics on healthy animals as precaution to prevent disease that is most complained about.
  • jennhls
    jennhls Posts: 32 Member
    I also think we should be drinking human milk instead of cow milk. It is way more natural that we drink our own milk opposed to milk produced from cows. I know people swear by soy milk but that is so overprocessed. I like cows milk in my tea though and lattes. Just a splash. But if breast milk were available in the stores, I would most likely choose that option instead. :)

    **Shudders**
  • gauchogirl
    gauchogirl Posts: 467 Member
    That's why I only drink almond milk. It has fixed all my flatulence problems. Give it a try!

    While I agree 100%, we also weren't meant to consume almonds in the quantities necessary to make almond "milk". Anything in moderation is most likely better than anything in excess. It's probably unnecessary for most people to consume any liquid calories past infancy. Water should be it.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Milk - Whole, 3.25% milkfat, 1 cup 146cal 11carb 8pro 8fat 98sodium 349potassium
    Almond Breeze Original - Almond Milk, 1 cup 60cal 8carb 1pro 3fat 150sodium 180potassium

    What is the big deal about almond milk? Ok, 1/2 the cals, but also most of the carbs, none of the protein of whole milk, 1/2 the fat, more sodium and less potassium.

    Whole milk seems like the better option IMHO.

    None of the pain and death is the main benefit IMO. But if that isn't a benefit to you I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

    What pain? And death is inevitable.

    I took that post to mean the pain and death of the cow.


    Milking cattle does not cause pain and death. More bunny-hugger nonsense.]

    Never ever? No bad practice milking farms out there anywhere?
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    Almond milk is for baby almonds!
  • I only drink free range, cruelty free, local, artisan almond milk from almonds that had a happy life.

    Nah.

    I drink cows milk. I think our bodies are pretty good at telling us what we should or shouldn't be eating. Milk doesn't agree with you? Don't consume it! I cannot comment on the farming issue but I have visited some working dairy farms and the animals were healthy, happy and treated well.
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Milking cattle does not cause pain and death. More bunny-hugger nonsense.

    Never ever? No bad practice milking farms out there anywhere?

    In addition to bad practice (which does happen), it also does (to be strictly honest) causes the death of all the male calves, who cannot really be kept around as pets.

    I'm okay with that. I eat meat. But it certainly does involve death, just as keeping egg-laying chickens involves the death of almost all male chicks of egg-producing strains.
  • Wow really? Guilt trip? The pictures are reality for many animals out there and it's because of people who don't wish to be "Guilt tripped" that the industry will never change. Many of us who speak up against animal cruelty aren't vegan or even vegetarian but people should make more conscious and ethical choices of where they purchase animal products and stop supporting commercial horrid factory farming. How sad and judgmental you're comment was.
  • LAW_714
    LAW_714 Posts: 258
    So why is there still lactose intolerance among our society?

    All mammals are milk drinkers at birth. It comes with being a mammal. Humans drink milk at birth, always have. But, as pointed out repeatedly in the thread, in nature after infancy there's little cause to continue production of the enzyme that digests milk because milk was not readily available for most mammals beyond infancy. . (Note: Lactose intolerance is neither an allergy nor an immune response. Lactose intolerance is due to the amount of the enzyme that you produce. If your lactose (milk sugar) intake exceeds how much of the milk-digesting enzyme that you produce, you only become 'intolerant' at the point where you take in more milk sugar than you have enzymes to digest. It's a gradation, more than an all-or-nothing).

    A beneficial mutation took place that allowed humans continue to produce the enzyme to digest lactose beyond infancy, but it's only a beneficial mutation if it provides a benefit.

    Domestic cows came from an extinct breed of wild cow called an aurochs that lived in North Africa and Europe. It's probably not entirely accidental that the populations with the highest prevalence of the lactase-persistant mutation for cows milk are the populations that could benefit from the available food source and it aid in their passing on their genes. (And in Northern Europe, where due to weather and lattitude there was a liklihood of vitamin D difficiency, it was a good souce of supplemental vitamin D, the presence of which helped to increase the liklihood of fertility and live births. There was less evolutionary pressure to do so in areas with higher UV levels such as South Africa or the southern parts of the Americas where adequate vitamin D could be obtained from the sunlight (or for the Innuit who got adequate Vitamin D from whale and seal blubber). It being a beneficial mutation for the people with the aurochs, allowing them to exploit a local food source and increase reproduction, the lactase-persistant mutation lived on in generations of offspring (and in the domestication of milking animals such as cows and goats).

    Conversely, the aurochs did not exist in North or South America (or Austrailia or sub-Saharan Africa or Polynesia, etc.). Thus there were no cows until post Columbian exchange (so we're talking 500 years or less). For those populations, there would have been no evolutionary benefit even if the adaptation had occured because there were no cows (or goats for that matter) for milk production (and where due to UV levels, there was no pressing need for supplemental D, except for the natives in the North who got supplemental vitamin D from whales and seals).

    If you look at the populations with high percentages of lactase persistance, it coincides not so accidentally with populations where it would have been of benefit to be tolerant of cows milk (therefore, lactase persistance is quite common in populations of Northern European descent and quite rare in Native American populations.)