Here is a analogy:
Hundreds of years ago our ancestors drank raw milk, the were either super healthy and lived long and happy lives or they would on occasion get ill from it. This made them think what if we can do something to this milk to make it safe, therefore pasteurisation was invented and they could drink milk without fear of illness.
Bacteria, however, are at the crux of the controversy over raw milk.
Proponents argue that the milk naturally contains an array of beneficial bacteria and enzymes that give the immune system a workout and aid with digestion – and that are destroyed by pasteurization. Meanwhile, dairy scientists such as Bishop argue that such beneficial bacteria (such as acidophilus and bifidobacterium) occur only in small amounts in raw milk, and that any enzymes the milk contains have no proven benefit for humans.
Federal officials maintain that pasteurization is crucial because the risk of contamination with harmful bacteria outweighs any potential benefits from beneficial, or probiotic, bacteria found in unprocessed milk.
Raw milk advocates point to a small, mostly European body of research to support their claims. A handful of studies have shown that children who grow up on farms appear to be less likely than other children to suffer from allergies such as hay fever and asthma. A separate body of research has begun to link that effect to unpasteurized milk – though the evidence is preliminary, and somewhat mixed.
A study of about 100 children in Crete, published in the journal Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2001, found a significantly reduced rate of allergies among urban (but not rural) children who drank unpasteurized milk. A study of more than 4,000 children in a rural county in England, published by the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in 2006, found that those children who drank unpasteurized milk were 40% less likely to have symptoms of eczema. A New Zealand study, published in the journal Allergy in 2002, found a similar effect on eczema.
But an analysis of data collected from more than 23,000 adult women in Iowa, published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control last October, revealed a slightly higher rate of asthma and eczema among those who said they had ever consumed unpasteurized milk, compared with those who hadn’t.
Bacteria, however, are at the crux of the controversy over raw milk.
Proponents argue that the milk naturally contains an array of beneficial bacteria and enzymes that give the immune system a workout and aid with digestion – and that are destroyed by pasteurization. Meanwhile, dairy scientists such as Bishop argue that such beneficial bacteria (such as acidophilus and bifidobacterium) occur only in small amounts in raw milk, and that any enzymes the milk contains have no proven benefit for humans.
Federal officials maintain that pasteurization is crucial because the risk of contamination with harmful bacteria outweighs any potential benefits from beneficial, or probiotic, bacteria found in unprocessed milk.
Raw milk advocates point to a small, mostly European body of research to support their claims. A handful of studies have shown that children who grow up on farms appear to be less likely than other children to suffer from allergies such as hay fever and asthma. A separate body of research has begun to link that effect to unpasteurized milk – though the evidence is preliminary, and somewhat mixed.
A study of about 100 children in Crete, published in the journal Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2001, found a significantly reduced rate of allergies among urban (but not rural) children who drank unpasteurized milk.
A study of more than 4,000 children in a rural county in England, published by the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in 2006, found that those children who drank unpasteurized milk were 40% less likely to have symptoms of eczema. A New Zealand study, published in the journal Allergy in 2002, found a similar effect on eczema.
But an analysis of data collected from more than 23,000 adult women in Iowa, published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control last October, revealed a slightly higher rate of asthma and eczema among those who said they had ever consumed unpasteurized milk, compared with those who hadn’t.
The scientist quoted was Rusty Bishop, director of the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research at the University of Wisconsin, Madison
[quote]punnyguy wrote:
Can someone please explain to me the material difference between drinking milk vs. using whey (or casein) protein?[/quote]
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
As I am being schooled as a scientist then due to the manner in which science works if anyone can prove that raw milk is better for me then I will change my mind. But at the moment the evidence points towards that it doesn’t matter as it is potentially dangerous. [/quote]
Have you tasted raw milk or even non-homogenized milk?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
As I am being schooled as a scientist then due to the manner in which science works if anyone can prove that raw milk is better for me then I will change my mind. But at the moment the evidence points towards that it doesn’t matter as it is potentially dangerous. [/quote]
Have you tasted raw milk or even non-homogenized milk?[/quote]
Yes forget about the science lets talk about taste, it’s good for me because it tastes good for me. I also haven’t tasted Hydrogen Cyanide but I know that’s bad for me.
Actually I have drunk it and probably a lot fresher then any of you have. Although that proves nothing.
…and we’re still looking for proof. All I usually see on this topic is “assumptions”. There are a lot of huge bodybuilders walking around who drank “crap store milk” in part to get there.
I would imagine to most here, that is the main concern. If it does not affect performance in any substantial way and the main concern is “longevity”, then I hope to see more vegetarians here just so this makes more sense.
If you experience less gas from raw milk, that’s great. No one likes to feel like they have to fart all day and I am sure your friends and family thank you.
If you are drinking it because of some arbitrary belief in the “healthfullness” of it, so be it.
But until we start seeing some studies done that actually prove GREATER FUNCTION as a result, let’s avoid jumping on the bandwagon just for the sake of it.
Wait, the raw milk I’ve been drinking is bad for me?
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
Actually I have drunk it and probably a lot fresher then any of you have. Although that proves nothing. [/quote]
I doubt that since I had access to it for most of my childhood.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Wait, the raw milk I’ve been drinking is bad for me?[/quote]
According to the link I posted, it very well could be if it contains any toxic molds or pathogens.
Why would any food source be completely safe?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Wait, the raw milk I’ve been drinking is bad for me?[/quote]
According to the link I posted, it very well could be if it contains any toxic molds or pathogens.
Why would any food source be completely safe?[/quote]
As I stated in a previous post most high risk food you eat is treated to reduce risk of pathogens, such as cooking chicken. Milk is similar, the actual milk it’s self if the source is good is OK to drink but when you store it you incubate the bacteria this is were the danger is amplified. It was explained in more detail in my previous post.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
Actually I have drunk it and probably a lot fresher then any of you have. Although that proves nothing. [/quote]
I doubt that since I had access to it for most of my childhood.[/quote]
That is why I used the word probably, it leaves it open to possibility. Now have you drunk that hydrogen cyanide yet. Or do you wish to construct a counter argument before I move onto organic food.
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
As I am being schooled as a scientist then due to the manner in which science works if anyone can prove that raw milk is better for me then I will change my mind. But at the moment the evidence points towards that it doesn’t matter as it is potentially dangerous. [/quote]
Have you tasted raw milk or even non-homogenized milk?[/quote]
Yes forget about the science lets talk about taste, it’s good for me because it tastes good for me. I also haven’t tasted Hydrogen Cyanide but I know that’s bad for me.[/quote]
What science? The some of the sources you’ve been posting here have some very glaring contradictions. Your argument is based on raw milk being a health risk due to contamination. One source in particular starts off by saying there is very little risk of illness from raw milk, then reels out a series of diseases which have been reduced by pasteurization (the one you posted on page 4).
Pasteurization came about at a time when pathogens were not as easily controlled, so it isn’t that raw milk is inherently dangerous; more the conditions in which the milk was processed were dirtier and there was a greater risk of the milk being contaminated or cross-contaminated.
Pasteurization allowed, and still allows, milk to be produced in dirtier conditions and on a larger scale. It’s just cleaned at the end. Suppliers of raw milk have to be more stringent with hygiene at the source and that’s partly why raw milk is more expensive.
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
Actually I have drunk it and probably a lot fresher then any of you have. Although that proves nothing. [/quote]
I doubt that since I had access to it for most of my childhood.[/quote]
That is why I used the word probably, it leaves it open to possibility. Now have you drunk that hydrogen cyanide yet. Or do you wish to construct a counter argument before I move onto organic food. [/quote]
It doesn’t leave it open to possibility when I already posted that I grew up on a dairy farm.
LOL @ comparing hydrogen cyanide to raw milk.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
Actually I have drunk it and probably a lot fresher then any of you have. Although that proves nothing. [/quote]
I doubt that since I had access to it for most of my childhood.[/quote]
That is why I used the word probably, it leaves it open to possibility. Now have you drunk that hydrogen cyanide yet. Or do you wish to construct a counter argument before I move onto organic food. [/quote]
It doesn’t leave it open to possibility when I already posted that I grew up on a dairy farm.
LOL @ comparing hydrogen cyanide to raw milk. [/quote]
Ok let’s end this pointless side thought. I was wrong you have drunk raw"er" milk then me.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
As I am being schooled as a scientist then due to the manner in which science works if anyone can prove that raw milk is better for me then I will change my mind. But at the moment the evidence points towards that it doesn’t matter as it is potentially dangerous. [/quote]
Have you tasted raw milk or even non-homogenized milk?[/quote]
Yes forget about the science lets talk about taste, it’s good for me because it tastes good for me. I also haven’t tasted Hydrogen Cyanide but I know that’s bad for me.[/quote]
What science? The some of the sources you’ve been posting here have some very glaring contradictions. Your argument is based on raw milk being a health risk due to contamination. One source in particular starts off by saying there is very little risk of illness from raw milk, then reels out a series of diseases which have been reduced by pasteurization (the one you posted on page 4).
Pasteurization came about at a time when pathogens were not as easily controlled, so it isn’t that raw milk is inherently dangerous; more the conditions in which the milk was processed were dirtier and there was a greater risk of the milk being contaminated or cross-contaminated.
Pasteurization allowed, and still allows, milk to be produced in dirtier conditions and on a larger scale. It’s just cleaned at the end. Suppliers of raw milk have to be more stringent with hygiene at the source and that’s partly why raw milk is more expensive.
[/quote]
Reread the post that I have made, read the studies I have posted. You have ether not read the whole post or not understood it. But let me summarise, my points I have made have explained that;
-There is no enought evidence supporting claims that raw milk has any benefits over pasteurised milk.
-Raw milk is potentially dangerous due to both contamination and reasons Proffesor X mentioned.
-macro nutrient are not effected enough for it to matter. And besides you could just drink slightly more.
So to conclude with the evidence I have presented (not all of which say exactly the same thing because that isnt how science works) that it seems that there is no additional benifit to raw milk over other and it could infact be dangerous. And non of you have give any evidence otherwise. And no I feel better on it because we all know about placebo. And this is not a argument about lactose intolerance if you are lactose intolerant just eat lactose free milk or take lactase enzyme when you drink it.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
Actually I have drunk it and probably a lot fresher then any of you have. Although that proves nothing. [/quote]
I doubt that since I had access to it for most of my childhood.[/quote]
That is why I used the word probably, it leaves it open to possibility. Now have you drunk that hydrogen cyanide yet. Or do you wish to construct a counter argument before I move onto organic food. [/quote]
It doesn’t leave it open to possibility when I already posted that I grew up on a dairy farm.
LOL @ comparing hydrogen cyanide to raw milk. [/quote]
It was a simple analogy you don’t need to drink HCN to know that is bad for you.
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
Actually I have drunk it and probably a lot fresher then any of you have. Although that proves nothing. [/quote]
I doubt that since I had access to it for most of my childhood.[/quote]
That is why I used the word probably, it leaves it open to possibility. Now have you drunk that hydrogen cyanide yet. Or do you wish to construct a counter argument before I move onto organic food. [/quote]
It doesn’t leave it open to possibility when I already posted that I grew up on a dairy farm.
LOL @ comparing hydrogen cyanide to raw milk. [/quote]
Ok let’s end this pointless side thought. I was wrong you have drunk raw"er" milk then me.
[/quote]
That wasn’t the point of my initial question. You are against drinking raw milk so I asked if you’d ever tried it.
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TomKaminski wrote:
Actually I have drunk it and probably a lot fresher then any of you have. Although that proves nothing. [/quote]
I doubt that since I had access to it for most of my childhood.[/quote]
That is why I used the word probably, it leaves it open to possibility. Now have you drunk that hydrogen cyanide yet. Or do you wish to construct a counter argument before I move onto organic food. [/quote]
It doesn’t leave it open to possibility when I already posted that I grew up on a dairy farm.
LOL @ comparing hydrogen cyanide to raw milk. [/quote]
It was a simple analogy you don’t need to drink HCN to know that is bad for you.[/quote]
It was a blatant attempt to strawman my post. Raw milk is not like hydrogen cyanide.