'The Truth about MILK' recommendation

[David Twyman]

Hey ya'll. Below is a whole lot of research condensed into twenty minutes with reasons why milk is detrimental to health and is cruel. Highly recommend it.

 

 

Below is an even further condensed edit by myself.

 

[Wuzzums]

A few clarifications:

• Milk does not produce diarrhea unless you're lactose intolerant. And if you're lactose intolerant, why on Earth would you consume milk in the first place?
• "Somatic cells" doesn't mean anything, it's almost a redundancy, it's not a specific term. Then it redefines somatic as "white blood cell", which is equivalent to pus. This is factually incorrect, pus = white blood cells + bacteria, it's what forms at the site of infection. Milk does not contain pus, it contains WBC, and so does human milk. I guess we should stop feeding pus to babies too?
• Synthetic growth hormone is used only on US cattle as far as I'm aware.
• IGF-1 is a common hormone found in a lot of mammals, amongst which are humans and apparently cows also. It's 100% natural and necessary.
• Hormones cannot illicit an immune response from the body because the molecular structure is way too simple to be recognized by leukocytes (note: immune response = self defense mechanism against a foreign substance/body). So yeah, "Our antibodies cannot understand these hormones" is a correct statement, but they can neither "understand" human hormones.
• Protein eaters do have an increased risk of cancer, colon cancer more specifically. It used to be called "rich man's disease" because people of means could afford more meat, and more meat consumption leads to less fiber consumption, and less fiber consumption is what actually increases the risk for colon cancer. If a plant diet is added on top, the risk of cancer drops to that of the rest of the population. Proteins per se have no negative effect on the body.
• "Calcium intake has nothing to do with bone density". Yes it does. That man is a moron.

So what is left is the ethical aspect of it, which I'm for.

[dsayers]

• Milk does not produce diarrhea unless you're lactose intolerant. And if you're lactose intolerant, why on Earth would you consume milk in the first place?

 

Lactose intolerance is omnipresent in mammals. Humans have adapted lactose persistence to significantly reduce the effects of this. As a result, most adult humans are in fact lactose intolerant and simply do not realize it because the symptoms are so mild.

[Wuzzums]

most adult humans are in fact lactose intolerant

 

Yes. Dairy products are consumed mainly by the western world, I know Asian countries find consuming milk particularly disgusting. Being able to digest milk well into adulthood offers an evolutionary advantage because extra food source and all that. So I would argue that those populations that consumed milk would have gradually adapted to have milk as a safe and natural food source. I.e. those populations literally evolved to be able to digest milk. And the lady with the tight shirt is among said populations.

[Wesley]

There are some populations that have a specific adaptation to produce lactase (the enzyme that helps break down lactose) into adulthood, which the Dutch have about an 80% prevalence of this adaptation (which I am about 60-70% Dutch blooded).

 

However, I would also agree that most people have mild lactose intolerance and do not know that they do and think that the mildly bad-health state is just a normal experience.

 

In general, I recommend people experiment with their diet and eliminate various common causes of lifestyle disease and things that people commonly have intolerances to one at a time and to see how they feel in response to it. Then to reintroduce in a slow fashion and see if they react more strongly to it.

 

I have done several tests where I don't eat things from 1-2 months and reintroduce in order to discover that I have a problem with it. I now am much healthier than I was.

 

Also, I want to emphasize slow reintroduction. A friend and I went gluten free after we tested and discovered that we reacted very poorly to gluten. After several months of talking about it, this friend finally convinced his mother to try it. She did and felt a lot better but was convinced that it was coincidence. She then binged and had bagels, pancakes, pastries and anything else you could imagine all in a couple hours for breakfast because she had been missing those foods. She ended up in the hospital and was medically diagnosed as having celiac's disease.

 

She spent her whole life reacting to almost every meal in a mild way and just thought that it was a normal experience for people until she experimented. Again, experiment intelligently just in case something adverse happens and be sure to reintroduce in a slow fashion.

 

As far as dairy products go, there is a scale of reaction.

 

Clarified Butter- This is butter that has had all milk proteins removed. If done correctly, even people with severe lactose and casein reactions can add this to their foods for that butter taste. It also stores very well. They sell clarified butter at stores.

 

Butter- This is a mild thing and very few people react to it. It is almost exclusively fat with very little dairy solids mixed in. This would be the next step to try.

 

Kefir, Yogurt, and other fermented dairy- This often is a mild situation as the fermentation and added bacteria can make it easier for people to digest and deal with.

 

Cheese- It is highly dependent on the cheese (half of the cheeses in the store aren't even made from dairy) but in general, it would fit here.

 

Unpasteurized Milk- While full in casein, unpasteurized milk has its own lactase in it (the enzyme which helps break down lactose) and I know of a couple anecdotes where people who are lactose intolerant are ok with drinking unpasteurized milk.

 

Pasteurized Whole Milk- Calcium and other vitamins and minerals are fat-soluble and thus a good amount of fat taken with something that you want the vitamins and minerals from is almost necessary (think adding an olive oil dressing to your salad). This kind of milk has no lactase and a bunch of cassein, but at least has fat to help you absorb the nutrients from the milk. It is likely that many people react negatively to this kind of milk.

 

Pasteurized Skim Milk- There is almost no benefit to drinking this. In fact, the lack of fat in the milk takes fat from the blood stream in order to try to add in the minerals and it will actually demineralize the body of other nutrients eaten during that meal. A study came out with an inverse relationship between calcium consumption and calcium absorption as many of the people who increased their calcium consumption were women who took supplement pills or drank skim milk because their doctor was worried about osteoporosis. In turn, these people were not taking a fat source with their supplement and simply peed out any benefits and lead to them being mineral deficient in other areas. I honestly see no reason to ever drink skim milk and would prefer people to just eat good vegetables with their meals with a healthy fat source in order to get their nutrients, but of course that is my amateur opinion.

 

So, If you try an elimination diet, you should eliminate everything on this list except clarified butter for at least a month (make sure you check your salad dressings and other things). Then, slowly reintroduce step-by-step and document how you look and feel for a couple days after taking each step. There really is no downside to doing a small amount of diet experimentation for a short while to see what happens.

[David Twyman]

A few clarifications:

• Milk does not produce diarrhea unless you're lactose intolerant. And if you're lactose intolerant, why on Earth would you consume milk in the first place?
• "Somatic cells" doesn't mean anything, it's almost a redundancy, it's not a specific term. Then it redefines somatic as "white blood cell", which is equivalent to pus. This is factually incorrect, pus = white blood cells + bacteria, it's what forms at the site of infection. Milk does not contain pus, it contains WBC, and so does human milk. I guess we should stop feeding pus to babies too?
• Synthetic growth hormone is used only on US cattle as far as I'm aware.
• IGF-1 is a common hormone found in a lot of mammals, amongst which are humans and apparently cows also. It's 100% natural and necessary.
• Hormones cannot illicit an immune response from the body because the molecular structure is way too simple to be recognized by leukocytes (note: immune response = self defense mechanism against a foreign substance/body). So yeah, "Our antibodies cannot understand these hormones" is a correct statement, but they can neither "understand" human hormones.
• Protein eaters do have an increased risk of cancer, colon cancer more specifically. It used to be called "rich man's disease" because people of means could afford more meat, and more meat consumption leads to less fiber consumption, and less fiber consumption is what actually increases the risk for colon cancer. If a plant diet is added on top, the risk of cancer drops to that of the rest of the population. Proteins per se have no negative effect on the body.
• "Calcium intake has nothing to do with bone density". Yes it does. That man is a moron.

So what is left is the ethical aspect of it, which I'm for.

 

thanks for the criticism, I know this is an uncomfortable topic for some, but here is my rebuttal to you.

 

*Considering the high amount of lactose intolerance, and the lack of education about it, I find it important to include some of the statistics. Especially concerning to me is the statistics for African-American, Jewish, Mexican-American, and Native American Adults who are lactose intolerant (75%)

http://www.statisticbrain.com/lactose-intolerance-statistics/

* Somatic cell count (SCC) is an indicator of the quality of milk. White blood cells known as leukocytes constitute the majority of somatic cells in question. To me this is just a gross factor, why would anyone want to drink cow pus? Children need their mothers milk for the first year or two of their life, that's a fact.

 

* Yes, synthetic hormone is a USA issue.

 

* Dietary IGF-1 increases cancer growth http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3141390/

 

* Yes, hormones do not illicit an immune response, the "whole host of problems" is related to the disruption of our own hormones, like the example given with IGF-1 and it's promotion of cancer growth.

 

*Excess protein intake does have a very negative effect on the body. Excess protein is not stored in the body, it is broken down into it's amino acids, which causes an increased acid state in the body which has to be buffered by CALCIUM which is drawn out of the bones. This is the beginning of osteoporosis. Do the reasearch. The eskimoes bones are terrible, and they eat the largest percentage of their diet from proteins as one example.

[Wuzzums]

*Considering the high amount of lactose intolerance, and the lack of education about it, I find it important to include some of the statistics. Especially concerning to me is the statistics for African-American, Jewish, Mexican-American, and Native American Adults who are lactose intolerant (75%)

http://www.statisticbrain.com/lactose-intolerance-statistics/

There are more Coke drinkers than Pepsi drinkers, should we ban Pepsi altogether?

 

 

* Somatic cell count (SCC) is an indicator of the quality of milk. White blood cells known as leukocytes constitute the majority of somatic cells in question. To me this is just a gross factor, why would anyone want to drink cow pus? Children need their mothers milk for the first year or two of their life, that's a fact.

Again, wbc =/= pus. And if it's just a gross factor, why should we feed human milk to babies in the first place?

 

 

* Dietary IGF-1 increases cancer growth http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3141390/

 

* Yes, hormones do not illicit an immune response, the "whole host of problems" is related to the disruption of our own hormones, like the example given with IGF-1 and it's promotion of cancer growth.

I agree but in the clip they talk about this strange cancer causing hormone called IGF-1 found in the milk, which is misleading. If they knew what they were talking about, they would also had protested against Mars bars or corn production and the like.

 

 

*Excess protein intake does have a very negative effect on the body. Excess protein is not stored in the body, it is broken down into it's amino acids, which causes an increased acid state in the body which has to be buffered by CALCIUM which is drawn out of the bones. This is the beginning of osteoporosis. Do the reasearch. The eskimoes bones are terrible, and they eat the largest percentage of their diet from proteins as one example.

Calcium is not a buffer, and amino acids per se are not what increase acidosis. Amino acids are used to build up proteins -> the normal catabolism of these proteins creates byproducts that are acidic -> the kidney and the lungs buffer this acidity -> all is well. There is no direct link that I am aware of where Calcium lowers acidity. However, high blood acidity is linked with faulty buffer mechanisms, as in the kidneys and lungs don't work properly. Kidney disease itself can cause osteoporosis. The narrative does not go like: acidity => kidney disease => osteoporosis, it goes like: kidney disease => acidity + osteoporosis.

 

Furthermore, it is a well known fact that calcium intake and calcium levels don't exactly have a proportional relationship. The body needs adequate amounts of Vitamin D in order to absorb the calcium from the diet. Vitamin D is created with the help of sunlight at the skin level and it is further metabolised in active compounds in the kidneys. So if you don't expose your skin to sunlight, like Eskimos don't, you'll have a deficit in Vit D production. Milk is a great source of calcium and Vit D, albeit Vit D is added as an extra ingredient.

[MarkIX]

There are more Coke drinkers than Pepsi drinkers, should we ban Pepsi altogether?

 

I can't remember anyone advocating banning anything, could you point me to where it happened?

Or are you suggesting informing people is synonymous with state action to prohibit a product?

[Wuzzums]

I can't remember anyone advocating banning anything, could you point me to where it happened?

Or are you suggesting informing people is synonymous with state action to prohibit a product?

I misspoke, and no to the second question. I was trying to say that the majority's preference isn't an argument against the existence of a product.

[MarkIX]

I misspoke, and no to the second question. I was trying to say that the majority's preference isn't an argument against the existence of a product.

OK. I still having trouble with your objection. Are you saying that being unfit for purpose and misrepresenting that is not a problem for a product? We aren't talking about mere taste preferences we are talking about health effects that people are uninformed about.

[Wuzzums]

OK. I still having trouble with your objection. Are you saying that being unfit for purpose and misrepresenting that is not a problem for a product? We aren't talking about mere taste preferences we are talking about health effects that people are uninformed about.

People can consume whatever they want, it's their business. Whether a product is pure poison is not relevant if the information isn't hidden. Which it isn't. It's not the milk company's job to educate people about their product, they have to do the strenuous job of reading the label themselves.

[MarkIX]

People can consume whatever they want, it's their business. Whether a product is pure poison is not relevant if the information isn't hidden. Which it isn't. It's not the milk company's job to educate people about their product, they have to do the strenuous job of reading the label themselves.

So. No duty of care, and its OK to actively obfuscate the truth about you product as long as you don't actually lie?

[Wuzzums]

So. No duty of care, and its OK to actively obfuscate the truth about you product as long as you don't actually lie?

Of course it's not "ok". Neither is it ok to sell alcohol or smokes, but it's not as if they're making you consume these products. The uselessness of a product is not an argument against its production as long as there is choice in consuming it.

[MarkIX]

Of course it's not "ok". Neither is it ok to sell alcohol or smokes, but it's not as if they're making you consume these products. The uselessness of a product is not an argument against its production as long as there is choice in consuming it.

It seems to me you're in a bit of a hole. Nobody said milk is useless. The contention is that to a large portion of the population it is actually harmful, and yet it is still marketed as healthy. Do you think this is proper?

[Wuzzums]

It seems to me you're in a bit of a hole. Nobody said milk is useless. The contention is that to a large portion of the population it is actually harmful, and yet it is still marketed as healthy. Do you think this is proper?

Correction: it is harmful to the majority of the adult population. And milk is marketed to children mostly, which IS healthy to them thus it is correctly marketed as such. And it is also healthy to the adults that can digest it. Again, if it is harmful to you then why consume it even if it is healthy for others? Furthermore why are we suddenly talking about marketing? You already agreed that milk is not useless (which is what this whole thread was about) but your're against milk now because it is not marketed properly. Well, what is marketed properly anyway?

[MarkIX]

Correction: it is harmful to the majority of the adult population. And milk is marketed to children mostly, which IS healthy to them thus it is correctly marketed as such. And it is also healthy to the adults that can digest it. Again, if it is harmful to you then why consume it even if it is healthy for others? Furthermore why are we suddenly talking about marketing? You already agreed that milk is not useless (which is what this whole thread was about) but your're against milk now because it is not marketed properly. Well, what is marketed properly anyway?

What are you talking about? What does milk mean to you anyway? Lying in your advertising is not acceptable, why are you saying it is just for milk?

[Wuzzums]

Lying in your advertising is not acceptable

Ok, then just don't accept it. I still fail to see where the disagreement is when we both agree that milk is quite useful and I don't work in milk marketing.

[David Twyman]

 

Cheese- It is highly dependent on the cheese (half of the cheeses in the store aren't even made from dairy) but in general, it would fit here.

 

 

Interesting.  What are they made from if not dairy?

[Wesley]

Interesting.  What are they made from if not dairy?

Then I would not consider it a dairy product, but an oil product and has more similar consequences to industrial seed and vegetable oils, which tend to be not the best fat sources. 

 

At least as far as I understand non-dairy cheese.