Should Humans Drink Milk?

[quote]Nards wrote:
It’s the organic food industry as well as health zealots that say our food is full of toxins.

Look, I’m not going to get into some long discussion, I type far too slowly for that.

The FDA is a very careful, sometimes cripplingly so, organization. The idea that they let poisons into our food and only organic can save us is wrong.[/quote]

the FDA is deeply and thoroughly corrupt; our food supply is horribly adulterated (yet another way “our” gov fails to make itself legitimate); the documentation of the evidence which proves it has been widely available for many years, but it’s not all in one place. Different foods/supps/meds, different examples, different media. Follow the clues and connect the dots.

[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gawd damn, what is with the reaction here? You all act like he is attacking your kids or something.

I personally haven’t seen enough data to convince that I NEED organic foods or that my body will literally show a measurable benefit from them that can be DIRECTLY linked to consuming more of those products.

I honestly think this boils down to preference more than anything else.

Eat all the organic foods you want if you see a benefit from doing so…but I haven’t seen anyone linking articles or studies PROVING the direct benefit to people who eat like many of us anyway.

Elevate the damned discussion instead of reducing all of them to this.

People COULD be learning right now…if the juvenile attacks could stop for a minute.
[/quote]

Well, when it comes to performance, organic vs. regular isn’t as important as when we’re talking overall health and longevity IMO.

Eating regular store bought beef over grass fed beef is not as good in terms of health as it is a pro-inflammatory due to the types of fats in it whereas grass fed beef has a higher ratio of healthier fats (similar to that of wild salmon etc).

There are other examples, but that’s just one that came to mind.
In terms of health, grass fed is better than grain fed (the norm), but it probably won’t affect performance. [/quote]

I agree it likely won’t affect performance…and the health benefits would be in relation to the entire diet of the individual and not just on whether or not they drank store-bought milk or not.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gawd damn, what is with the reaction here? You all act like he is attacking your kids or something.

I personally haven’t seen enough data to convince that I NEED organic foods or that my body will literally show a measurable benefit from them that can be DIRECTLY linked to consuming more of those products.

I honestly think this boils down to preference more than anything else.

Eat all the organic foods you want if you see a benefit from doing so…but I haven’t seen anyone linking articles or studies PROVING the direct benefit to people who eat like many of us anyway.

Elevate the damned discussion instead of reducing all of them to this.

People COULD be learning right now…if the juvenile attacks could stop for a minute.
[/quote]

I know you arent talking to me because Ive said nothing juvenile, but I’ll reply to clarify something.

This guy isnt just saying that organic food is no more beneficial than ‘regular’ food. He’s saying that it’s MORE HARMFUL. That is a bold claim that requires substantiation.

It seems as if you dont realize this discussion is in the process of being elevated, because you couldnt even spot the issue at controversy. The people questioning the british guy posting are simply asking for information that backs up his claims. As someone who just said that you havent seen enough data to sway you one way or the other it would seem like YOU, of all people, would want this guy to substantiate his claims.

[/quote]

?

I would want this discussion to move into actual studies that actually prove something…not subjective feel good emotional responses making fun of dyslexia.

He had an opinion and stated it. If you want to make someone look stupid, do so with the truth and some references.

^I’m not sure I would call the FDA deeply and thoroughly corrupt. Those words better describe district governers in Helmand province or Russian airport security guards who lose your luggage if your tip is insufficient. I never agreed with their recommendations (basic 4, food guide pyramind, whatever the new diagram is nowadays) and I don’t put much faith into their opinions either. Probably no one on T-Nation does. I generally agree with Nards comments on the subject.

Somewhat off topic: Although I’ve never done GOMAD, during my biggest bulk from 160 to 200 lbs I drank 2.5 gallons a week, mostly in oatmeal, shakes, or just plain. It was regular milk (the Shit Shit Shit kind, apparently). It worked OK for me at 22 years old. Like Prof X, I don’t drink it quite that much anymore. I am not asserting that DeltaOne’s statement is incorrect, because it’s probably not. Never really had raw milk to be honest.

edit:

On topic, a simple google search brings up some discussion worthy results:

Site discussing why organic stuff is better. It even goes on to say that organic crop workers are treated better.
http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/2_policy/criticisms_misconceptions_main_page.php

Site discussing why organic food is more poisonous. Yes, it’s ten years old, but it’s an interesting read. Talks about federal regulations a little bit too.

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
^I’m not sure I would call the FDA deeply and thoroughly corrupt. Those words better describe district governers in Helmand province or Russian airport security guards who lose your luggage if your tip is insufficient. I never agreed with their recommendations (basic 4, food guide pyramind, whatever the new diagram is nowadays) and I don’t put much faith into their opinions either. Probably no one on T-Nation does. I generally agree with Nards comments on the subject.

Somewhat off topic: Although I’ve never done GOMAD, during my biggest bulk from 160 to 200 lbs I drank 2.5 gallons a week, mostly in oatmeal, shakes, or just plain. It was regular milk (the Shit Shit Shit kind, apparently). It worked OK for me at 22 years old. Like Prof X, I don’t drink it quite that much anymore. I am not asserting that DeltaOne’s statement is incorrect, because it’s probably not. Never really had raw milk to be honest.[/quote]

…and I did that in the late 90’s and early 00’s, not the 70’s. It did what I needed it to do at the time…make me bigger and stronger along with everything else I was doing.

^Yup. Liquid calories are the way to go for busy college kids, military guys, etc. I don’t particularly like drinking like 6-8 tbsp of EVOO every day and I probably won’t do it as often when I reach my target weight. But you do what you gotta do.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you want to make someone look stupid, do so with the truth and some references. [/quote]

Oh ok. So youre talking to both sides. I thought for a second that you were singling out those who had an opinion that didnt validate your approach to bodybuilding/nutrition. My mistake

But at the same time I also cant get past the irony of this sentence and your post history. So I dont know what to believe anymore.

edit

And Im really not trying to start any sort of argument. I obviously agree with you that I want to see some studies. Because thats what each of my posts towards the english guy (Im sorry guy I know it’s your first and last name but I cant remember it) have been asking for. And I keep getting the run around mixed in with ‘I dont have time’.

Ok I’m back I’m surprised at the response this thread has had so far it seem people are split. I would like to add I am not a troll as I can back up every claim I have laid down with picture eveidence.

I believe my lack of formulation of my argument has caused confusion let me clear this up.

The real arguments here are:

  1. Is milk beneficial in your diet.

  2. Does raw milk have any substantial health benefits over free range pasteurised and “normal” milk.

  3. Does organic food have substantial health benefits over normal food, and therefore is GM food bad for you.

  4. If organic food and therefore raw milk more dangerous then non organic.

This is interesting also.:

It would seem there haven’t really been that many studies done on “organic foods” to determine some outright constant measurable benefit that somehow is more important than attention to overall diet.

if you have studies showing otherwise, post them.

The main pro for organic foods seems to be the avoidance of pesticides.

Stephen Barret MD wrote:[quote]Many “organic” proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pesticide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances [12].

To protect consumers, the FDA sets tolerance levels in foods and conducts frequent “market basket” studies wherein foods from regions throughout the United States are purchased and analyzed. Its 1997 tests found that about 60% of fruits and vegetables had no detectable pesticides and only about 1.2% of domestic and 1.6% of imported foods had violative levels [13]. Its annual Total Diet Study has always found that America’s dietary intakes are well within international and Environmental Protection Agency standards.[/quote]

  1. I would like to start this discussion with a extract from Geissler and Powers Human Nutrition twelfth edition (which is a must buy for anyone interested in the modern science based views on nutrition).

“milk is a excellent source of many nutrients. The major protein in milk is casein, comprising up to 80% of the protein in cow’s milk. Other proteins include lactalbumin, and immunoglobulins, which are responsible for the transfer of maternal immunity of the young animal for a short period following birth. Milk from ruminant animals, such as the cow, contains a large proportion of short chain fatty acids produced from the fermentation of carbohydrates in the rumen. Milk and it’s products are excellent sources of many inorganic nutrients especially calcium and certain vitamins, both fat-soluble and water-soluble.”

“the contribution of dairy products to the uk diet, and to that of many other northern European countries, is very important. They can be an important source of calcium and riboflavin, especially in children and adolescents.”

This book is written by multiple scientists and everything in the book is backed up by studies and references.

I don’t believe I need explain the need for those listed micro nutrients that were mentioned but milk is a very effective source of them. So yes I do believe that milk and dairy products are a important part of your diet and therefore should be eaten.

I do have my COMA book on DRV for food energy and nutrients. If you wish for me to elaborate on the importance of any of those nutrients. Oh and I have way to many studies to list I apologies but I do not have the patience for that because your not going to read them anyway.

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
I have way to many studies to list I apologies but I do not have the patience for that because your not going to read them anyway.[/quote]

Ok I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous statement

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:

Other proteins include lactalbumin, and immunoglobulins, which are responsible for the transfer of maternal immunity of the young animal for a short period following birth.[/quote]

I grew up on a dairy farm. What you’re talking about is a specific type of milk called colostrum. The above is correct in that it’s only produced for a short period after birth, but you won’t get much of the benefits as it’s mixed in with other milk, unless you specifically seek it out, and that would be akin to seeking out a regular supply of cow placentas to eat.

No other adult species drinks milk…No other adult species has Oreos…nuff said

[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
I have way to many studies to list I apologies but I do not have the patience for that because your not going to read them anyway.[/quote]

Ok I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous statement[/quote]

Maybe I will do it tomorrow but at the minute writing out countless lines of studies doesn’t appeal to me. I could also say the same thing to people that disagree with me in reverse show me the studies about raw milk (of which the arn’t many) and I may change my mind.

[quote]Napster87 wrote:
No other adult species drinks milk…No other adult species has Oreos…nuff said[/quote]

I like how people slag off GM food, chemicals ect yet when it comes to PED’s they go down to there doctors/ pharmacies and take it by the handful.

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:

[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
I have way to many studies to list I apologies but I do not have the patience for that because your not going to read them anyway.[/quote]

Ok I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous statement[/quote]

Maybe I will do it tomorrow but at the minute writing out countless lines of studies doesn’t appeal to me. I could also say the same thing to people that disagree with me in reverse show me the studies about raw milk (of which the arn’t many) and I may change my mind. [/quote]

I’m not saying you’re obligated to provide studies (though you should if you want to give some credibility to what you’re saying), I just think that “because you wont read them anyway” is a seriously unreasonable excuse for not providing them. If you don’t want to take the time to provide them, just leave it at that rather than reaching for hollow justifications.

[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:

[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
I have way to many studies to list I apologies but I do not have the patience for that because your not going to read them anyway.[/quote]

Ok I’m sorry but this is a ridiculous statement[/quote]

Maybe I will do it tomorrow but at the minute writing out countless lines of studies doesn’t appeal to me. I could also say the same thing to people that disagree with me in reverse show me the studies about raw milk (of which the arn’t many) and I may change my mind. [/quote]

I’m not saying you’re obligated to provide studies (though you should if you want to give some credibility to what you’re saying), I just think that “because you wont read them anyway” is a seriously unreasonable excuse for not providing them. If you don’t want to take the time to provide them, just leave it at that rather than reaching for hollow justifications. [/quote]

Ok fair point. It is just in my experience that people do not want to read studies.

  1. Does raw milk have any substantial health benefits over free range pasteurised and “normal” milk.

So number 2.

Ok so to understand this we must know why we use the pasteurisation process and what happens during the pasteurisation process.

Ok so homogenisation and heat treatment:

  • Homogenisation is performed to avoid creaming of milk.

  • milk heated to ~60 degrees c forced through very small apertures at high pressure and velocities.

  • Fat globules break up into very small droplets which increase the surface area 5-6 fold

  • Extra proteins absorbed on globule surface, which prevent coalescence; thus lipids remain suspended in milk.

The milk is now homogenised

The aims of heat treatment:

To destroy all harmful micro organisms (MO) (i.e. those that cause tuberculosis and brucellosis) and reduce population of other MO.

It successfully destroys all pathogenic bacteria.

Two processes of pasteurisation:

High-temperature, short-time (HTST)
Holder or batch

HTST

-Cold unpasteurised milk pumped through Heat Exchanger.

-In HE raw milk pre-heated by pasteurised milk (which is partially cooled)

-Pre-heated milk passes through cloth filter and then into holding tube
In holding tube, milk is heated to 71.7c for 15s
Milk properly heated is returned to HE where it is cooled by incoming raw milk

-Milk passes through final cooling section.

Batch method

There are two batch methods:

In bottle
Ultra high temperature

Homogenised milk filled into bottles and heated to 120c for 15-60mins (usually 20mis)

  1. UHT 135-150c for at least 1s and then rapidly cooled

Hopefully know you can see that nothing funky has happened to the milk except for heating for anyone that thought otherwise.

This process of heating has relatively small effect on the nutrients. Due to the short lengths of time it is exposed to heat. This will depend on length of time and temperature under heating. Although as you can see the times under high temperature are relatively short.

I found this piece of literature from the Ohio state university, and it explains it much better then I could. So you get both my poor explanation and there good one.

Milk from healthy cows contains relatively few 23 bacteria (10 ?10 /ml), and the health risk from drinking raw milk would be minimal. However, milk is a natural food that has no protection from external contamination and can be contaminated easily when it is separated from the cow (Rosenthal, 1991). Raw milk normally has a varied microflora arising from several sources, such as the exterior surfaces of the animal and the surfaces of milk handling equipment such as milking machines, pipeline, and containers (Burton, 1986). Therefore, milk is susceptible to contamination by many pathogenic microorganisms, which result in infection and threat to consumer?s health. Addition- ally, there is the potential that disease of cows such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, typhoid, and listeriosis can be transmitted (Spreer, 1998). The average standard plate counts (SPC) for can and bulk milk are ~700,000 bacteria/mL and ~100,000 bacteria/mL respectively, depending on temperature and handling conditions. The microbial standards for grade ?A? raw milk are 100,000 bacteria/mL, for individual producer milk, 300,000 bacteria/mL, as commingled milk, 75,000 cells/mL as somatic cell count (SCC) (PMO, 2001). These standards are the maximum allowed and most dairy producers provide milk with concentrations considerably below the maximum allowable limits. Another indicator of milk quality is the preliminary incubation count (PI) with a maximum allowable count of 100,000 bacteria/mL on load, storage tank, or indi- vidual producer samples, although results of 25,000 bacteria/mL or less are desirable (DPC, 1997). Milk can be classified as a potentially hazardous food if it is not properly processed, handled, or stored.
Raw milk has been, and continues to be, a staple in the epidemiological literature; it has been linked to campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, tuberculosis, brucellosis, hemorrhagic colitis, Brainerd diarrhea, Q fever, listeriosis, yersiniosis, and toxoplasmosis to name a few (Plotter, 2002). Outbreaks associated with the consumption of raw milk routinely occur every year. In 1995, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the U.S. Food and Drug Ad- ministration published guidelines that established a list of pathogen organisms transmitted through raw milk and milk products, such as Salmonella spp., Staphyloccocus aureus, Campylobacter jejuni, Yersina enterocolitica, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli (both enterotoxic and enteropathic), E. coli 0157: H7, Shigella spp., Streptococcus spp., and Hepatitis A virus. Among the fifty states and Puerto Rico, twenty- four states, including Ohio, do not permit the sale of raw milk directly to the consumer. Twenty-seven states permit the sale of raw milk for human consumption either at the farm where produced, in retail outlets, or through cow-share agreements. Twenty-nine states have recorded foodborne outbreaks traceable to raw milk consumption (NASDA, 2004).
Pasteurization is a thermal process widely used in the food and dairy industry with the objective of minimizing health hazards from pathogenic microor- ganisms and to prolong product shelf life. There are several temperature-time combinations to pasteurize milk that range from 63°C (145°F)/30 minutes or 72°C (161°F)/15 seconds to 100°C (212°F)/0.01 seconds. The bacteria standards for Grade ?A? pasteurized milk are 20,000 bacteria/mL and <10 coliform/mL (PMO, 2001). Heat may denature milk proteins. This effect is not considered a disadvantage from the nutritional point of view because it only involves changes in the specific arrangement of the casein protein. There is no breakdown of peptide linkages; therefore, casein can be considered a thermal-resistant compound. Although α-lactoalbumin is relatively heat stable, other whey proteins can be denatured as a result of heating. These denatured proteins are more digestible than their natu- rally occurring form because the protein?s structure is loosened and enzymes can act easier (Renner, 1986). Pasteurization does not impair the nutritional qual- ity of milk fat, calcium, and phosphorus (Beddows and Blake, 1982). Pasteurization temperature does not affect fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, and E), as well as the B-complex vitamins riboflavin, pantothenic acid, biotin, and niacin. The losses of vitamins, such as thiamin (<3%), pyridoxine (0?8%), cobalamin (<10%), and folic acid (<10%) are considered lower than those that take place during the normal handling and preparation of foodstuffs at home (Lund, 1982). Most of the vitamin C is lost during handling, pas- teurization, packaging, and oxidation of milk; about 70% of the remaining vitamin C and 90% of riboflavin can be destroyed by sunlight exposure during storage (Renner, 1986). Scientific research has shown that the detrimental effects of pasteurization on the nutritional and physi- ological values of milk are negligible considering the safety benefits in regards to consumers? health.

References
Beddows, C. G., and C. Blake. (1982). The status of fluoride in bovine milk. II. The effect of various heat treatment processes. J. Food Technol. pp. 63?70.
Burton, H. (1986). Microbiological aspects of pasteurized milk. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation, No. 200, Chapter III. pp. 9?14.
DPC. (1997). Guidelines for troubleshooting on-farm bacteria counts in raw milk. The Dairy Practices Council. Keyport, NY.
Lund, D. B. J. (1982). Growth of thermoresistant strep- tococci and deposition of milk constituents on plates of heat exchangers during long operating times. J. Food Protection. 45(9): 806?812, 815.
NASDA. (2004). Raw milk survey. Dairy Division of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. September Annual Meeting. St. Paul, MN.
Plotter, H. M. (2002). Raw milk and milk products for human consumption. Dairy Division, Indiana State Board of Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN.
PMO. (2001 Revision). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Washington, DC.
Renner, E. (1986). Nutritional aspects?Part I?Bio- chemical composition of pasteurized milk. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation, No. 200, Chapter VII. pp. 27?29.
Rosenthal, I. (1991). Milk and Dairy Products Properties and Processing. Ed. Balaban Publishers VCH, New York, NY. pp. 70?71.
Spreer, E. (1998). Milk and Dairy Product Technology. Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, NY. pp. 39?41.

I am finished with constructing arguments for tonight. I will continue tomorrow. But I’ll stay on until south park is over and have a look over and any responces.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]James Brown wrote:
As with all mammals that produce milk, it is “designed” for newborns to ensure they develop properly in the first months of their lives.

[/quote]

Then again, that’s exactly what makes milk such an effective bulking food: it’s nutritious and designed to pack weight on. Same with eggs : that little shell contains all the raw materials to create a fully-formed chick. When you eat an egg you aren’t just eating the embyro, but also the materials that help it grow and develop.[/quote]

…also, there is no doubt in my mind that milk helped me grow early on. Maybe it is even more beneficial while still growing in height which would include all males up to around age 21.

The body you have at age 45 isn’t exactly the same as the one you had at 15. If you can digest it well, why avoid it because of myths?[/quote]

You are correct here. Adolescents need the calcium milk contains to help grow bone most basically