[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
So basically animals dont drink milk because they dont know how to get it, not because they dont want to drink it. [/quote]
Dude, that cracked me up. I’m picturing a bunch of barnyard animals trying to figure out how they can get themselves some fucking milk, pronto! ; )
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
So basically animals dont drink milk because they dont know how to get it, not because they dont want to drink it. [/quote]
Dude, that cracked me up. I’m picturing a bunch of barnyard animals trying to figure out how they can get themselves some fucking milk, pronto! ; ) [/quote]
LOL me too
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]Spriont wrote:
For a person who is not lactose intolerant, is milk good for bulking or does it just fatten people?[/quote]
There is no single food that’s great for bulking.
Your question is like asking, “Are oranges good for bulking?” [/quote]
My plan wasn’t to drop every food and just drink milk. I thought this went without saying. Anyway, thanks for your help, and all of the other posters.
I have been off milk since January and have lost some fat (negligible). I’m going to start lifting seriously again as soon as the track season ends and was thinking about drinking milk again to gain weight. Again, thanks to everyone that provided anecdotal evidence.
I love milk. I drink it on a regular basis. I enjoy how it tastes. And fortunately I am not lactose intolerant. People “argue” milk all the time. The ones against it can argue all they want, but I like it, drink it and will continue enjoying it. That’s my approach.
Christopher
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Everyone has some degree of lactose intolerance. We’re designed to drink milk the first maybe three… four years of our lives. If you didn’t touch milk again after that, you would be totally lactose intolerant by now.
Mammals produce less lactase as they age. If you consume dairy regularly, you can keep your lactase levels up, making it possible to stomach it. But still, I have a hard time believing that something that is basically 8-12% problematic, can be “good” for you.
[quote]oinky222 wrote:
this only occurs because the pasteurization process destroys the lactase enzymes that are naturally found in the milk. once again, every logical argument against the consumption of milk only applies to commercial milk. when the milk is organic, unpasteurized, and from grass-fed cows, you can’t logically argue against it.
[/quote]
Where are you getting this? The only place I ever find this stated is by raw-milk advocates. Lactase is an enzyme produced in the digestive systems of mammals. Can you show a scientific reference pointing to is occurring in milk? (And why would it occur in milk, when baby cows make plenty of it on their own?)
There are numerous studies debunking the idea. I’m sure raw-milk, organic milk is healthier than the alternative, but that doesn’t mean lactase is present.[/quote]
Interesting. I had read that raw milk contained the lactase enzyme from Dr. Mercola (Dr. Mercola's Censored Library (Private Membership) | Dr. Joseph Mercola | Substack, Dr. Mercola's Censored Library (Private Membership) | Dr. Joseph Mercola | Substack) and had just assumed it was true. I convinced my mother, who is severely lactose intolerant, to try out raw milk as she consumes virtually no protein during the day, and she had absolutely no problems with the raw milk compared to horrible digestion problems with the commercial dairy, thus making me think Mercola was right. If it isnt the presence of lactase enzymes that makes raw milk easier to digest, what is it? Is it the acidopholis lactobacilli? Or one of the other bacterias that gets destroyed in the pasteurization process? I’d like to see the studies that debunk the idea of lactase enzymes not being in milk if you can find them.
Either way, however, I stand by my statement that at least in my experience, lactose intolerance only seems to be an issue when consuming pasteurized milk. Even if its not the presence of lactase enzymes, something about raw milk seems to prevent digestion problems.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Everyone has some degree of lactose intolerance. We’re designed to drink milk the first maybe three… four years of our lives. If you didn’t touch milk again after that, you would be totally lactose intolerant by now.
Mammals produce less lactase as they age. If you consume dairy regularly, you can keep your lactase levels up, making it possible to stomach it. But still, I have a hard time believing that something that is basically 8-12% problematic, can be “good” for you.
[quote]oinky222 wrote:
this only occurs because the pasteurization process destroys the lactase enzymes that are naturally found in the milk. once again, every logical argument against the consumption of milk only applies to commercial milk. when the milk is organic, unpasteurized, and from grass-fed cows, you can’t logically argue against it.
[/quote]
Where are you getting this? The only place I ever find this stated is by raw-milk advocates. Lactase is an enzyme produced in the digestive systems of mammals. Can you show a scientific reference pointing to is occurring in milk? (And why would it occur in milk, when baby cows make plenty of it on their own?)
There are numerous studies debunking the idea. I’m sure raw-milk, organic milk is healthier than the alternative, but that doesn’t mean lactase is present.[/quote]
Interesting. I had read that raw milk contained the lactase enzyme from Dr. Mercola and had just assumed it was true. I convinced my mother, who is severely lactose intolerant, to try out raw milk as she consumes virtually no protein during the day, and she had absolutely no problems with the raw milk compared to horrible digestion problems with the commercial dairy, thus making me think Mercola was right. If it isnt the presence of lactase enzymes that makes raw milk easier to digest, what is it? Is it the acidopholis lactobacilli? Or one of the other bacterias that gets destroyed in the pasteurization process? I’d like to see the studies that debunk the idea of lactase enzymes not being in milk if you can find them.
Either way, however, I stand by my statement that at least in my experience, lactose intolerance only seems to be an issue when consuming pasteurized milk. Even if its not the presence of lactase enzymes, something about raw milk seems to prevent digestion problems.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html
There’s lost of reading on lactase though, and it’s an enzyme produced in the small intestine, and not milk itself. I have yet to find another reference to lactase occurring in the milk itself. It doesn’t really make sense that it would be.
http://www.inklingmagazine.com/articles/raw-milkclean-and-healthy/
"So what about the raw milk lactase claim. I’ve read this statement countless times over, even in major newspapers. But it’s incorrect. However, raw milk does contain lactic acid bacteria-- notably species of Lactobaccili and Lactococci. These bacteria are naturally found in milk and ferment lactose into lactic acid using their handy enzyme B-galactosidase. Lactic acid bacteria are also added to milk to create cultured milk products, such as yogurt. The lactic acid produced gives yogurt its distinctive sour taste.
So while milk itself contains no lactase, its natural bacteria can produce it thereby reducing the tummy upsetting lactose in raw milk. Killing off the lactobaccili - as pasteurization will likely do - means no happy lactose reduction."
Sounds plausible, right?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n3/full/5201297a.html
There’s lost of reading on lactase though, and it’s an enzyme produced in the small intestine, and not milk itself. I have yet to find another reference to lactase occurring in the milk itself. It doesn’t really make sense that it would be.
http://www.inklingmagazine.com/articles/raw-milkclean-and-healthy/
"So what about the raw milk lactase claim. I’ve read this statement countless times over, even in major newspapers. But it’s incorrect. However, raw milk does contain lactic acid bacteria-- notably species of Lactobaccili and Lactococci. These bacteria are naturally found in milk and ferment lactose into lactic acid using their handy enzyme B-galactosidase. Lactic acid bacteria are also added to milk to create cultured milk products, such as yogurt. The lactic acid produced gives yogurt its distinctive sour taste.
So while milk itself contains no lactase, its natural bacteria can produce it thereby reducing the tummy upsetting lactose in raw milk. Killing off the lactobaccili - as pasteurization will likely do - means no happy lactose reduction."
Sounds plausible, right?[/quote]
Ok, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification.
My post workout beverage is one liter of 2% organic lactose free milk. It tastes great, has alot of calories, and is getting the job done. I never heard anything negative about milk until Chris Shugart wrote that article. But then again, Arnold, Reg Park, Steve Reeves, Vic Tanny, Vince Gironda, and countless other are in favor of it. The anti dairy craze has caused the vitamin d deficiency. Decades of big, strong people say drink milk.
Dammit yall! Milk is the greatest food/drink ever!
/thread
[quote]Guilty77 wrote:
My post workout beverage is one liter of 2% organic lactose free milk. It tastes great, has alot of calories, and is getting the job done. I never heard anything negative about milk until Chris Shugart wrote that article. But then again, Arnold, Reg Park, Steve Reeves, Vic Tanny, Vince Gironda, and countless other are in favor of it. The anti dairy craze has caused the vitamin d deficiency. Decades of big, strong people say drink milk.[/quote]
Nope - At least Arnold wasn’t.
“Milk is for babies - when you grow up you drink beer!”
I personally think milk or any other dairy is fine, but apparently Shwarzenegger did not drink it - maybe he just didn’t like it, so I’m not saying he felt dairy was bad for you, I don’t know for sure exactly what his reasoning was.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]Guilty77 wrote:
My post workout beverage is one liter of 2% organic lactose free milk. It tastes great, has alot of calories, and is getting the job done. I never heard anything negative about milk until Chris Shugart wrote that article. But then again, Arnold, Reg Park, Steve Reeves, Vic Tanny, Vince Gironda, and countless other are in favor of it. The anti dairy craze has caused the vitamin d deficiency. Decades of big, strong people say drink milk.[/quote]
Nope - At least Arnold wasn’t.
“Milk is for babies - when you grow up you drink beer!”
I personally think milk or any other dairy is fine, but apparently Shwarzenegger did not drink it - maybe he just didn’t like it, so I’m not saying he felt dairy was bad for you, I don’t know for sure exactly what his reasoning was. [/quote]
In his Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding, he lists milk as one of the most important bulk foods (drinks, whatever).
His reasoning was to make a good joke about beer.
I think when he said this he was responding to someone asking about milk…he wasn’t offering his own idea about milk.
Personally I gave up drinking milk a year or two ago. Do I feel healthier…No, although I still keep protein shakes in my diet. Whether its healthy to drink or not, it cut alot of unnecssary calories from of my diet. Therefore an easy way to up the calories if you see fit.