Don’t mess with Texas, right? Hey, I’ll help you out. Not only am I a milk hater from California. I am a liberal, san francisco, anti-war milk hater. You know, the kind that voted in the EVIL Nancy Pelosi. Hell, I dont even beat up gays like good, decent, conservative Christian folk do.
You might be interested to know that I am originally from the South.
Truth is, I’m not a milk hater. Like I said, if you are lactose tolerant, go for it. [/quote]
I’m with you right on the liberal, san francisco, anti-war not being up gays theme – I’m all those things (except I like milk)… But don’t bring Christianity into a discussion it has nothing to do with. People who beat up homosexuals are not Christian.
For being a touchy feeling Californian, as am I, you keep demonstrating your inability to empathize you seem to be touting. Your eurocentric post title, and myopic view of Christians…
[quote]entheogens wrote:
I do value the opinion of the folks over at the Weston Price Foundation and here is what they have to say on the subject of pasteurized vs raw milk:
I had a sneaking suspicion that something like this would pop up.
There is way too much wrong with that article to consider it even close to valid.
To start pointing out the blatant innacuracies of it would be a task in and of itself.
Lets just relegate that entire organization to Quacks, fearmongers, and as a complement- pedelers of half truths. It can be considered a compliment because it implies that there may be a kernel of truth to what thse goofballs write.
[quote]nargoth16 wrote:
Your post is highly flawed. The lactase is the enzyme your body produces to digest milk. Lactose is a non harmful sugar which, if undigested, will cause diarrhea through increased bacterial action in your large intestines. (Look up Lactulose for a commercial laxative that takes advantage of this effect by bonding lactose to a glucose molecule making it indigestible to even lactose tolerant individuals)
That said, if it doesn’t cause you diarrhea DRINK IT UP. Notice that from the article: “There’s pretty good evidence that it’s the most strongly selected single gene variant in Europeans in the last 30,000 years.” Why do you think that’s so? BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU A MONSTER ABLE TO DEFEAT ALL THE MILK NAYSAYERS!!! Milk it does a body good.
[/quote]
Realy? Cause it was explained to me by an M.D. that lactulose works by osmotic draw.
I used to administer it to a patient in my care for low bowel motility.
[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
I’ve heard similar stats thrown around before. While it wouldn’t suprise me if true, I am legimately interested in any research that has actually been done in this regard. “Race” is such a hot topic in popular culture as well as for real study that researchers as a whole tend to avoid it like the plague.
[/quote]
There is a nice overview of “race” on wikipedia: Race - Wikipedia
Hopefully, one of us can come up with a
legit article confirming that number, but it sounds about right to me. Think of all the children who were born in the antebellum South between whites and those of african descent. Often those children were the result of African-American women being raped, or like Thomas Jefferson’s relation with Sally Hemmings. Any child born of these types of relations was branded “black”,
even though they were of mixed ancestry.
This type of thing continued for African-Americans who continued to live in the South post-reconstrunction through the early 20th century, under the quasi-slavery of sharecropping. There, too, if a child was born of mixed heritage, s/he was branded “black” and did not benefit from the privileges of white society.
All this to say, that African-Americans have a lot of european ancestry and Euro-Americans, especially those whose families have been in the South for a number of generations as mine has been, have a lot of African ancestry in them.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Grimnuruk wrote:
I’ve heard similar stats thrown around before. While it wouldn’t suprise me if true, I am legimately interested in any research that has actually been done in this regard. “Race” is such a hot topic in popular culture as well as for real study that researchers as a whole tend to avoid it like the plague.
There is a nice overview of “race” on wikipedia: Race - Wikipedia
Hopefully, one of us can come up with a
legit article confirming that number, but it sounds about right to me. Think of all the children who were born in the antebellum South between whites and those of african descent. Often those children were the result of African-American women being raped, or like Thomas Jefferson’s relation with Sally Hemmings. Any child born of these types of relations was branded “black”,
even though they were of mixed ancestry.
This type of thing continued for African-Americans who continued to live in the South post-reconstrunction through the early 20th century, under the quasi-slavery of sharecropping. There, too, if a child was born of mixed heritage, s/he was branded “black” and did not benefit from the privileges of white society.
All this to say, that African-Americans have a lot of european ancestry and Euro-Americans, especially those whose families have been in the South for a number of generations as mine has been, have a lot of African ancestry in them.
[/quote]
Something I found interesting in the wikipedia article was that the further you go from the “hard” science to the soft (cultural anthro) and towards the politically correct left leaning academics the more professionals don’t believe in “race”. I’ve seen it in personal experience of course, but interesting just the same. Some biologists even try to avoid it by using “cline” instead.
That study was made 22 years ago, I would be very interested to see what the results would be in todays ultra-PC environment. I’ve talked with former academics/authors who were “blacklisted” our of their careers for studying non-PC topics and coming up with non-PC answers.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
nargoth16 wrote:
Your post is highly flawed. The lactase is the enzyme your body produces to digest milk. Lactose is a non harmful sugar which, if undigested, will cause diarrhea through increased bacterial action in your large intestines. (Look up Lactulose for a commercial laxative that takes advantage of this effect by bonding lactose to a glucose molecule making it indigestible to even lactose tolerant individuals)
That said, if it doesn’t cause you diarrhea DRINK IT UP. Notice that from the article: “There’s pretty good evidence that it’s the most strongly selected single gene variant in Europeans in the last 30,000 years.” Why do you think that’s so? BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU A MONSTER ABLE TO DEFEAT ALL THE MILK NAYSAYERS!!! Milk it does a body good.
Realy? Cause it was explained to me by an M.D. that lactulose works by osmotic draw.
I used to administer it to a patient in my care for low bowel motility.
[/quote]
That is how it works.
There’s two things: The undigested sugar renders a lot of water inaccessible to the small intestines and therefor passes to the large intestines. Then, Bacteria starts munching on it causing a variety of other things, not limited to pulling even more water into your bowels.
This is similar to any crystalline starch (which are often marketed as fiber supplements), or sugar alcohol. (or Lactose in Lactose intolerant individuals) Initial water retention from the item itself varies with the item. For example, some sugar alcohols bind less water than others.
Something I found interesting in the wikipedia article was that the further you go from the “hard” science to the soft (cultural anthro) and towards the politically correct left leaning academics the more professionals don’t believe in “race”.
I’ve seen it in personal experience of course, but interesting just the same. Some biologists even try to avoid it by using “cline” instead.
That study was made 22 years ago, I would be very interested to see what the results would be in todays ultra-PC environment. I’ve talked with former academics/authors who were “blacklisted” our of their careers for studying non-PC topics and coming up with non-PC answers.
[/quote]
I don’t dispute the PC influence on the “softer” sciences as you call them. However from a purely genetic point of view it is nearly impossible to distinguish “races” from one another. You can certainly group people by their families but to group people as in their races is very difficult because there is a very small amount of genetic diversity in the human population. Around 85% of gene variants can be found in any population of peoples. Once you account for the fact that only 25% of our genome acually varies you can see that there is not a lot of variation to work with.
There was a classic study done in Europe that illustrated this point. Basically they took 4 groups of peoples DNA sequence and pick sights on the DNA (at random then at possible ?race? identifying points) to compare the sequences. The people were from Switzerland, Lithuania, Ghana and Japan. The genetic groupings were a mixture of people each time they tried. Off the top of my head about 50 people were used in the study. Part of the problem with this study, as I see it, is that over 90% of genetic diversity is represented in central Africa. So the Ghanans would have been more likely to be messing up the ?race? groups.
Unless you have a 100% clean cow, be wary of the “bad” stuff in raw milk. It is not like they thought pasteurization was something cool to do, it is done for a reason.
Agreed. Pasteurization wasn’t just invented for shits and giggles. While I do hold the stance that people should be able to do what they want to their own bodies (like buy milk raw if they want to), I am also mindful of how uneducated and ignorant some people are on many subjects. Just like Spike and teenagers who overdose on it, stupidity is the reason it is hard to argue against some of these laws and restrictions.[/quote]
Well maybe it was invented for the “shits”. Eehhehe
You’re beloved micellar casein Metabolic Drive, and Muscle Milk, etc. that you and I suck down daily, where do you thik that comes from? Raw milk.
This is right from the Protein Magic article on this site:
"In the simplest words possible, micellar casein is the undenatured form of casein found in RAW MILK. All of the amino acids are intact, unprocessed and unaltered. They are possibly the most exotic proteins in existence but ironically, they’re destroyed when the milk is processed in any conventional way.
If, however, the milk proteins are “handled” in the most careful way possible, shielded from light and heat and mechanical insult, we can preserve the micellar casein. That means that the good properties of casein are magnified, increased exponentially. Micellar casein has antibacterial action; leads to increased nutrient absorption and even increased HDL levels; and it even has immuno-modulatory effects and opioid-like peptides that might ease achy joints and muscles.
Perhaps most importantly, nitrogen retention ? the physiological condition that’s essential for muscle growth ? is amplified by micellar casein. All of that remains intact when it’s processed properly."
[quote]Professor X wrote:
First, where are these statistics from?[/quote]
I’ve heard that figure for years, as I’m sure you have. First time was from one of my college professors. If you google “African-American European ancestry” you’ll find it mentioned quite a few times. Do you have reason to dispute it?
Since when is it not? If, for example, one out of five of your patients had an allergic reaction to Novacaine, wouldn’t you describe that as a “significant” percentage? You’re quibbling here.
Last time I checked, yes. I’m not quite sure what your point is.
[quote]jwillow wrote:
I’ve heard that figure for years, as I’m sure you have. First time was from one of my college professors. If you google “African-American European ancestry” you’ll find it mentioned quite a few times. Do you have reason to dispute it? [/quote]
Not necessarily…but when people quote stats (that aren’t just estimations they pull from personal experience) I often like to know where they came from.
Actually, I’m not. If someone makes a post called “OUR Asian heritage” on a board as diverse as this relating it to everyone here, are you honestly saying you believe that because there may be 20% of the Europeans on this board who have a great great great grandfather who was Asian that it makes it significant for all people? That is what happened here, you know.
[quote]
Third, isn’t Spain a part of Europe?
Last time I checked, yes. I’m not quite sure what your point is.[/quote]
That pointing out that even more hispanics have ‘European ancestry’ was a waste of words. Of course they do. Hell, if you want to go back far enough, most of us probably came from the same geographical region.
I agree that the OP’s choice of title was poorly chosen.
Personally, I would be interested in a (hypothetical) study of the emergence of a gene improving carbohydrate tolerance among East Asian populations.
Even though I myself am not of Asian descent, it might nonetheless have application to my own diet, in that I might expect to have less tolerance to carbs than my Chinese girlfriend and her family, and might want to ignore their advice that I should eat more rice and less dairy.
Of course, if that study were titled “OUR Asian heritage” I might raise the same objections that others raised on this thread.
[quote]greekdawg wrote:
You’re beloved micellar casein Metabolic Drive, and Muscle Milk, etc. that you and I suck down daily, where do you thik that comes from? Raw milk.[/quote]
here goes an easy question for you.
How does Biotest sell Raw milk proteins when the current requirements in the USA is to pasteurise?
Hint… they don’t.
and in terms of TCs article, Micellar casein is not processed in any magical way. Pasterurized, filtered a number of times by different techniques, then spray dried out the other side.
[quote]greekdawg wrote:
You’re beloved micellar casein Metabolic Drive, and Muscle Milk, etc. that you and I suck down daily, where do you thik that comes from? Raw milk.
This is right from the Protein Magic article on this site:
"In the simplest words possible, micellar casein is the undenatured form of casein found in RAW MILK. All of the amino acids are intact, unprocessed and unaltered. …[/quote]
[quote]gotaknife wrote:
Something I found interesting in the wikipedia article was that the further you go from the “hard” science to the soft (cultural anthro) and towards the politically correct left leaning academics the more professionals don’t believe in “race”.
[/quote]
Well, I am not doubting that “poltical correctness” could play a role; however, it is fair to say that the notion of race isn’t that clear-cut.
For example, we know that sickle-cell anemia is an affliction among the african-american population. We also know that celiac disease (gluten intolerance) afflicts mostly northern europeans (where glutinous grains were introduced relatively recently).
Now, if my grandfather was of african descent and my everybody else was “white” is that sufficient to make me a candidate for sickle-cell? I dont know. I am asking. So, if there is the degree of miscegenation that there is in the US population, does it do much good to speak about biological differences? Maybe yes, maybe no.
No doubt we can identify some cultural items that flow from europe, that flow from africa, that flow from asia, that flow from native american…and subcultures within all of those. The issue of race one day is going to be solved once and for all. It will happen as a result of the increased miscegenation. That is going to happen in spite of the proponents of racial “purism” (whether they be white, black or some other color). At that time, we should not be nostalgic. However, it occurs to me that it is important to preserve the cultural contributions of some “minor” groups(by minor, I mean groups not having enough political clout) whose art, culture, etc might be eliminated in the sweep of globalization. A lot of indigenous tribes come to mind.
Well, then, it might be usesful to retain the notion of race for medical reasons. Also for legal reasons (racism and discrimination are still a fact of life). But, as time goes on, I think it is going to become less and less important as a category.