dairy proteins

kylecortez · Post by **kylecortez** » Sun 22 Jan 2006 01:06

Thought I'd share this with everyone. I've come across in my research that there is an immune response to the proteins in dairy. The antibodies created to attack these proteins also attack the islet cells in the pancreas. More support of the dairy/diabetes connection. All the milk i drank and all the whey i used when i was bodybuilding....

Here's the site:
http://www.notmilk.com/d.html

Arm yourselves with knowledge!
-Kyle

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Tue 11 Jul 2006 05:40

All of the propaganda about milk is based upon pasteurized, homogenized milk.

It's true that when you heat milk to high temperatures, this will alter the protein. And it's also true that if you force the butterfat through a high pressure filter, you're decoupling the natural fat -- which can lead to heart disease.

Calves will die after about two months on a pasteurized milk diet. So, with that information, doesn't it seem like something is severely wrong with this substance?

Raw milk is very healthy, especially if fermented, and has been consumed by many primitive diets without any issue.

Post by **Oscar** » Tue 11 Jul 2006 09:54

curiousz wrote:Raw milk is very healthy, especially if fermented, ...

You mean aside from the growth factors, hormones, and extra calcium we don't need? Not to mention the opioid peptides...

curiousz wrote:..and has been consumed by many primitive diets without any issue.

I suppose you mean "people on primitive diets"?
Being able to consume something, without any (directly noticable) issue, doesn't really say anything about its healthiness.

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 05:10

You mean aside from the growth factors, hormones, and extra calcium we don't need? Not to mention the opioid peptides...

Growth factors and hormones?

More old wives tales and myths?

You'll find those things in raw animal meat and egg yolks as well, you're not escaping them.

Should we stop consuming those?

Extra calcium we don't need? It's a raw food. You should be getting plenty of calcium, and I do not think that exceeding any given or arbitrary standard is necessarily bad, so long as the milk consumed is raw and from the cow's natural environment and diet.

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 05:13

I suppose you mean "people on primitive diets"?
Being able to consume something, without any (directly noticable) issue, doesn't really say anything about its healthiness.

No, I mean many primitive diets, such as the Masai and the original aborigenes in Australia (before they moved to a western lifestyle), older european cultures (not exposed to western lifestyle).

Read the books by Weston Price.

Post by **Oscar** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 10:31

Have you read any articles on this site at all?

A diet doesn't eat, it's a regimen. People eat according to certain diets. The Masai is a people, not a diet...

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Sat 15 Jul 2006 19:45

curiousz wrote: Growth factors and hormones?

More old wives tales and myths?

You'll find those things in raw animal meat and egg yolks as well, you're not escaping them.

We are not referring to the remainders from what they are fed.
We are talking about milk (including human milk) containing lots of different hormones by nature, simply because all milk is 'mother's milk', naturally meant for the suckling young. These hormones stimulate growth of the suckling. http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cancer2.htm

I do not think that exceeding any given or arbitrary standard is necessarily bad, so long as the milk consumed is raw and from the cow's natural environment and diet.

Do you think that excess vitamin D may be bad, regardless of its origin?

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Sat 15 Jul 2006 20:49

So what about eggs? Powerful hormonal changes are happening in order to produce egg yolks.

Organ meats that contained concentrated hormones?

Do you think that excess vitamin D may be bad, regardless of its origin?

I think excessive dietary vitamin D could potentially be bad. However, with sun exposure your body is able to regulate that a lot more.

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Sat 15 Jul 2006 21:07

curiousz wrote:So what about eggs? Powerful hormonal changes are happening in order to produce egg yolks.

Sure, but these hormones do not end up in the yolks (compared to milk).

Organ meats that contained concentrated hormones?

These are high levels compared to other foods, but low levels when compared to milk.

I think excessive dietary vitamin D could potentially be bad. However, with sun exposure your body is able to regulate that a lot more.

Im not talking about sunexposure, since theat is vitamin d composed by the body, and of course the body can regulate this.
Im talking about exogenous vitamins and minerals. Excess minerals, metals and trace elements have been proven to be bad in various ways.
So, why would calcium be excluded from this?

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Sat 15 Jul 2006 21:18

Sure, but these hormones do not end up in the yolks (compared to milk).

They don't? Do you have any proof of this? Vitamin D is stored in the egg yolk, and many consider this to be a type of hormone.

So what if a carnivore ate the chicken?

These are high levels compared to other foods, but low levels when compared to milk.

Do you have any proof of this?

Im talking about exogenous vitamins and minerals. Excess minerals, metals and trace elements have been proven to be bad in various ways.
So, why would calcium be excluded from this?

I think most sources you'll find in nature won't typically be harmful. However, there are exceptions.

Can you give me any information on the study about calcium that you're looking at, and what type of milk (pasteurized) the control groups were given?

nick · Post by **nick** » Sat 15 Jul 2006 23:40

curiousz wrote:They don't? Do you have any proof of this? Vitamin D is stored in the egg yolk, and many consider this to be a type of hormone.

Vitamin D comes from cholesterol through some molecular changes.
Cholesterol is the precursor for the sex-hormones, androgens.
Cholesterol is needed for necessary hormone contruction/metabolism.
But it's called a vitamin because after its formation from cholesterol it used as a vitamin.

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Sun 16 Jul 2006 19:36

curiousz wrote:They don't? Do you have any proof of this? Vitamin D is stored in the egg yolk, and many consider this to be a type of hormone.

In addition to Nick's response, vitamin D is also the precursor for 1,25 dihydroxycholecalciferol, which is a hormone that plays an important role in bone metabolism. Because of its difficult name, often they refer to this hormone by using the name "vitamin D", which it is not.
This may have caused your confusion.

So what if a carnivore ate the chicken?

This chicken will not contain high levels of hormones.

Do you have any proof of this?

For the hormones present in milk?
Yes, there is plenty of proof. We can compare this with that what proves the "high levels of hormones" in organs or other foods. You will have to supply the latter.

I think most sources you'll find in nature won't typically be harmful. However, there are exceptions.

There are exceptions indeed!

Can you give me any information on the study about calcium that you're looking at, and what type of milk (pasteurized) the control groups were given?

What study are you referring to?

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Sun 16 Jul 2006 21:33

This chicken will not contain high levels of hormones.

So an animal that consumes a cow that has just given birth doesn't?

Eating the hormone producing organs wouldnt have concentrated levels of hormones?

For the hormones present in milk?

No, proof that there are significantly higher levels relative to other animal foods that meat-eating animals would consume.

What study are you referring to?

What study are you referring to that states that milk consumption, due to 'excess calcium' would be 'bad' for you?

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Tue 18 Jul 2006 14:14

curiousz wrote:So an animal that consumes a cow that has just given birth doesn't?

That predator will particularly go for the flesh. And if that lactating animal is too small a prey (suppose its a mammal much smaller than a cow), so that the predator wants to eat it all, the amount of milk that he maximally might consume, will be very small given the total size of the consumed animal.
In practise, the predator will not try to open up his prey in such a way that he can lick up as much milk as possible. Im sure you never saw it in a documentary.

Eating the hormone producing organs wouldnt have concentrated levels of hormones?

That would require you specifically go for those organs only.

No, proof that there are significantly higher levels relative to other animal foods that meat-eating animals would consume.

Comparative studies you mean.
No, because there are no studies suggesting such high levels of hormones in animal foods. So, there is no reason to initiate a study about such a comparison.

What study are you referring to that states that milk consumption, due to 'excess calcium' would be 'bad' for you?

Studies show that the uptake from pasteurized versus raw milk is similar.
Whether the milk is raw or not, does not make much of a difference regarding calcium utilization.
It has been shown that in all milk consuming countries osteoporosis incidence is highest.
It also has been shown that in all milk consuming countries average bone mineral desnity is greatest. And that high calcium intakes increase bone mineral density.
It is suggested that a high calcium intake may accelerate aging of the specialized cells that need to provide for the matrix that is required to have that extra calcium precipitate on.
www.4.waisays.com/eng.htm

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Tue 25 Jul 2006 01:55

That would require you specifically go for those organs only.

And?

If you consume all parts of an animal, then you would likely consume organ meats.

Primitive cultures of man consumed organ meats, and I'm sure other carnivores consume organ meat.

Whether the milk is raw or not, does not make much of a difference regarding calcium utilization.

Err. Yes it does. Especially with the other nutrients and enzymes that are destroyed by the pasteurization process.

It has been shown that in all milk consuming countries osteoporosis incidence is highest.

And?

What does this tell us?

That correlation proves causation? No.

There are other factors involved here, and especially if the largest milk consuming countries (europe) also happen to receive very little sunshine or vitamin D exposure, which is essential for proper assimilation of calcium.

It also has been shown that in all milk consuming countries average bone mineral desnity is greatest. And that high calcium intakes increase bone mineral density.

And this would be bad, how?