downsides of dairy

kylecortez · Post by **kylecortez** » Wed 22 Feb 2006 21:48

"Studies have suggested that bovine serum albumin is the milk protein responsible for the onset of diabetes... Patients with insulin- dependent diabetes mellitus produce antibodies to cow milk proteins that participate in the development of islet dysfunction... Taken as a whole, our findings suggest that an active response in patients with IDDM (to the bovine protein) is a feature of the autoimmune response."

New England Journal of Medicine, July 30, 1992

www.notmilk.com

So dairy can actually result in damage to the islets of langerhans, thus resulting in a disordered carbohydrate metabolism?
-Kyle

YouTube · Post by **RRM** » Thu 23 Feb 2006 18:24

In general, im more thinking about the effect that overeating has on the insulin system, and dairy protein (opioid peptides) stimulating overeating.

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Tue 11 Jul 2006 05:42

Tell that to the Massai, that consumed literally gallons of the stuff a day.

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.

Post by **Oscar** » Tue 11 Jul 2006 10:24

What is the life expectancy of a Masai?

johndela1 · Post by **johndela1** » Tue 11 Jul 2006 18:07

curiousz wrote:Tell that to the Massai, that consumed literally gallons of the stuff a day.

Maybe somebody should... I believe they have a low life expectancy.

This may be scewed due to things like AIDS and stuff...

"Life expectancy is not much higher than 45 years"

from http://kenya.safari.co.za/maasai-cycles-of-life.html

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.

Are you saying people who are lactose intolerant wont be bothered by raw milk?

nick · Post by **nick** » Tue 11 Jul 2006 19:50

Raw milk may be healthier in regards to being pastuerized but it still it meant for the suckling and with that comes those growth hormones and depending if it is organic, then you may get antibiotic residues.

Also, milk has a high calcium content, thus not good for your bones.
But that depends on how much you drink.

I guess I don't see the point of drinking unless you like the taste.
It doesn't make sense nutritionally though when compared to other healthier foods.

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 05:08

Maybe somebody should... I believe they have a low life expectancy.

This may be scewed due to things like AIDS and stuff...

"Life expectancy is not much higher than 45 years"

from http://kenya.safari.co.za/maasai-cycles-of-life.html

Of course it is skewed due to diseases like AIDS, lack of a healthcare system, and so forth. Despite the fact that America has a relatively high life expectancy, we have rampant heart disease, diabetes, and all sorts of other health disorders. We live longer because of a modern health care system, but that does not make us 'healthy'. If the Masai did not have the AIDS or other diseases, and they had access to modern healthcare while keeping their lifestyle in check, then they would live much longer than the average american.

The suggestion in the above post was that it's linked to diabetes, which isn't the case, and it's pure propaganda.

Read the work of Weston Price. Countless primitive cultures thrived on raw milk products.

Pasteurized, homogenized milk is responsible for nearly ALL of the negative press about milk recently.

As for hormones and all of that -- you should be getting all of your raw milk from grass fed cows on their natural diets.

Also, milk has a high calcium content, thus not good for your bones.

?

lol.

Since when was calcium content bad for your bones?

The problem with the studies looking at calcium depreciation and milk is that the studies are based on homogenized and pasteurized milk, which kills all of the enzymes needed to properly assimilate the calcium in milk.

www.realmilk.com

If 'calcium' wasn't good for your bones, then calves would not be able to stand up. We are not cows, but as humans we are supposed to consume animal food - regardless of raw flesh or other raw animal milk products.

I guess I don't see the point of drinking unless you like the taste.

Perhaps because it's one of the most nutritious foods around?

That it has one of the most potent anti-cancer nutrients known to man, CLA (if consumed from grass fed cows)?

It doesn't make sense nutritionally though when compared to other healthier foods.

What other, healthier, foods are you suggesting?

Get a wide range of nutrients from animal foods and some fruit. Animal foods are the most nutritionally dense foods around, and milk is included.

nick · Post by **nick** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 08:19

As for hormones and all of that -- you should be getting all of your raw milk from grass fed cows on their natural diets.

What about the hormones that cow's milk naturally contains meant for the suckling?
Are those good/bad?

Also, milk has a high calcium content, thus not good for your bones.
?

lol.

Since when was calcium content bad for your bones?

I never said calcium was bad, of course you need it, just not in recommended "high" amounts.
Too much leads to the exhaustion of bone composing cells much like getting too much sun leads to earlier aging.

http://www.4.waisays.com

The problem with the studies looking at calcium depreciation and milk is that the studies are based on homogenized and pasteurized milk, which kills all of the enzymes needed to properly assimilate the calcium in milk.

www.realmilk.com

Calcium is calcium and too much calcium is what can lead to the eventual aging of your bones by a high intake throughout your life.
Pastuerized milk is different, but too much calcium from a high intake from any milk will still have the same effect unless you can show me otherwise.

If 'calcium' wasn't good for your bones, then calves would not be able to stand up. We are not cows, but as humans we are supposed to consume animal food - regardless of raw flesh or other raw animal milk products.

Animal food is good for you.
Even so, we are meant to consume the milk from humans when we are young. It would make sense to stop drinking milk as we are weaned off of it. Why would we continue drinking it, nonetheless from a cow?
You can still drink it but I don't think it would make sense from nature's perspective.

Perhaps because it's one of the most nutritious foods around?

Ok.

That it has one of the most potent anti-cancer nutrients known to man, CLA (if consumed from grass fed cows)?

Ok.
Milk also can cause cancer too:
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cancer2.htm

What other, healthier, foods are you suggesting?

Get a wide range of nutrients from animal foods and some fruit. Animal foods are the most nutritionally dense foods around, and milk is included.

Sure it may be nutritious but it also causes other problems for people such as what the article mentioned above.
Also, it contains opioid peptides which can interfere with your nuerotransmitters.
I guess I wouldn't say it is optimal in those regards.
But whatever you want to choose is fine.

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 08:38

Honestly, that sounds like a lot of propaganda to me.

Even so, we are meant to consume the milk from humans when we are young. It would make sense to stop drinking milk as we are weaned off of it. Why would we continue drinking it, nonetheless from a cow?
You can still drink it but I don't think it would make sense from nature's perspective.

Does it make sense to eat the organs of animals?

Consuming animal flesh and animal products (like milk) are similar. Milk is largely derived from the blood, and when consuming flesh and organ meats you consume the blood.

You can find all kinds of nonsense on the internet about meat causing cancer, having hormones, etc and how you're going to die.

So what are we supposed to do? Eat fruit all day? That's not a 'natural' diet. We're meant to eat animal foods, or else there wouldn't be a B12 requirement.

Post by **Oscar** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 10:53

It's quite easy to label something propaganda, as well as unnatural. How natural is it to drink the mother's milk of another species? We are the only species who actually does that. Do you see tigers, who are carnivores by nature, drink the milk of other species?
Maybe you can give your definition of 'natural', so we know your frame of reference.

curiousz wrote:So what are we supposed to do? Eat fruit all day? That's not a 'natural' diet. We're meant to eat animal foods, or else there wouldn't be a B12 requirement.

Apparently you have no clue what the Wai Diet is about, or this wouldn't be a question.

nick · Post by **nick** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 17:09

curiousz wrote:Does it make sense to eat the organs of animals?

Yes.
I was talking about milk. Milk and animal food are two different things and you are trying to connect them together somehow. They both come from animals but even so, the milk is meant for the suckling, not for human consumption, unless your a newborn.
They both have different uses.

Consuming animal flesh and animal products (like milk) are similar. Milk is largely derived from the blood, and when consuming flesh and organ meats you consume the blood.

But they are different, please don't confuse the two.

You can find all kinds of nonsense on the internet about meat causing cancer, having hormones, etc and how you're going to die.

Wai never said your going to die or even get cancer.
They just showed how milk can cause cancer.
Not everyone who smokes gets cancer, but cigarettes do have cancer causing properties.

So what are we supposed to do? Eat fruit all day? That's not a 'natural' diet. We're meant to eat animal foods, or else there wouldn't be a B12 requirement.

You need to read the site as Oscar hinted at.
This diet includes raw egg yolks and raw fish.
By the way, egg yolks are one of the most nutritious foods in the world.
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/3/index.html
Scroll to the bottom of the linked page.

johndela1 · Post by **johndela1** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 18:10

This is making me think. One could argue that eggs aren't meant to be eating but to be fertilzied and hatch. The same way as milk isn't intened for adults.

People argue that in nature no animals drink milk. This isn't a valid argument against milk consumption to me because I don't know of any animals in nature that have the oppurtunity to drink milk. Most animals will drink milk if given the oppurtunity.

I'm just saying that using what naturally occurs or doesn't isnt the best way to determine the benefit of a food. Olive oil isn't something that is consumed either, but that doesn't mean we should avoild it.

by the way, I'm not promoting milk

Post by **Oscar** » Wed 12 Jul 2006 18:38

johndela1 wrote:People argue that in nature no animals drink milk. This isn't a valid argument against milk consumption to me because I don't know of any animals in nature that have the oppurtunity to drink milk. Most animals will drink milk if given the oppurtunity.

What about fellow primates? India has cows, goats and monkeys. Opportunity knocks!

johndela1 · Post by **johndela1** » Thu 13 Jul 2006 00:15

I saw a movie once and a guy grabbed the baby bottle and took a drink. Then someone told him it wasn't formula but breast milk. He grimiced and spit it out. I wonder why most people consider human milk gross but cow milk not gross.

Intuitivly I'd expect the reverse. I mean human milk ok but bow milk 'gross'

I feel the same way with shell fish and bugs... One is seen as good the other is seen as gross

curiousz · Post by **curiousz** » Thu 13 Jul 2006 06:18

It's quite easy to label something propaganda, as well as unnatural. How natural is it to drink the mother's milk of another species? We are the only species who actually does that. Do you see tigers, who are carnivores by nature, drink the milk of other species?
Maybe you can give your definition of 'natural', so we know your frame of reference.

Just as natural as it is to consume the flesh and meat of another animal, consuming their blood, which largely contains the same things you argue are 'bad' in milk.

Do you see tigers, who are carnivores by nature, drink the milk of other species?

I'm sure if they encountered a cow full of milk, they'd consume it (including the milk).

Apparently you have no clue what the Wai Diet is about, or this wouldn't be a question.

I don't follow the Wai Diet.

I realize the Wai Diet asks for egg yolks.

But they are different, please don't confuse the two.

But they have a lot of similar compositions, including the supposed factors and hormones.

They just showed how milk can cause cancer.

And it's a wrong assertion, backed up by no significant studies. I suppose calves are going to fall over and die of cancer now.

My point was that you can find any study that claims something is bad for you and will cause cancer.

People argue that in nature no animals drink milk. This isn't a valid argument against milk consumption to me because I don't know of any animals in nature that have the oppurtunity to drink milk. Most animals will drink milk if given the oppurtunity.

I believe that if animals consumed the flesh of cows, especially those that produced milk, that the animals would consume the flesh of their teets, along with some of the milk inside of the animal itself.

Milk itself is largely derived from the blood, anyway, and the blood of course contains hormones and so forth -- I don't think carnivores worry about all of that - AT ALL.

It's just a myth.

RAW MILK is PERFECTLY FINE for consumption.

I largely agree with portions of what Wai says, about things being RAW, but I disagree about the propaganda about milk -- and I think the amount of fruit that the Wai diet asks for is absolutely ridiculous.

I consume mostly fat and protein in my diet, with a few fruits. And, in terms of health, I feel much better on this diet.