[quote]anijjar wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
anijjar wrote:
The way I go about it is that we are the only species on the planet that drinks another animals milk. I figure that does’nt make any sense so I stopped drinking milk.
Do you cook your food?
Yeah for the most part.[/quote]
Do other animals cook?
[quote]anijjar wrote:
The way I go about it is that we are the only species on the planet that drinks another animals milk. I figure that does’nt make any sense so I stopped drinking milk.[/quote]
Cats and dogs drink cow’s milk.
They also hump pillows and lick their balls, and clean their asses with their mouths. I guess that’s license for you to have at it?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
anijjar wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
anijjar wrote:
The way I go about it is that we are the only species on the planet that drinks another animals milk. I figure that does’nt make any sense so I stopped drinking milk.
Do you cook your food?
Yeah for the most part.
Do other animals cook?[/quote]
LOL!
[quote]DSmolken wrote:
DaahsirRoon wrote:
For those born lactose intolerant does that mean they are missing the gene or that the gene is “damaged”? What about people who aren’t born intolerant but develop it over time?
Do you think the gene gets damaged or does like the OP said maybe you have it without symptoms and later the symptoms start to show, i wonder.
Though would that mean that any dairy ive consumed during my life hasn’t really been absorbed? and has just been going straight through my system? But the symptoms only started around 16
A long time ago almost none of us were able to digest milk past early childhood. Since then a few gene variants have appeared and spread; if you have one, you’ll be able to digest milk as an adult.
If you don’t have one, you can possibly handle a glass or two a day because the bacteria in your digestive tract can break some milk down for you (if you gradually train them to), but any more than that and you will have serious symptoms.
More on the evolution of lactase persistence from Gene Expression:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/08/lactase-persistence-in-eurasia.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/01/was-lactose-tolerance-inevitable.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/01/location-genes-culture.php[/quote]
Thanks man, you’ve given me a few things to think about.
[quote]DSmolken wrote:
DaahsirRoon wrote:
For those born lactose intolerant does that mean they are missing the gene or that the gene is “damaged”? What about people who aren’t born intolerant but develop it over time? Do you think the gene gets damaged or does like the OP said maybe you have it without symptoms and later the symptoms start to show, i wonder.
Though would that mean that any dairy ive consumed during my life hasn’t really been absorbed? and has just been going straight through my system? But the symptoms only started around 16
A long time ago almost none of us were able to digest milk past early childhood. Since then a few gene variants have appeared and spread; if you have one, you’ll be able to digest milk as an adult.
If you don’t have one, you can possibly handle a glass or two a day because the bacteria in your digestive tract can break some milk down for you (if you gradually train them to), but any more than that and you will have serious symptoms.
More on the evolution of lactase persistence from Gene Expression:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/08/lactase-persistence-in-eurasia.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/01/was-lactose-tolerance-inevitable.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/01/location-genes-culture.php[/quote]
Someone else here reads Gene Expression!
[quote]forbes wrote:
And its funny how milk production in mammals is automatic. the cows dont think “hmmmm, i have to make milk for my baby calf”. no, their bodies just produce it. same with humans. this process must’ve had a beginning, and God is the one behind it.[/quote]
Cats are mammals. They don’t think “hmmmm, i have to make milk for my baby cat”. no, their bodies just produce it. same with humans. That means god intended us to drink cats milk. Have at it.
[quote]forbes wrote:
God did make milk for ppl to drink.
God made the cows.
[/quote]
That is by far the most illogical reasoning i have heard in quite a while.
Didn’t “GOD” “make” “everything”?
Didn’t “GOD” “make” sand?
I think you should go eat some.
Bon Apetite.
P.S. How do you know God made milk for people to drink?
Speak to God do you?
This matter about dairy is just supplement companies propaganda… try it, if it works for you: keep it.
i’ve heard milk has IGF-1. that would mean its good for muscle growth!
[quote]DaahsirRoon wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
DaahsirRoon wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’ve gotta add that there’s this myth running around the “evolutionary fitness” realm that we’re the same genetically as our hunter-gatherer ancestors were 100,000 years ago. This isn’t true. Agriculture and animal husbandry have found there way into the human genome in certain population groups of humans.
Human evolution works very quickly. In fact, a paper just came out that said that the rate of human evolution has accelerated with increasing human population. It’s faster now than it ever was.
So these guys like Art DeVaney and other dilettantes (even though I’m one) who say that we’re hunter gatherers and can’t drink milk and eat grain and all this other stuff need to start paying attention to what the population geneticists are saying.
If you weren’t born with the gene, you can’t evolve it. Drink Lactaid or soy milk or eat a ton of broccoli, kale or eat a small amount of cheese. Or take a supplement.
Calcium difficiency probably wasn’t a problem for our ancestors because we had a mean life expectancy of 30 years.
For those born lactose intolerant does that mean they are missing the gene or that the gene is “damaged”? What about people who aren’t born intolerant but develop it over time? Do you think the gene gets damaged or does like the OP said maybe you have it without symptoms and later the symptoms start to show, i wonder. Though would that mean that any dairy ive consumed during my life hasn’t really been absorbed? and has just been going straight through my system? But the symptoms only started around 16
[/quote]
Lactose Intolerance: 101
Lactose intolerance is the inability to digest lactose, the predominant sugar of milk. This results from a shortage of the enzyme lactase, which is normally produced by the cells that line the small intestine. Lactase breaks down milk sugar into simpler forms that can then be absorbed into the bloodstream. When there is not enough lactase to digest the amount of lactose consumed, the results, although not usually dangerous, may be very distressing.
Common symptoms include nausea, cramps, bloating, gas, and diarrhea, which begin about 30 minutes to two hours after eating or drinking foods containing lactose. The severity of symptoms varies depending on the amount of lactose each individual can tolerate.
Some causes of lactose intolerance are well-known. For instance, certain digestive diseases and injuries to the small intestine can reduce the amount of enzymes that the body can produce. In rare cases, children are born without the ability to produce lactase. For most people, though, lactase deficiency is a condition that develops naturally over time.
Between 30 and 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant. Certain ethnic and racial populations are more widely affected than others. As many as 75 percent of all African Americans and American Indians and 90 percent of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant. The condition is least common among persons of Northern European descent.
I think that may clear some things up. It does not have to do with a gene but rather happens at the enzymatic level. Personally, I don’t do well with dairy so I try to avoid it (more for the benefit of those standing behind me lol).
In the book Paleo Diet by Loren Cordain he explains the main reason to avoid dairy products (the worst offender being hard cheeses) was because they produce a net acid load in the body and unless you neutralize this with fruits and vegtables (or simply take apotasium bicarbonate -a potent neutralizer of acid) this will actually result in calcium deficiancy as the amount of calcium excreted to correct PH will exceed the amount consumed. This is one reason why people who don’t get enough fruits and vegtables and eat a lot of meat and dairy are at risk for osteoperosis.
[quote]laroyal wrote:
I think that mayy clear some things up. It does not have to do with a gene but rather happens at the enzymatic level.[/quote]
Sure it has to do with a gene - the gene which controls the production of the lactase enzyme in adulthood.
[quote]forbes wrote:
i’ve heard milk has IGF-1. that would mean its good for muscle growth![/quote]
The presence of rBGH in the cow’s blood stimulates production of another hormone, called Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1, or IGF-1. It is IGF-1 that is directly responsible for increasing milk production. rBGH use raises IGF-1 levels significantly. It should be noted though that IGF-1 has a half life of less than 10minutes itself and when you hear of people using it for muscle building purposes it is the long “r” (recombinient) form and it is injected to maintain structural integrity as opposed to drinking it. On a side note (and I don’t advocate drug use by any means yet I realize it is out there), there is a new compuond out there with a ~8 day half lif which is a potent stimulator of both GH and IGF. It is called CJC-1295. You are correct in your statement forbes but I just wanted to elaborate on it as I know us T readers like the details. Hope this helps.
[quote]DSmolken wrote:
laroyal wrote:
I think that mayy clear some things up. It does not have to do with a gene but rather happens at the enzymatic level.
Sure it has to do with a gene - the gene which controls the production of the lactase enzyme in adulthood.[/quote]
Which is the MAIN REASON why a lot of people wont have problems with RAW MILK… because if its unpastuerized (and the farmer is vigilant about keeping his milk uncontaminated) its chock full of everything (enzymes especially) needed for the body to properly digest it. Pastuerized milk however is a totally different story - its just not possible to compare the two in terms of nutritional value because raw milk is that SUPERIOR in every way.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
anijjar wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
anijjar wrote:
The way I go about it is that we are the only species on the planet that drinks another animals milk. I figure that does’nt make any sense so I stopped drinking milk.
Do you cook your food?
Yeah for the most part.
Do other animals cook?[/quote]
No, but have you see lion go suck suck on a zebras tit before it eats it?
What are the symptoms for lactose intolerance?
I drink milk, eat cheese and take yogurt and feel well, but I don’t know what the symptoms are?
[quote]anijjar wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
anijjar wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
anijjar wrote:
The way I go about it is that we are the only species on the planet that drinks another animals milk. I figure that does’nt make any sense so I stopped drinking milk.
Do you cook your food?
Yeah for the most part.
Do other animals cook?
No, but have you see lion go suck suck on a zebras tit before it eats it?
[/quote]
Why would he have to? He’ll just eat the tits and everything in them as he eats the zebra.
[quote]MrOldSchool wrote:
DSmolken wrote:
DaahsirRoon wrote:
For those born lactose intolerant does that mean they are missing the gene or that the gene is “damaged”? What about people who aren’t born intolerant but develop it over time? Do you think the gene gets damaged or does like the OP said maybe you have it without symptoms and later the symptoms start to show, i wonder.
Though would that mean that any dairy ive consumed during my life hasn’t really been absorbed? and has just been going straight through my system? But the symptoms only started around 16
A long time ago almost none of us were able to digest milk past early childhood. Since then a few gene variants have appeared and spread; if you have one, you’ll be able to digest milk as an adult.
If you don’t have one, you can possibly handle a glass or two a day because the bacteria in your digestive tract can break some milk down for you (if you gradually train them to), but any more than that and you will have serious symptoms.
More on the evolution of lactase persistence from Gene Expression:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/08/lactase-persistence-in-eurasia.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/01/was-lactose-tolerance-inevitable.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/01/location-genes-culture.php
Most of the fact that people cant digest milk properly is because the real thing has been bastardized by man - aka pastuerization - try drinking raw milk and for many people this doesnt even become an issue.
[/quote]
Raw milk is good. My uncle used to have cows, and when I visited him, I only drank milk. It did save me from having my knee shattered when I was younger.
[quote]rsg wrote:
forbes wrote:
i guess i have taken things a bit too seriously. after all, God did make milk for ppl to drink.
i will continue drinking my homogenized milk then.
just curious though, is there any hormones in milk? does it have any drawbacks?
Cows make milk, not god.
Try getting fresh unpasteurized milk from a local farmer if you can.[/quote]
You may not want to take this gentlemans advice as there is a reason milk is pasteurized.
[quote]Player wrote:
What are the symptoms for lactose intolerance?
I drink milk, eat cheese and take yogurt and feel well, but I don’t know what the symptoms are?
[/quote]
This is what the Mayo Clinic has to say on the issue:
Symptoms
The signs and symptoms of lactose intolerance usually begin 30 minutes to two hours after eating or drinking foods that contain lactose. Common signs and symptoms include:
Diarrhea, which is the most common symptom
Nausea
Abdominal cramps
Bloating
Gas
Symptoms are usually mild but may sometimes be severe. The severity of symptoms doesn’t correlate with the degree of lactose malabsorption. Instead, symptoms relate to a range of factors, including ethnicity, age and how fast you digest food.
Lactose intolerance isn’t easily diagnosed by signs and symptoms alone. Many other conditions, including stomach flu and irritable bowel syndrome, can give you similar symptoms. In young children, diarrhea along with certain other symptoms may be a sign of milk protein allergy
[quote]DanErickson wrote:
rsg wrote:
forbes wrote:
i guess i have taken things a bit too seriously. after all, God did make milk for ppl to drink.
i will continue drinking my homogenized milk then.
just curious though, is there any hormones in milk? does it have any drawbacks?
Cows make milk, not god.
Try getting fresh unpasteurized milk from a local farmer if you can.
You may not want to take this gentlemans advice as there is a reason milk is pasteurized.[/quote]
I am not a dairy person so I am completly impartial. For those of you on the fence I thought this might help present both sides of the coin a little clearer:
Raw Milk Vs. Pasteurized Milk
From Armchair Science, London (April 1938)
There is no substitute for clean, raw milk as a food, so far as children are concerned. Science has not yet succeeded in providing, in the pasteurized variety, those essential qualities that are the only real foundation for a healthy child.
Unfortunately, many grossly distorted statements are current regarding our milk supply. If we are to believe the protagonists of the Pasteurization-of-all-milk-at-all costs Party, raw milk is as good, or rather as bad, as rat poison-although as the Minister of Agriculture recently stated, “the human race existed long before Pasteur was heard of.”
The process of pasteurization was debated in the House of Commons and the suggestion made that no raw milk should be sold for human consumption. This would mean installation of expensive machinery by every supplier, and if it should become compulsory there is little doubt that many small firms would shut down and the business pass in the hands of a few big dealers.
If we are to be compelled to drink pasteurized milk, we should at least understand what pasteurization means. It set out to accomplish two things: Destruction of certain disease-carrying germs and the prevention of souring milk. These results are obtained by keeping the milk at a temperature of 145 degrees to 150 degrees F. for half an hour, at least, and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F.
It is undoubtedly beneficial to destroy dangerous germs, but pasteurization does more than this-it kills off harmless and useful germs alike, and by subjecting the milk to high temperatures, destroys some nutritious constituents.
With regards to the prevention of souring; sour raw milk is very widely used. It is given to invalids, being easily digested, laxative in its properties, and not unpleasant to take. But, after pasteurization, the lactic acid bacilli are killed. The milk, in consequence, cannot become sour and quickly decomposes, while undesirable germs multiply very quickly.
Pasteurization’s great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.
Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food �?? a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy-farmer’s answer to the pasturization zealots.
Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.
Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose �?? which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.
Probably pasteurization’s worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and breain formation suffer serious setbacks.
Pasteurization also destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation and generally takes from the milk its most vital qualities.
In face of these facts-which are undeniable-what has the Pasteurization Party to say? Instead of compelling dealers to set up expensive machinery for turning raw milk into something that is definitely not what it sets out to be �?? a nutritious, health giving food �?? let them pass legislation making the dairy-farmers produce clean, raw milk �?? that is milk pure to drink with all its constituents unaltered.
The above was published in Magazine Digest - June 1938
Armchair Science is a British Medical Journal