downsides of dairy

johndela1 · Post by **johndela1** » Mon 14 Aug 2006 17:55

Avalon,

I'm not upset by your post. I just want to let you know mymental state as to not be misunderstood. I am disagreeing though, in a friendly debate type of way.

Lions violently kill there prey. Should they? The answer is yes. It is the food chain. We as people can get good food sources from killing animals. I dont' see anything wrong with hunting for food. I do however think its cruel to factory farm animals and keep them in bad conditions with no ability to move about. I buy my meat and eggs from free range, natural diet providers.

I love animals. I wish I could do more to change the natural balnace and keep wild areas from being over developed. But I do also believe that it is OK and part of the natural process for animals to eat other animals.

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Tue 05 Sep 2006 22:32

There are many things that separate us from other animals on the planet, yes?

Why is it most animals instictually know what they are supposed to eat? A Deer eats Deer food. I mean unless humans force feed unnatural diets, but Elephants, even Lions, well they eat what they eat... and they don't "THINK" about it. You see this is where it get's interesting. We weren't given a manual. But we do think about it. Vegetarians, Vegans, Meat eaters think about what is best. Then there's compassion. A Lion doesn't think, oh poor little fury beastie I'll eat some fruit today

But we do. People choose all the time to give up meat, some, all, bits here and there.

I recently wanted to try vegan, but the B12 and Omega 3 issue has me keeping Fish and eggs in my diet. Plus I just read a great article about maybe fish were part of our larger brain evolution.

We as Humans have the ability to learn and change, and to care for and protect other animals. I believe this is important and could be why the food chain idea doesn't hold always.

Avalon

Terence · Post by **Terence** » Fri 15 Sep 2006 14:08

curiousz wrote: Pasteurized milk has all the proper enzymes destroyed through the heating process. I wouldn't consume commercial milk, but find raw milk to be a very healthy and nutritious food.

I have drunk raw milk for 6 months. At the beginning it was FANTASTIC. It was such a good and euphoric (drug like) feeling. I felt and looked very good, healthy and strong. But in the long-run raw milk made me sick like never before. I became highly addicted to raw milk. My nervous system wrecked. I was very nervous, anxious and became very fat for the first time in my life. After several weeks I got bloody stools everyday. I never had this before. My skin became very very bad. Raw milk also had very bad effects on my tooth and gums. etc. etc.

Today I know several people who got seriously ill from raw dairy after a few months. But at the beginning all of them have been euphoric, like me.

This is just my personal experience...

Terence

art · Post by **art** » Sun 05 Nov 2006 07:46

interesting how raw milk was used in almost every traditional culture for the last 10000 years, theres some tribes in africa that live on nothing but milk and blood from there cattle

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Sun 05 Nov 2006 20:23

art wrote:interesting how raw milk was used in almost every traditional culture for the last 10000 years, theres some tribes in africa that live on nothing but milk and blood from there cattle

Ehrr, I believe you are putting things a bit out of perspective.
Though highlighted on our tv over and over again, the "some tribes" you are referring to are actually a minority.

benzapp · Post by **benzapp** » Wed 15 Nov 2006 00:30

RRM wrote:
art wrote:interesting how raw milk was used in almost every traditional culture for the last 10000 years, theres some tribes in africa that live on nothing but milk and blood from there cattle
Ehrr, I believe you are putting things a bit out of perspective.
Though highlighted on our tv over and over again, the "some tribes" you are referring to are actually a minority.

Not to mention that "culture" didn't even have the most basic elements of civilization, such as a system of writing.

Clearly, drinking milk and blood exclusively didn't really help them do anything besides survive and reproduce.

art · Post by **art** » Wed 15 Nov 2006 15:17

benzapp what contributions have made to bring mankind to the next level?

Obviously you do nothing more than just survive to as with most people.

usa has made more gains(technology) in the last 50 years then ever before, must be that SAD diet that's doing the trick

benzapp · Post by **benzapp** » Wed 15 Nov 2006 15:43

art wrote:benzapp what contributions have made to bring mankind to the next level?

At least I know how to write. I'm not referring to major cultural advancement here - just the basics you find all over the world. The blood and milk drinking people are just a bad example, and as RRM said, they are a tiny minority in this world.

Obviously you do nothing more than just survive to as with most people.

Pray tell why that is so obvious, and please, there is no reason to make this personal. I realize life must be boring out there in the central Pennsylvania, but there is no reason to take it out on us.

usa has made more gains(technology) in the last 50 years then ever before, must be that SAD diet that's doing the trick

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. Outside of a few computer related devices, the vast majority of people in the US benefit from technology that was mostly invented in Europe prior to 1956. This includes things like intensive farming, modern construction methods, automobiles, trains, etc.

Truth be told, technological innovation is rapidly declining - consequences of overpopulation and declining quantities of natural resources. As well, you mention the SAD diet. Clearly, whatever technology we have invented since 1956, it has not resulted in a more healthy, ideal human existence. A casual stroll through the Roman and Greek wing of any major art museum should prove that to you. Look at those statues someday, do you see anyone who looks like that in your town?

Part of the purpose of Wais diet is to bring us back towards a rational look at science and medicine. One can easily argue that despite decades of technological advancement, the average American is much worse off than he was in 1950. The technology of which you speak is failed technology.

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Wed 15 Nov 2006 15:45

Art,

Back to your claim that "raw milk was used in almost every traditional culture for the last 10000 years".
You know that in Africa (the cradle of human kind) milk consuming tribes were a minority, right?

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Fri 17 Nov 2006 16:17

Fight!!! Fight!!!

RRM wrote finally:

Back to your claim that "raw milk was used in almost every traditional culture for the last 10000 years".
You know that in Africa (the cradle of human kind) milk consuming tribes were a minority, right?

He's right about that claim. It was used in almost every culture in one form or another. And I believe he was using the Maasai, as simply one example. It was clear to me anyway

http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/maasai_T3.html

Though Dairy is not a staple of The wai Diet, and not in the 'Sample' Diet at all, lets not forget it is listed as a munch food- for example, cottage cheese, or ice cream. If one were to include these, or others as munch food, and not have acne trouble in the process, it might be healthier to aquire raw dairy versions of these, yes? Maybe?

DOHHH!!!

Avalon

p.s. everyone is different. I can drink milk, while my Sister is allergic. She's also allergic to eggs(cooked). I wish i could get her to try a raw egg to see if in fact she has no reaction- due to its rawness- as many believe would be the case. But, there is no hope for this as I just asked her yesterday about it and the thought of raw to her is repulsive

p.p.s. I've had raw cheese, but never raw milk or butter as they are a chore to aquire, but I would like to have some just because...

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Sat 18 Nov 2006 21:40

avalon wrote:He's right about that claim. It was used in almost every culture in one form or another.

Get a list of all the traditional tribes in Africa, and then find out how many of them used milk.
You will be surprised...
Over 75% of Africans are more or less lactose intolerant (which means that they dont have a tradition of milk consumption).

it might be healthier to aquire raw dairy versions of these, yes? Maybe?

Its no use because bad components are naturally present in dairy products (opioid peptides, growth hormones, lactose)

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Mon 20 Nov 2006 03:45

Am I limited to Africa? Why am I limited to Africa? Are you fencing me in? I'm feeling fenced in. I'm feeling caged in... caged in like the Humanimal I am

But seriously, Massai- an example, primitive cultures, not just in Africa...

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Mon 20 Nov 2006 18:11

avalon wrote:Why am I limited to Africa?

Because thats were the example people are living.

avalon wrote:He's right about that claim. It was used in almost every culture in one form or another. And I believe he was using the Maasai, as simply one example.

If you say that there are hardly any non-white people living in New York, and you use a specific population in Manhattan as an example, I will tell you that there also are lots of different neighbourhoods in New York.

avalon · Post by **avalon** » Tue 21 Nov 2006 01:46

This is all Dejavu:

RRM wrote:

If you say that there are hardly any non-white people living in New York, and you use a specific population in Manhattan as an example, I will tell you that there also are lots of different neighbourhoods in New York.

Firstly I have to tell you I only recently left New York City- after 24 years of living there. Very weird analogy on your part. truly. And believe me, I have no doubt about NYC's diversity.

art wrote again:

interesting how raw milk was used in almost every traditional culture for the last 10000 years, theres some tribes in africa that live on nothing but milk and blood from there cattle

Perhaps art should have written 'many' instead of 'every' but RAW milk was prevelant. He did write 'almost'. Please give him some slack.

I'm not arguing fot the fact that Man may not be suited for consuming milk. I'm arguing that Raw milk consumption has been around and then some.

Everything aside- we must be careful. How clean can we be? Too clean is not good.

Virtually everyone I know uses anti-biotics on a regular basis. This is frightening!

We are losing the ability to fight off infections ourselves- And, the anti-biotics are making more trouble for us.

In our effort to cleanse, we may be destroying our very salvation.

We are microbes.

Raw milk may be the least of our troubles

Avalon

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Tue 21 Nov 2006 10:59

avalon wrote:I'm not arguing fot the fact that Man may not be suited for consuming milk. I'm arguing that Raw milk consumption has been around and then some.

So has the use of fire to prepare food.

Too clean is not good.

We are not. Just enter a busy street and inhale some 'clean' air.

Virtually everyone I know uses anti-biotics on a regular basis. This is frightening!

True, but no excuse for ingesting toxins or growth hormones.

In our effort to cleanse, we may be destroying our very salvation.

Consuming raw food, containing 'natural' levels of bacteria is strengthening our defense system. You dont need to smoke cigarettes or eat unnatural foods to 'not be clean'.

Raw milk may be the least of our troubles

Consuming milk, naturally containing growth hormones (thus present in both raw and non-raw milk), is associated with prostate and breast cancer, which doesnt seem a lesser problem to me.