Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dangers of drinking cows milk, whey and casein

  • 07-12-2010 11:10am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭


    Was just having a read through some stuff by Phil Richards and came across this article:

    http://www.philrichardsperformance.co.uk/problem-with-milk-whey-casein.html

    Seems pretty severe. Are his points valid or is this article biased in order to get people to buy his 'green protein powder' promoted throughout the page?

    What are people's general opinions on dairy produce and potential alternatives?
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,686 ✭✭✭tHE vAGGABOND


    I have heard many times that no one apart from soon to be mums and very young kids should be drinking full fat milk. [and them in moderation]

    I could not tell you the last time I drank "real" milk.

    I jump between slimline, super milk and soya for shakes and coffee


  • Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Adelie


    I have heard many times that no one apart from soon to be mums and very young kids should be drinking full fat milk. [and them in moderation]

    I could not tell you the last time I drank "real" milk.

    I jump between slimline, super milk and soya for shakes and coffee

    But the fat is where the good parts of milk i.e. the fat-soluble vitamins are! If you drink slimline you get less nutrients and even slightly more of the potentially harmful stuff, lactose and casein... If you're going to give up any milk I'd give up skimmed. There are a lot of debates about whether milk is good or not but I certainly don't think the fat is the problem.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Oh lordy, that website is very good at scaremongering isn't it?

    Colin T. Campbell's casein-fed rats again, Chris Masterjohn addressed this study and there's more than meets the eye:
    In the very paper (2) that Campbell cites as "a revelation to die for," showing that a high-protein diet turns the cancer switch to the "on" position, the low-protein diet proved lethal to the animals. The investigators gave rats a small dose of aflatoxin every day for six months and fed them either a 5 percent casein or 20 percent casein diet. The experiment carried on for two years, in fact, but they stopped adminstering aflatoxin at six months for the simple reason that half the animals on the low-protein diet had died. They had typical symptoms of aflatoxin toxicity including liver necrosis (cell death), proliferation of bile duct tissue, and fatty liver.

    All the animals receiving 20 percent casein, on the other hand, were still alive at that point. For the remainder of the two years, the rats receiving 20 percent casein continued to live longer, but many of them developed liver cancer or pre-cancerous changes, while none of the rats fed 5 percent casein developed liver cancer.

    So there's an easy way to prevent cancer, make sure you die before you get it.

    Regarding the diabetes, it is true that many T1 diabetics exhibit antibodies to casein, but that makes sense when you remember that diabetes is an auto-immune condition and allergies are often expression of auto-immune dysfunction. The two go hand in hand. That's like saying that just because Christmas shopping and cold weather often occur together that Christmas shopping causes cold weather, which is a ridiculous notion but you wouldn't believe the amount of intelligent people make this mistake when it confirms a personal bias (myself included!).

    I'm not saying that dairy doesn't cause issues for some, possibly a lot of people, it does. But if your a healthy person that has no leaky gut or auto-immune issues, then dairy can be a good source of nutrition, especially K2 if you don't eat organ meats. The best way to have it is raw and organic but failing that organic will do.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭CathyMoran


    Needless scaremongering and they are obviously trying to sell a product. I drink full fat milk, always have (am pregnant at the moment). I need the extra calories as I am an oeosphageal cancer survivor, I also hate the taste of low fat milk. I will eat low fat yogurt though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    I have heard many times that no one apart from soon to be mums and very young kids should be drinking full fat milk. [and them in moderation]

    I could not tell you the last time I drank "real" milk.

    I jump between slimline, super milk and soya for shakes and coffee

    Heard soya milk can reduce testosterone - not something you'd want to be doing if you're trying to build muscle


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Heard soya milk can reduce testosterone - not something you'd want to be doing if you're trying to build muscle

    It can do but I don't think that's been conclusively shown for everyone, it does have protease inhibitors that prevents the absorption of protein along with a number of gut irritants.


  • Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭ciagr297


    I'm not saying that dairy doesn't cause issues for some, possibly a lot of people, it does. But if your a healthy person that has no leaky gut or auto-immune issues, then dairy can be a good source of nutrition, especially K2 if you don't eat organ meats.
    Interesting - do you have any links for scientific articles linking leaky gut to dairy issues?
    Any specific forms of leaky gut syndrome? There are quite a few that I remember :D


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    ciagr297 wrote: »
    Interesting - do you have any links for scientific articles linking leaky gut to dairy issues?
    Any specific forms of leaky gut syndrome? There are quite a few that I remember :D

    Is there? I don't know to be perfectly honest. All I know if the one where they test it by dosing with mannitol and lactulose and seeing how much makes it into the urine, a PEG test.

    Casein has the ability to open up tight junctions in the gut for sure, but only if the full peptide makes it to the gut intact. This will even happen in cows and the milk is meant for them! But in a healthy body that doesn't happen because pepsin gets there first and breaks down the peptide even a little bit which deactivates the tight junction opening ability.

    The connection between leaky gut and dairy seems largely centered around whether the pepsin enzyme is doing it's thing, if it is then it's all good, if not, you have an issue with dairy and it needs to be avoided, at least until everything is back working as it should be.

    Gluten on the other hand is just bad news for pretty much everyone, unless you are one of the lucky 17% of people who's gut isn't damaged by it of course.


  • Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭teacosy


    Is there? I don't know to be perfectly honest. All I know if the one where they test it by dosing with mannitol and lactulose and seeing how much makes it into the urine, a PEG test.

    Casein has the ability to open up tight junctions in the gut for sure, but only if the full peptide makes it to the gut intact. This will even happen in cows and the milk is meant for them! But in a healthy body that doesn't happen because pepsin gets there first and breaks down the peptide even a little bit which deactivates the tight junction opening ability.

    The connection between leaky gut and dairy seems largely centered around whether the pepsin enzyme is doing it's thing, if it is then it's all good, if not, you have an issue with dairy and it needs to be avoided, at least until everything is back working as it should be.

    Gluten on the other hand is just bad news for pretty much everyone, unless you are one of the lucky 17% of people who's gut isn't damaged by it of course.

    Reference?


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    teacosy wrote: »
    Reference?

    Here you go:

    http://gut.bmj.com/content/56/6/889.extract

    You'll need the full text to get the whole story, it really is an excellent paper.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 337 ✭✭WildBoots


    danlen wrote: »
    Was just having a read through some stuff by Phil Richards and came across this article:

    http://www.philrichardsperformance.co.uk/problem-with-milk-whey-casein.html

    Seems pretty severe. Are his points valid or is this article biased in order to get people to buy his 'green protein powder' promoted throughout the page?

    What are people's general opinions on dairy produce and potential alternatives?

    I think raw milk is the best, and although it doesn't suit everyone, it's a lot better than some of the alternatives out there. A lot of the milk substitutes, especially soy milk, are highly processed and borderline toxic to the body. If you really don't want to drink normal milk, you can make your own almond milk or hemp milk by blending almonds/hemp seeds in water (I like the hemp milk but the almond milk is an acquired taste).

    I get my milk from a farmer down the road, he lets me take as much as I want for free and I give him fruit and veg from my garden when it's available . I don't think it suits everyone though, if you know your body at aall you should be able to figure this out for yourself, no tests or doctors needed.

    This site has some good info:

    http://www.westonaprice.org/


  • Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭teacosy


    Here you go:

    http://gut.bmj.com/content/56/6/889.extract

    You'll need the full text to get the whole story, it really is an excellent paper.

    But that's just a pilot study with a sample of 3 non coeliacs?


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    teacosy wrote: »
    But that's just a pilot study with a sample of 3 non coeliacs?

    That's why you need to read the whole thing. The full text says 'at least 3', they actually used 6 non-coeliacs:
    All patients with and without CD on GFD
    who were challenged with the gliadin solution
    produced IL15 when compared with the basal
    culture (fig 1A). Moreover, the IL15-mediated
    response in patients without CD was also
    triggered by the toxic 19-mer gliadin peptide
    (three of six) and, especially, by the 33-mer
    gliadin peptide (five of six). I

    So around 83% of people that have zero outwardly identifiable gluten sensitivity have an immune reaction to wheat gluten that is identifiable by an incredibly sensitive assay, only one person did not have this reaction. Yes the study would be much more powerful if there were 50 people in the study but this research has a rich context of other studies showing the adverse effect that modern high-yield semi-dwarf wheat has on health.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,092 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    He is really pushing his supplement in that article, not quite sure what to think of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭BengaLover


    I have always believed that milk is for baby cows and not suitable for humans.
    Unfortunately soy/rice/oat milks are quite expensive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    What exactly does everyone think we need milk for? I had figured there should be enough calcium in the veg we eat.It is a good source of protein and fat i suppose but that can be gotten in other ways.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Torakx wrote: »
    What exactly does everyone think we need milk for? I had figured there should be enough calcium in the veg we eat.It is a good source of protein and fat i suppose but that can be gotten in other ways.

    It can for sure. The main thing would be K2 MK-4 unless you eat a lot of organ meats. There's also CLA and tonnes of other goodies like vitamin A, vitamin E, carotenes and some omega-3. I wouldn't rely on dairy as my sole source of calcium, that's what bone broth is for!

    No food is mandatory, that's why humans can live all over the world and eat foods native to the region, we're incredibly adaptable as a species, part of this ability to adapt was discovering cow's milk was incredibly nutrient rich and that cheese and cream are delicious. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭teacosy


    BengaLover wrote: »
    I have always believed that milk is for baby cows and not suitable for humans.
    Unfortunately soy/rice/oat milks are quite expensive.

    The "humans are the only species to drink another's milk" argument has always amused me. Firstly, it's quite tricky to milk a cow/other mammal, so most animals who might otherwise lap up another's milk couldn't possibly. Secondly, given the opportunity, many animals would drink another milk - for example i've seen foxes lap up the frothy dribbles left on the grass after a calf has had his fill from mammy cow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭spiralbound


    That's why you need to read the whole thing. The full text says 'at least 3', they actually used 6 non-coeliacs:



    So around 83% of people that have zero outwardly identifiable gluten sensitivity have an immune reaction to wheat gluten that is identifiable by an incredibly sensitive assay, only one person did not have this reaction. Yes the study would be much more powerful if there were 50 people in the study but this research has a rich context of other studies showing the adverse effect that modern high-yield semi-dwarf wheat has on health.

    That paper is quite confusing - they say they used 'at least three patients with CD' and three without, but according to the footnote at the base of Table 1 says the final diagnosis was non-coeliac in all cases.

    Anyway, their six patients all had symptoms of gastric distress, ranging from diarrhoea to colic, and they were diagnosed with a range of illnesses. So they preselected subjects that might have a gluten issue. And only used 6.

    It's quite a stretch to say from these results that only 17% of people can tolerate gluten.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    That paper is quite confusing - they say they used 'at least three patients with CD' and three without, but according to the footnote at the base of Table 1 says the final diagnosis was non-coeliac in all cases.

    Anyway, their six patients all had symptoms of gastric distress, ranging from diarrhoea to colic, and they were diagnosed with a range of illnesses. So they preselected subjects that might have a gluten issue. And only used 6.

    It's quite a stretch to say from these results that only 17% of people can tolerate gluten.

    You're right that paper is confusing, can you quote where it said they all had symptoms of gastric distress? If I missed that then I'll totally take that into consideration. Even so, what percentage of the population do you reckon is entirely without digestive issues of any kind (heartburn, diarrhoea, constipation, indigestion, IBS, collitis, gall stones, ulcers)?

    Modern wheat increases the proportion of small LDL and increases visceral fat (wheat belly). This is obvious as the opposite is what happens when someone eliminates wheat from their diet.

    Wheat also exacerbates pretty much any auto-immune disease you can care to mention as well as bearing a strong association with various mental disorders. It acts on the opiate receptors on the brain and encourages hyperphagia or overeating.

    Wheat also reduces the half-life of vitamin D, something that Irish people are already deficient in.

    Will all the above happen to everyone? Nope, but will every cigarette smoker get a disease of the lung? Nope, still means there's nothing good about cigarettes. Wheat is deeply creepy, we don't have the well designed trials to prove it yet but there's enough indirect evidence for me to heartily recommend it's avoidance, considering that it's quite nutritionally poor in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭teacosy


    You're right that paper is confusing, can you quote where it said they all had symptoms of gastric distress? If I missed that then I'll totally take that into consideration. Even so, what percentage of the population do you reckon is entirely without digestive issues of any kind (heartburn, diarrhoea, constipation, indigestion, IBS, collitis, gall stones, ulcers)?

    Modern wheat increases the proportion of small LDL and increases visceral fat (wheat belly). This is obvious as the opposite is what happens when someone eliminates wheat from their diet.

    Wheat also exacerbates pretty much any auto-immune disease you can care to mention as well as bearing a strong association with various mental disorders. It acts on the opiate receptors on the brain and encourages hyperphagia or overeating.

    Wheat also reduces the half-life of vitamin D, something that Irish people are already deficient in.

    Will all the above happen to everyone? Nope, but will every cigarette smoker get a disease of the lung? Nope, still means there's nothing good about cigarettes. Wheat is deeply creepy, we don't have the well designed trials to prove it yet but there's enough indirect evidence for me to heartily recommend it's avoidance, considering that it's quite nutritionally poor in the first place.

    Eh? that's a new one for me - do you have a (satisfactory) reference?


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    teacosy wrote: »
    Eh? that's a new one for me - do you have a (satisfactory) reference?

    Reduced plasma half-life of radio-labelled 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in subjects receiving a high-fibre diet.

    (The fibre in question was wheat bran, it reduced vitamin D in the body 43% faster compared to control.)

    'Satisfactory' enough for ya?:p


  • Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭teacosy


    Reduced plasma half-life of radio-labelled 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in subjects receiving a high-fibre diet.

    (The fibre in question was wheat bran, it reduced vitamin D in the body 43% faster compared to control.)

    'Satisfactory' enough for ya?:p

    sorry, think you forgot the link???;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭spiralbound


    You're right that paper is confusing, can you quote where it said they all had symptoms of gastric distress? If I missed that then I'll totally take that into consideration. Even so, what percentage of the population do you reckon is entirely without digestive issues of any kind (heartburn, diarrhoea, constipation, indigestion, IBS, collitis, gall stones, ulcers)?

    Modern wheat increases the proportion of small LDL and increases visceral fat (wheat belly). This is obvious as the opposite is what happens when someone eliminates wheat from their diet.

    Wheat also exacerbates pretty much any auto-immune disease you can care to mention as well as bearing a strong association with various mental disorders. It acts on the opiate receptors on the brain and encourages hyperphagia or overeating.

    Wheat also reduces the half-life of vitamin D, something that Irish people are already deficient in.

    Will all the above happen to everyone? Nope, but will every cigarette smoker get a disease of the lung? Nope, still means there's nothing good about cigarettes. Wheat is deeply creepy, we don't have the well designed trials to prove it yet but there's enough indirect evidence for me to heartily recommend it's avoidance, considering that it's quite nutritionally poor in the first place.

    Table 1 in the paper (I've copied and pasted it here but I don't know how to format it correctly).

    Table 1 Gliadin-challenged patients without coeliac disease
    Patient
    no Duodenal mucosa
    Age
    (years) Symptoms Diagnosis
    1 Normal 51 Unfiliated ferropenia Undiagnosed (non-coeliac)
    2 Normal 63 Pyrosis Hiatus hernia, GORD
    3 Chronic
    inflammation
    46 Colic abdominal pain Chronic gastritis
    4 Chronic
    inflammation
    54 Epigastric pain Chronic gastritis
    5 Normal 16 Diarrhoea Protracted diarrhoea
    6 Normal 71 Dyspepsia Polyps in stomach, Helicobacter
    GORD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.
    The final diagnosis of the patients was non-coeliac in all the cases. Those with chronic inflammation had
    normal villi as well as no intraepithelial lymphocytosis. All the patients were biopsy cultured in basal
    medium and challenged with both the 19- and the 33-mer gliadin peptides. Patients 1–3 were also
    challenged with gliadin.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Table 1 in the paper (I've copied and pasted it here but I don't know how to format it correctly).

    Table 1 Gliadin-challenged patients without coeliac disease
    Patient
    no Duodenal mucosa
    Age
    (years) Symptoms Diagnosis
    1 Normal 51 Unfiliated ferropenia Undiagnosed (non-coeliac)
    2 Normal 63 Pyrosis Hiatus hernia, GORD
    3 Chronic
    inflammation
    46 Colic abdominal pain Chronic gastritis
    4 Chronic
    inflammation
    54 Epigastric pain Chronic gastritis
    5 Normal 16 Diarrhoea Protracted diarrhoea
    6 Normal 71 Dyspepsia Polyps in stomach, Helicobacter
    GORD, gastroesophageal reflux disease.
    The final diagnosis of the patients was non-coeliac in all the cases. Those with chronic inflammation had
    normal villi as well as no intraepithelial lymphocytosis. All the patients were biopsy cultured in basal
    medium and challenged with both the 19- and the 33-mer gliadin peptides. Patients 1–3 were also
    challenged with gliadin.

    Dang tables, nice catch. I still think it's a ground-breaking paper. No-one thought that the gut was damaged by gluten in non-coeliacs before. This one is similar too:

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/apl/sgas/2006/00000041/00000004/art00007;jsessionid=1acnoimmvf8go.alexandra

    In that there were samples included from non-coeliacs with suspected gluten intolerance. This to me means that gluten intolerance is very serious even if it isn't overt coeliac disease.

    Teacosy, google is your friend;) (almost typed gluten is your friend by accident there, freudian slip!)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    i always found the idea of drinking cows milk quite ridiculous. ive been vegan almost a year now and giving up dairy was 20 times harder than giving up meat. i had severe withdrawal symptoms, headace, mental fog and lightheadedness for 2 weeks or so. very hard indeed. drinking milk once in a while may not do you harm in the long run but its so prevalent in everyday foods that i suspect it contributes to many diseases including cancer and it is probably one of the most overlooked causes of it.

    i dont drink soya by the way or eat it


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    paky wrote: »
    i always found the idea of drinking cows milk quite ridiculous. ive been vegan almost a year now and giving up dairy was 20 times harder than giving up meat. i had severe withdrawal symptoms, headace, mental fog and lightheadedness for 2 weeks or so. very hard indeed. drinking milk once in a while may not do you harm in the long run but its so prevalent in everyday foods that i suspect it contributes to many diseases including cancer and it is probably one of the most overlooked causes of it.

    i dont drink soya by the way or eat it

    It clearly doesn't agree with you if you had that severe a withdrawal, sounds nasty.

    Trust me, the milk-cancer connection has been studied so much, there is a LOT of funding for vegan diet studies. The best they could come up with was the casein fed rats, which have been debunked above. The evidence is so weak as to be non-existent.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    It clearly doesn't agree with you if you had that severe a withdrawal, sounds nasty.

    Trust me, the milk-cancer connection has been studied so much, there is a LOT of funding for vegan diet studies. The best they could come up with was the casein fed rats, which have been debunked above. The evidence is so weak as to be non-existent.

    so you believe that cows milk has no effect on the human body?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    paky wrote: »
    so you believe that cows milk has no effect on the human body?

    That sentence is so vague as to be entirely pointless.

    Here's some of the negative health effects of soy

    http://www.holisticwellnessblog.com/nutrition/no-joy-in-soy-why-soy-is-bad-for-you/

    http://www.skrewtips.com/2008/02/08/oh-soy-bad-how-we-are-mislead-about-the-benefits-of-soy/


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    paky wrote: »
    so you believe that cows milk has no effect on the human body?

    What do you mean by 'effect'? Everything we eat affects us somehow, that's the nature of metabolism. If you mean that cows milk suits everyone? Then I would say, no, probably not. But is it a nutritious net-benefit for those who can consume it with no ill effect? Most likely, yes, from what we can tell from the current science.

    Fun fact: the most commonly consumed milk in the world is camel's milk. I'd love to try some!


Advertisement