Milk is for babies!!

Transform

Just got finished reading the post on adding milk to protein shakes.

Where does milk come from?
What part of that animal?
Who is supposed to be sucking on that part?

What countries have the highest rates of osteoporosis? Yes the countries with the highest milk consumption!

Milk is contaminated with hormones, antibiotics etc from the farmers pushing to get as much milk out of the cows as possible.

To milk or not?

I avoid it as much as sugar

esperanza

Countries with the highest rate of osteoporosis...those who drink most milk.

May I ask where you retrieved this information?

In Ireland and Great Britain, large quantities of black tea are drunk Black tea basically 'steals' calcium from your bones, which may also contribute to the development of osteoporosis despite drinking milk.

logic1

Transform wrote:

Just got finished reading the post on adding milk to protein shakes.

Where does milk come from?
What part of that animal?
Who is supposed to be sucking on that part?

Where does steak come from, where does sausage come from, where do lamb chops come from?

To vilify milk because it comes from a cows udder is ridiculous, man has implemented strategies for getting food from all parts of an animals body for years, it's the very basis of evolution and survival.

What countries have the highest rates of osteoporosis? Yes the countries with the highest milk consumption!

This isn't true. Countries with the highest milk consumption have the highest rates of certain types of osteoporisis in specific gender and age brackets, e.g. hips of older women.

Milk is contaminated with hormones, antibiotics etc from the farmers pushing to get as much milk out of the cows as possible.

So are GM crops, any meats, most fish especially farmed etc.. The days of hippy farming are over.

To milk or not?

I avoid it as much as sugar

I've heard the anti-milk arguments a million times and no one in the anti-milk brigade can ever point out to me with cold scientific fact why milk is any worse than any other animal or indeed non animal product processed by man.

The argument is shrouded in pseudo-science and misquoted factoids.

.logic.

Transform

World health statistics show that the USA, Finland, Sweeden and the UK have some of the largest rates of osteoporosis and dairy consumption.
Most of the pros for consuming milk comes from none other than 'them bones them bones neeeed calcium' the NATIONAL DAIRY COUNCIL. How are we supposed to get valid scientific fact when the research is sponsored by Dairy councils around the world. This same situation is seen by the pro cereal groups.

The Human requirement for calcium - Americ Jour Clin Nutrition25:518, 1972
Walker, A

The Bantus in Africa have much less calcium intake and their oldest women are relatively free of osteoporosis, Osteo. and calcium dificiency - Anerican J of Clin Nutrition 16:327, 1965
Walker, A

Finally, the research shows the greater the intake of meat and dairy products the higher the development of osteo.

Incidence of osteo in vegetarians and omnivores, Amer J of Clin Nitrition, 25:555, 1972
Ellis, F

Traditionally consumed milk is likely not helpful in improving bone density as it is pasteurized. The pasteurization process causes severe distortion of essential nutrients, nutrients that are likely useful at optimizing bone density.
******************

Overall my point is that IN MY PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (i.e. not just based on research) i find that those that consume excessive dairy containing products i.e. drinking glasses of milk, chunks of cows milk cheese etc are more prone to stiffness in the joints, sinus problems, acne (personally suffered for years with this depressing condition) excessive mucus thus possibly leading to colds, flus and infections, and of course the above points on osteo.

I NEVER make any point lightly on this board and yes some people my respond absolutely fine on milk and from my experience this is very rare indeed.

kenmc

specifically cow milk is for baby cows. human milk is for baby people. no other animal on the planet continues to drink milk once it has finished suckling, either from it's own species or another. Why the hell do we??? it's wierd...and a bit gross! could you imagine going into a shop and buying bottles of human breast milk?? no? well whats the difference really???

D

Well how else am I supposed to eat 4 weetabix in the morning?

Talliesin

Transform wrote:

World health statistics show that the USA, Finland, Sweeden and the UK have some of the largest rates of osteoporosis and dairy consumption.

The Innuits have the fattiest diet in the world, heavy on the saturated, and very low rates of heart disease. Therefore saturated fats are good for your heart.

jman0

logic1 wrote:

Where does steak come from, where does sausage come from, where do lamb chops come from?
To vilify milk because it comes from a cows udder is ridiculous, man has implemented strategies for getting food from all parts of an animals body for years, it's the very basis of evolution and survival.
This isn't true. Countries with the highest milk consumption have the highest rates of certain types of osteoporisis in specific gender and age brackets, e.g. hips of older women.
So are GM crops, any meats, most fish especially farmed etc.. The days of hippy farming are over.
I've heard the anti-milk arguments a million times and no one in the anti-milk brigade can ever point out to me with cold scientific fact why milk is any worse than any other animal or indeed non animal product processed by man.
The argument is shrouded in pseudo-science and misquoted factoids.
.logic.

I don't think the orginal poster was arguing against eating red meat, rather just making a point about milk.
He's right, milk really is for babies, you only have to observe nature to realize that. An animal only ingests milk for a short period of time in it's natural life, bar man (and really just people in the "Western world" at that.)

Milk of course, is not the same as anything else, like eating meat. Because the composition of muscle fibre is the same on a new born calf as it is an adult animal, and they all have it, males and females. Not so with milk. Milk is only produced when a specific set of biological criteria are met, naturally it will only be produced for a short time then the body stops making it. It can only be made again once those same biological criteria are met. Man has invented techniques to prolong this duration and we've invented this method of "farming" this substance. You know: impregnate a cow, shortly after birth remove the calf and hook up pumps to the cows udder on a regular basis to get the cow's biology to continue to produce milk for as long as possible.
I can't think of any other substance that is similar. Fish farming isn't, and eating red meat isn't because in that instance we are "farming" a substance that all of that species have on them at all times and always will. Calves don't get born without muscle on them.

I used to work on a dairy farm in my youth. Today i don't drink milk. Personally i find the farming concept repulsive and after living without milk, i find it smells terrible. People from other parts of the world have even told me that "Westerners smell like sour milk".

I've read that people who use milk as their calcium source may find themselves calcium deficient, because in order for your body to utilize the calcium milk contains, it must also have managnese and zinc (iirc). And cow's milk contains neither. Most of what i've read about nutrition i got from a book:
"The Optimum Nutition Bible" http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749918551/202-0141709-5791818
I don't know if the science is good or not, but there you go.

I also believe that the diary industry generally, is quite powerful and influencial and market their product, particularly when "authorities" recommend milk as a source of calcium.

jman0

D wrote:

Well how else am I supposed to eat 4 weetabix in the morning?

I suggest Soya milk or Rice Milk.
Depending upon your preference. In cereal, particularly museli i find rice milk very complimentary.

kenmc

D wrote:

Well how else am I supposed to eat 4 weetabix in the morning?

Well if you just ate 3 you could eat them like biscuits. it's the 4th one that will be hard to swallow
buy despite what I said earlier though, I agree - I have some milk on my weetabix in the mornings too -but thats my only milk intake for the day. If I was having brekkie at home then I'd use rice milk, but I have it in work instead and the regular bovine milk is provided. That said I also use the "skinny milk" (pink carton) so it's very watery down....

esperanza

Some interesting links ....

Maybe all Irish people who drink milk with their dinner (considered a strange practice by almost all other nationalities, except US Americans, of course)
might like to read these interesting articles ...

What Really Works 'The insider's guide to natural health'
http://www.whatreallyworks.co.uk/start/

How Milk Causes Osteoporosis
http://www.4.waisays.com/

The Dairy Industry Jumps On The Osteoporosis Bandwagon
http://http://www.vernoncoleman.com/or.htm

It Does no Body Good
http://www.dsiegel.com/diary/jun.5.97.html

OFDM

Transform wrote:

IN MY PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (i.e. not just based on research)

Says it all really -> opinion = bad science

I'll go with scientific study over someone's opinion on science anyday...

jman0

OFDM wrote:

Says it all really -> opinion = bad science

I'll go with scientific study over someone's opinion on science anyday...

Of course but when industry sponsors health studies, they generally get the "scientific" results their looking for. There was recently a study done by the UN about sugar and guess what, the headlines next day said sugar is good for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm

But we do know one thing : humans and animals don't need milk in their diets.

OFDM

jman0 wrote:

Of course but when industry sponsors health studies, they generally get the "scientific" results their looking for. There was recently a study done by the UN about sugar and guess what, the headlines next day said sugar is good for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm

But we do know one thing : humans and animals don't need milk in their diets.

I'm talking about about peer reviewed academic study - not that fluff piece crap

Jak

The "what other mammal" argument for ongoing consumption of milk is pointless. There is an endless list of things which mankind do to help and indeed hinder themselves which other mammals do not. So let's leave useless soundbytes like this out of the discussion.

Personal experience is welcome, but not proof. I drink quite a lot of super milk and skimmed milk and do not suffer at all from acne or other listed issues. However, we will all undoubtedly throw in our 2 cents here.

Also Transform, the references you provided are fine, but are there any independent studies which are less than 30 years old?

I'm interested in this topic, so perhaps we can find some good evidence for us to make our decisions.

JAK

jman0

Jak wrote:

The "what other mammal" argument for ongoing consumption of milk is pointless. There is an endless list of things which mankind do to help and indeed hinder themselves which other mammals do not. So let's leave useless soundbytes like this out of the discussion.

Personal experience is welcome, but not proof. I drink quite a lot of super milk and skimmed milk and do not suffer at all from acne or other listed issues. However, we will all undoubtedly throw in our 2 cents here.

Also Transform, the references you provided are fine, but are there any independent studies which are less than 30 years old?

I'm interested in this topic, so perhaps we can find some good evidence for us to make our decisions.
JAK

Well Jak i have to disagree that comparing human mammals to other mammals is pointless because specific to this discussion: milk is produced by all mammals, it's production is a result of the same biological criteria for the same biological reasons. Also, not all human mammals consume milk after infancy, in fact i hazard a guess that most the human population do not.

Jak

To help things along, with snippets from contemporary peer reviewed articles in the A list journals.

1.

Effects of Increased Consumption of Fluid Milk on Energy and Nutrient Intake, Body Weight, and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Older Adults

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 100, Issue 7, July 2000, Pages 810-817
SUSAN I. BARR, DAVID A. McCARRON, ROBERT P. HEANEY, BESS DAWSON-HUGHES, SARAH L. BERGA, JUDITH S. STERN and SUZANNE OPARIL

"Compared with controls, participants in the milk-supplemented group significantly increased energy, protein, cholesterol, vitamins A, D, and B-12, riboflavin, pantothen ate, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, and potassium intakes. Prevalence of nutrient inadequacy, assessed for nutrients with Estimated Average Requirements, decreased among women in the milk group for magnesium (40% .at baseline vs 13% at 12 weeks, P<.001) and vitamin B-12 (6% vs 0%, P<.05) and tended to decrease (P<.10) for protein and thiamin (women) and magnesium and vitamin B-6 (men). The milk group gained 0.6 kg more than control group (P<.01); however, weight gain was less than predicted, which suggests some compensation for the added energy from milk. Blood pressure decreased similarly over time in both groups. Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, were unchanged. Triglyceride levels increased within the normal range in the milk group (P=.002). Quality of life scores were high at baseline and remained high throughout.

Applications/conclusions: Older adults can successfully increase milk intake, thereby meaningfully improving their nutrient intakes. Dietitians can play a key role in disseminating this advice"

2.

The Effects of Milk Protein Concentrate on the Symptoms of Osteoarthritis in Adults:An Exploratory, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Current Therapeutic Research
VOLUME 63, No. 7. JULY 2002
John L. Zenk, MD,’ Tami R. Helmer, MD,’ and Michael A. Kuskowski, PhD

Objective: The purpose of this exploratory study was to assess the effects of MPC on the symptoms of osteoarthritis in adults.

Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that MPC, when given at a dose of 2000 mg BID, was effective in relieving the symptoms of osteoarthritis, including joint pain, joint stiffness, and immobility, in this patient population.

3.

Small intestinal lactase status, frequency distribution of enzyme activity and milk intake in a multi-ethnic population

Clinical Nutrition
20 December 2004
T.H. Iqbal, R. Bradley, H.M. Reilly, K.O. Lewis and B.T. Cooper

Objective: The aims of the study were to investigate the prevalence of primary lactase deficiency, frequency distribution of lactase activity and the relationship between lactose intake and lactase activity in three ethnic groups

Conclusions: Lactose intake did not differ between lactase persistent and deficient subjects both within each racial group and between the groups. Diarrhoea, bloating and cramps were not significantly more common in lactase deficient than lactase persistent individuals.


Anyway, that's how things should be layed out. Frankly, I don't have the time to research something I am not being paid for.

JAK.

dudara

I did spend a few minutes trying to think of a coherent and scientific fashion in which to respond to this post. I am a physicist after all, and scientific debate is my life blood. But all I can really say to this is "BO**OCKS".

Show me a balanced scientific study which backs up your argument and I'll read it. I'll read it in an unbiased fashion without any preconceptions, because that's what good scientists do. But I will not waste my time reading pseudo-science waffle.

You have a study showing that one ethnicity shows lower osteoporosis with lower calcium consumption when compared to another. That's fine, that's an observation. But I observe that cows are nice, and I also observe that jam is nice, does that make cows jam??

Solid scientific facts please.

(BTW I grew up on a dairy farm, drank unpasteurised milk until I was 18. That's my background. It doesn't mean I'm anti your argument, I'm anti your style of argument).

angeldelight

kenmc wrote:

specifically cow milk is for baby cows. human milk is for baby people. no other animal on the planet continues to drink milk once it has finished suckling, either from it's own species or another. Why the hell do we??? it's wierd...and a bit gross! could you imagine going into a shop and buying bottles of human breast milk?? no? well whats the difference really???

Cats drink milk...

We drink it cause it's beneficial and tastes nice

Why is it gross? We don't drink it from the udder do we?!? It's pasteurised and packed in sterile containers

And no we don't buy human milk but cows produce much much much more milk than humans, and what would you do with the milk? Throw it all out?

Stupid thread imo

Jak

jman0 wrote:

Well Jak i have to disagree that comparing human mammals to other mammals is pointless because specific to this discussion: milk is produced by all mammals, it's production is a result of the same biological criteria for the same biological reasons.

Humans are exceptional mammals who control their environment in a way no other living creature on this planet does. We can engineer our survival and our development like no others. We can survive with or without milk. It is a biological function which can be circumvented by our developed society. We supplement ourselves all the time with things which we could not get naturally.

Other mammals don't have hospitals, medicine or vaccines (though they do love Animal hospital by all accounts) - this does not mean that there is something wrong with going to hospital, taking medicine or being vaccinated.

Also, not all human mammals consume milk after infancy, in fact i hazard a guess that most the human population do not.

And this is evidence of what exactly? Most of the human population do not go to the gym or scuba dive, that doesn't mean it's not good for me or I won't enjoy it.

JAK.

esperanza

Milk is a good source of calcium but in order for it to be absorbed one's magnesium intake also has to be sufficient.

Also, milk only helps to increase bone density up to puberty.

Take a read of the following articles for more ample information:

http://www.babyreference.com/MilkingYourBones.htm

http://www.denvernaturopathic.com/news/milkandbone.html

http://www.naturesbestnews.com/dairy.htm

jman0

angeldelight wrote:

Cats drink milk...

We drink it cause it's beneficial and tastes nice

Why is it gross? We don't drink it from the udder do we?!? It's pasteurised and packed in sterile containers

And no we don't buy human milk but cows produce much much much more milk than humans, and what would you do with the milk? Throw it all out?

Stupid thread imo

Maybe you are not understanding the nature of dairy farming. Cows, like all other mamals, do not produce more milk than their newborns can ingest.

Jak

dudara wrote:

I did spend a few minutes trying to think of a coherent and scientific fashion in which to respond to this post. I am a physicist after all, and scientific debate is my life blood. But all I can really say to this is "BO**OCKS".

To which I'd reply go **** yourself. I earlier stated that what I hoped to see was people providing contemporary studies which offer some evidence for the rather general debate which was started on "Milk is bad for you as an adult and can cause osteoporosis".

Show me a balanced scientific study which backs up your argument and I'll read it. I'll read it in an unbiased fashion without any preconceptions, because that's what good scientists do. But I will not waste my time reading pseudo-science waffle.

Contribute something or leave. You had no problem wasting your time posting your cv.

You have a study showing that one ethnicity shows lower osteoporosis with lower calcium consumption when compared to another. That's fine, that's an observation. But I observe that cows are nice, and I also observe that jam is nice, does that make cows jam??

For a scientist you seem quite dismissive of research. That is all these are, snippets of research. My comment at the end was "Anyway, that's how things should be layed out. Frankly, I don't have the time to research something I am not being paid for." - I was just throwing in a perfunctory search on the matter and suggesting a layout.

JAK.

kenmc

angeldelight wrote:

Cats drink milk...

because we give it to them. dogs also drink milk if you give it to them. hell cows would probably drink milk if you didn't give them water. my point was that all other mammals stop drinking their mothers' milk once they are weened. There must be a reason for this or else they would surely die out if they *needed* to drink milk past infancy.

angeldelight wrote:

We drink it cause it's beneficial and tastes nice

Personally I don't agree that it tastes nice. I have never in my life drank a pint of milk from a glass. I consume it mixed with other products eg on cereal, in breads, pancakes etc.

angeldelight wrote:

Why is it gross? We don't drink it from the udder do we?!? It's pasteurised and packed in sterile containers

. Well could you ever see yourself going up to some lactating woman and sucking her breast and drinking her milk? Or how about asking her to get out a breast pump and fill a bottle for you? If not why not??? At least that milk comes from our own species. And it's only recently that it has become pasteurised and sterile packed - they used to milk cows and drink the milk straight, so baring the physically sucking on the udders, we basically used to...

angeldelight wrote:

And no we don't buy human milk but cows produce much much much more milk than humans, and what would you do with the milk? Throw it all out?

Cows produce much more milk because a calf is a lot bigger than a human baby. Elephants also produce milk, more still than a cow, how come we don't farm elephants? Left to nature the cow would stop producing milk once the calf was weaned, so there would be no milk to throw out - nature is conservative with it's resources - we fool the cows into thinking that their calf still is suckling, hence why we keep getting milk from them.

angeldelight wrote:

Stupid thread imo

well everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you're wrong

Jak

As you might have been referring to the original post I'll take back my offence Dudara!

Nonetheless, would be nice if someone could find some decent specific research on the topic. As it is something of interest to a good few of us.

JAK.

logic1

kenmc wrote:

because we give it to them. dogs also drink milk if you give it to them. hell cows would probably drink milk if you didn't give them water.

And we give it to humans and they drink it... I'm missing the point here...

my point was that all other mammals stop drinking their mothers' milk once they are weened. There must be a reason for this or else they would surely die out if they *needed* to drink milk past infancy.

Couldn't it be the case that milk is natures best from of fuel for young growing infants and gives them the perfect mix of vitamins, minerals and nutrients to support initial growth but it's too destructive on am other to constantly produce milk so as soon as an infant is old enough to eat other food sources milk production stops?

Wouldn't this suggest milk is actually a superfood as opposed to a bad food source?

You're looking at milk production as bad because once an infant gets older it no longer drinks it instead of looking at it from the angle of milk being the best food source but it's too hard for a nursing mother to maintain a constant supply in the volume needed so other food sources are introduced.

It's easy to be blinkered and tied to a certain point of view but basically both arguments are purely insubstantial as I'm not aware and obviously neither are you why mothers stop nursing their young after a certain period.

Personally I don't agree that it tastes nice. I have never in my life drank a pint of milk from a glass. I consume it mixed with other products eg on cereal, in breads, pancakes etc.

So you don't think it's nice but still drink it?

Well could you ever see yourself going up to some lactating woman and sucking her breast and drinking her milk? Or how about asking her to get out a breast pump and fill a bottle for you?

I think this is more a cause of moral implications than physical need. Society deems it improper to drink Women's breast milk besides the obvious legal implications of walking up to random strangers and asking for a suck on their tits. Also I'm not sure if you're ever tasted breast milk as an adult but it's not very palatable.

At least that milk comes from our own species.

Again as a purely functional point I doubt milk farms full of thousands of women getting milked is a viable enterprise.

And it's only recently that it has become pasteurised and sterile packed - they used to milk cows and drink the milk straight, so baring the physically sucking on the udders, we basically used to...

I don't see your point here. I've often drank milk straight from the milking tanks unpasteurised. It's delicious. However sucking on cows tits is bestiality and I believe illegal. Do you suck your orange juice directly from oranges or just buy a carton? This argument is ridiculous.

Cows produce much more milk because a calf is a lot bigger than a human baby. Elephants also produce milk, more still than a cow, how come we don't farm elephants?

A cow is a domesticated animal an elephant is not.

Left to nature the cow would stop producing milk once the calf was weaned, so there would be no milk to throw out - nature is conservative with it's resources - we fool the cows into thinking that their calf still is suckling, hence why we keep getting milk from them.

And? If we only ate what nature strictly provided within a certain ruleset we'd be a hungry population.

.logic.

esperanza

Jak, if you are so interested in the topic, may I suggest that you attempt to seek some scientific evidence independently and not depend on others "mouth-feeding" you.

BTW, have you had the time to read some of the links in my most recent post?

Some of these articles include scientific evidence that higher milk consumption causes osteoperosis. If you are so interested in this topic, take a good read.

Then, let me know what you think ...

kenmc

So you don't think it's nice but still drink it?

No, I said I *don't* drink it.

Do you suck your orange juice directly from oranges or just buy a carton?

Erm have you never squeezed oranges into a glass to drink???? Or sucked the juice from the orange and left the pulp???

Jak

You missed a few points KenMc.

Esperanza, I moderate this board, I'm interested in the discussion but I'm a bit busy and have wasted enough time on this. I have 'mouth-fed' plenty of others here in the past so I'll take my dues.

JAK.

logic1

kenmc wrote:

No, I said I *don't* drink it.

kenmc wrote:

I have never in my life drank a pint of milk from a glass. I consume it mixed with other products eg on cereal, in breads, pancakes etc.

So consumption isn't the same as drinking? You mainline it straight into an artery?

Erm have you never squeezed oranges into a glass to drink???? Or sucked the juice from the orange and left the pulp???

So squeezing orange juice into a glass is akin to roaming the wild plains of Ireland hungrily sucking on cows tits in your mind?

It's little wonder psychologists make the money they do.

Also esperanza if you could stop using the most garish retarded text colours and bold plus size fonts to make your points that'd be nice.

.logic.

esperanza

I apologize for my choice of fonts, but a bit of colour never did any harm...
Everyone else is so 'conventional' on this forum...

Moderator, well when you are not so busy, try to educate yourself on this topic before making statements to the contributors on the forum. Ignorance will not get you anywhere.

kenmc

logic1 wrote:

So consumption isn't the same as drinking? You mainline it straight into an artery?

Agreed. Consumption is not the same as drinking. Drinking is a method of consumption, but is a subset of consumption, including eating, smoking, injecting etc etc. So if you go back to my original post, it says that I have never in my life drank a pint of milk from a glass. I consume it mixed with other products eg on cereal, in breads, pancakes etc. i.e. when the flavours of other things hide the taste of it. Getting off topic here now, but it's the same as eggs - can't stand the sight or smell of a fried/poached/boiled etc etc egg. but when mixed with flour and other stuff and turned into a cake, then that's fine. anyway.

logic1 wrote:

So squeezing orange juice into a glass is akin to roaming the wild plains of Ireland hungrily sucking on cows tits in your mind?

No not at all, I was simply answering the question you posed me "Do you suck your orange juice directly from oranges or just buy a carton?" In case the answer I gave didn't make it clear, then the answer is yes I sometimes do suck my orange juice straight from the orange. I never mentioned roaming the wild plains of ireland sucking on cows tits, and in fact given that we've already established that I don't drink milk I think it's quite a leap for you to go from my sucking oranges to sucking cows udders

Emerson

Pasteurisation is the problem. Enzymes important for the break down of sugars and assimilation of minerals such as calcium are destroyed during the heating process.
Lactase breaks down lactose; galactase breaks down galactose; phosphatase assimilates calcium.

Our efforts to create a "perfect" sterile world makes us eat lifeless food accelerating ageing and depression (look at the amount of people on anti-depressants in this country!).

Since I gave up milk, my acne has subsided and I'm no longer producing half as much mucous. I used to be permenently blocked up, drinking 2 litres of milk a day.

I take cod liver oil now for the all important Vitamin D which most of us get so little of. Most green vegetables have more Calcium per 100 calories than milk without causing excessive mucous production and also contain a multitude of other beneficial vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.

Your choice.

pwd

We don't consume human milk
-We don't eat human meat or eggs either. Stupid point.

you need zinc and manganese with calcium for it to be absorbed properly
-Didn't know this. Why does it say on the back of zinc and magnesium supplements not to ingest them with calcium?

milk causes oesteoperosis
no it prevents it.

milk casues acne and mucus
yes if you get acne milk makes it worse. Cows milk can also aggravate asthamatics, so the mucus point probably is correct too.

Cows' milk also has been named as a carcinogen, particularly for bowel cancer. Studies have shown that countries where they don't consume milk they have much lower rates of this type of cancer. There are loads of other factors there too though.

Also, it has been suggested that we started consuming milk too recently in our history for us to have evolved the ability to digest it properly.

I am including this for the sake of completeness. I like milk and cheese and yogurt and consume lots of all of them.

people from non-milk drinking countries say we smell like sour milk
-only really pig ignorant ones. This is a racial slur that you are dignifying by listening to. It is a bit like deciding not to eat potatoes because someone said all irish people farm them.

angeldelight

So you're saying its ok for adults to have milk as long as they don't drink it, it's not weird if we put the milk on cereal or mixed with other things? Title of the thread should be changed to "milk is for babies! (and adults when they put it on weetabix)" :rolleyes:

RonanC

esperanza wrote:

Ignorance will not get you anywhere.

Indeed...

Milk intake, circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor-I, and risk of colorectal cancer in men.

Ma J, Giovannucci E, Pollak M, Chan JM, Gaziano JM, Willett W, Stampfer MJ.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 17, September 5, 2001

Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

BACKGROUND: Milk and dietary calcium may have antiproliferative effects against colorectal cancer, but milk intake also raises serum levels of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I). A high ratio of IGF-I to IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) has been linked to an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

METHODS: In a case-control study nested in the Physicians' Health Study, plasma samples were collected from the period 1982 through 1983 from 14 916 men, aged 40-84 years, who also answered dietary questionnaires. Circulating levels of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 were assayed among 193 men who developed colorectal cancer during 13 years of follow-up and 318 age- and smoking-matched cancer-free control men. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess relative risks (RRs) of colorectal cancer for tertiles of IGF-I/IGFBP-3 and dietary factors. Statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS: Overall, there was a moderate but statistically nonsignificant inverse association between intake of low-fat milk or calcium from dairy food and colorectal cancer risk. Intake of dairy food (especially low-fat milk) was also positively and moderately associated with plasma levels of IGF-I, IGFBP-3, and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 among control men. We observed a statistically significant interaction between low-fat milk intake and IGF-I/IGFBP-3 in association with risk of colorectal cancer (P(interaction) =.03). Nondrinkers with IGF-I/IGFBP-3 in the highest tertile had a threefold higher risk than nondrinkers with IGF-I/IGFBP-3 in the lowest tertile (RR = 3.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.29 to 7.24), but no such increase was seen among frequent low-fat milk drinkers (RR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.41 to 2.69). Conversely, among men with high IGF-I/IGFBP-3, frequent low-fat milk drinkers had a 60% lower risk (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.87; P(trend) =.02) than nondrinkers.

CONCLUSION: Intake of dairy products was associated with a modest increase in circulating IGF-I levels, but intake of low-fat milk was associated with lower risk of colorectal cancer, particularly among individuals with high IGF-I/IGFBP-3. This subpopulation, which is at increased risk of colorectal cancer, might benefit the most from specific dietary intervention.

esperanza wrote:

BTW, have you had the time to read some of the links in my most recent post?

When said links contain quotation from the highly regarded Moooove over Milk and Dynamic Living, you're not really lending any credence to your assertions.

esperanza

Sorry about that. But if people are truly interested in the topic, they will read the articles, despite the name of the link, won't they?

RonanC

For those of you who would like to read peer-reviewed articles from sources that are not likely to be added to Quackwatch.org's watch list any time soon, enjoy the following:

Regulation of adiposity by dietary calcium

Mechanisms of dairy modulation of adiposity

Dairy consumption, obesity, and the insulin resistance syndrome in young adults: the CARDIA Study

Regulation of adiposity and obesity risk by dietary calcium: mechanisms and implications

Calcium Intake and Reduction in Weight or Fat Mass

Sangre

Ok you can say that osteoporosis is higher in countries which consume less milk and they you show Africa as an example.
What is the life expectancy of these people?
Is the fact that osteoporosis a disease of the elderly not relevant?

OFDM

dudara wrote:

I did spend a few minutes trying to think of a coherent and scientific fashion in which to respond to this post. I am a physicist after all, and scientific debate is my life blood. But all I can really say to this is "BO**OCKS".

Show me a balanced scientific study which backs up your argument and I'll read it. I'll read it in an unbiased fashion without any preconceptions, because that's what good scientists do. But I will not waste my time reading pseudo-science waffle.

You have a study showing that one ethnicity shows lower osteoporosis with lower calcium consumption when compared to another. That's fine, that's an observation. But I observe that cows are nice, and I also observe that jam is nice, does that make cows jam??

Solid scientific facts please.

What I tried to say only better - but then I'm an engineer not a physicist

DonkeyKong

+ think of the extra protein from the milk!!! ITS ALL ABOUT PROTEIN!!!!!

Transform

Can, worms, everywhere!!

Ok guys, glad to be back in with the discussion i started and i think its a great thread and much better than the usual - i'm over weight what should i do!! (as beneficial for the writer that they are).

Keeping this short i must say like i said before that i base my opinions on personal and professional experience and the good versus bad can rage on and on with the peer reviewed studies. If you do not have excessive mucus production, stiff joints, acne etc then by all means knock yourself out. I do not believe cows milk is fit for human consumption in its pasturised state as mentioned in the initial message due to the modification in its ability to be digested. Like JAk i don't intend on looking up the research papers again as i have spent years doing so and in the end does not prove very much as people will still have to try it out for themselves.

So final word on this is if you are looking for more calcium you can get lots from nuts, seeds and green leafy veg. Also cows are domesticated animals because us humans made them domesticated.

If anyone wants to start a new tread on a close relating topic to this then great otherwise stick to the original well spirited debate

BSDozer

Transform wrote:

The Bantus in Africa have much less calcium intake and their oldest women are relatively free of osteoporosis, Osteo. and calcium dificiency - Anerican J of Clin Nutrition 16:327, 1965
Walker, A

F

That makes sense. Considering life expectancy in most African countries is under 50 years.

The reason that many non-milk drinking countries have low rates of Osteoporosis is that most do not live long enough to develop it.

Transform

Not true as the test done are usually testing for rates of bone degeneration. Also people in poor Africian countries usually die as a result of poor hygeine and malnutrition.

Giblet

Maybe they should drink more milk?

Seriously though, comparing two completely different areas of the world in regards to health issues is a bit silly.

Transform

Giblet wrote:

Maybe they should drink more milk?

Seriously though, comparing two completely different areas of the world in regards to health issues is a bit silly.

Maybe however if we want to find the root cause of any disease its possibly a good notion to study the people who have no evidence of that particular disease and find out what they are doing and thus apply the results e.g. the low rates of cancer in japan - why? The lower incidence of heart disease in Meditarian countries? The long life of people (highest amount of centarians) on the island of Okinawa off Japan?

Shudy healthy people and apply, study the disease and you mostly will get a band aid approach to medicine.

So SERIOUSLY gIBLET this is what we can learn