Should Humans Drink Milk?

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
But, while we’re on the topic, I would like to poke fun at a dyslexic calling people out on their reading comprehension skills.

That was funny.[/quote]

What about the part where I’m tarnishing the name of his future career by spouting bullshit, but he compares raw milk to cynanide calling it a “scientifically sound analogy”, then calls me illiterate when he decides it was a joke? Yep, I’m the one who’s going to bring the nutrition industry crashing down around me…[/quote]

Ether construct a counter argument or please stop posting. I have given many valid reason for my argument and have only had one decent counter argument from MODOK (which I haven’t looked into in any detail yet).

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
But, while we’re on the topic, I would like to poke fun at a dyslexic calling people out on their reading comprehension skills.

That was funny.[/quote]

I realised that as I was posting it. Maybe he should get tested…[/quote]

For what? Your “argument” has undergone more revisions than Mickey Rourke’s face. My reading comprehension skills aren’t to blame when you make a direct link between cyanide and raw milk, call it an analogy backed by science, then shit your pants for no apparent reason, backtrack by calling what was an “analogy” a “joke” , going on an ironic tirade about stupidity and how I can’t read because I couldn’t see the joke when it only became one when it suited you.

Here’s a tip from the guy with no reading comprehension skills: if your only recourse is to pull tantrums and call people names (and you’d think someone with a learning disability would refrain from using words that degrade the mentally handicapped based on the obstacles you’ve had to face in your own life) when you’re questioned in very simple and direct terms , you aren’t honing debating skills; you’re honing being a santimonious, spoiled twat with very little to say.

FTR, I couldn’t give a second shit about your pathetic and very transparent attempt to provoke a reaction by questioning my intelligence. I have very little ego in that department and it seems I’m not the one with something to prove to the world.

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
But, while we’re on the topic, I would like to poke fun at a dyslexic calling people out on their reading comprehension skills.

That was funny.[/quote]

What about the part where I’m tarnishing the name of his future career by spouting bullshit, but he compares raw milk to cynanide calling it a “scientifically sound analogy”, then calls me illiterate when he decides it was a joke? Yep, I’m the one who’s going to bring the nutrition industry crashing down around me…[/quote]

Ether construct a counter argument or please stop posting. I have given many valid reason for my argument and have only had one decent counter argument from MODOK (which I haven’t looked into in any detail yet). [/quote]

I did. A very reasonable one,too, and your response was one I’d expect from a five-year-old (albeit one with a potty mouth). I’m perfectly entitled to comment on that as it was directed at me, which is what I’m doing. If you don’t like it, you shouldn’t have posted it in the first place.

Your argument doesn’t even have anything to do with the OP, so you’ve very selfishly hijacked someone else’s thread for your own benefit. If you crave attention so badly why don’t you start another thread where you can hone your arguments and spread your hysteria in peace with people who are actually interested in what you have to say. This is a public forum and I was on this thread before you started cluttering it up with inconclusive babble penned by other people, so you have no authority to tell me or anybody else to “stop posting”.

[quote]TomKaminski wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]TORO wrote:
Because it is raw and has not been treated by large scale distributors or genetically altered by GMO’s; will it perish sooner than pasturized milk?[/quote]

Yes, for sure. You could ask the person you buy it from what the shelf life will be. [/quote]

Although true it doesn’t have a effect on the argument as if raw milk was better you could just buy it more often. [/quote]

No one said it did.

This isnt a thread devoted to your opinions. Speak when spoken to please.

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

Hello straw man, i was wondering when you would arrive. I have never discussed whey protein in this thread, and manufactured proteins and their application to sports nutrition have no bearing on raw milk and it’s nutritional value. If you are angling for hypocracy, it isn’t a viable argument. Milk protein drinks have limited application, primarily in sports nutrition, to produce a narrow goal ( positive nitrogen balance and net positive protein turnover). In pursuit of this goal, you must sacrifice nutrition quality…there is no other viable option for most people. That’s the skinny on whey protein.
[/quote]

Actually, it was never my intention to make a strawman argument, this information is news to me. Apologies if you were offended.

Thank you very much for the explanation.

[quote]MODOK wrote:

You are simply misguided if you think pasteurization makes milk cheap. Well…ignorant to the issue instead of misguided. Research the subject and you will understand. And you are the only person I’ve ever heard make a case the drinking milk straight out of a cows tit is elitist. i think it is probably much more a proletariat activity.
[/quote]

I beg to differ, strongly.

Actually, the wonders of treatment has made milk available to the vast majority of the earth’s population.

Not so much pasteurization, but UHT (Ultra High Temperature) treatment, which allows even unchilled milk to last for up to 30 days.

I live in Asia. It’s hot as hell here (summer temperatures all year round) and most nations barely have enough space for other people let alone cows. Most milk is imported. Unfortunately the majority of people are not so fortunate as to be able to live in the USA or Canada or Australia or NZ.

If UHT didn’t exist, most of the milk would have to be airflown here in huge chiller containers (as raw milk turns sour if the temperature is higher than 2-3 degrees celcius). The costs would be astronomical. The vast majority of us would never have been able to afford milk if not for UHT.

So it IS elitist in a sense.[/quote]

No, milk is not cheap because of pasteurization. Commercial milk is cheap because of commodity subsidization programs that allow giant multi-national corporations to sell corn for less than it costs to produce corn, which the dairy farmers then use as the engine for their CAFO operations. Cattle are crowded together, fed this ultra cheap corn which because of subsidization and the small space required is cheaper than a traditional grazing operation, and get to walk around knee dip in shit and e.coli 0157-H7. So now you have cheaply-produced, shit and pathogen contaminated milk, so you pasteurize it. It still has cow shit in it though. There’s your cheap “affordable” milk. And thats with the FDA’s nose in things…there’s no telling how nasty asian countries milk is before pasteurization.

But the cheap milk is an illusion in this country- you pay the subsidies on the front end through taxes, not on the back end at the counter. The same amount of dairy can be produced on the same amount of land that it takes to run a commercial dairy and is both clean and nutritious right out of the cow. You simply have to stop settling for the lies the lobbyists are telling in order to further their interests. It all boils down to a few companies making more money than they would if we had sustainable agra. Thats really all thats behind it, despite the propaganda.
[/quote]

Majority of Asian milk is sourced not from the USA/Canada but from New Zealand. Grain isn’t subsidised there and the majority of cattle is grass fed.

UHT milk - it doesn’t need to be chilled, even at summer room temperature, and it can keep for far longer - if properly packaged and sealed up to even 3-6 months. It is literally the only type of milk you can get in many of the more temperate climes. Even in European nations like France and Spain…it’s just to expensive and inefficient to cart milk over.

Is the FDA corrupt and controlled by agri companies? I can’t say for certain.

It’s unlikely though that all over the world the Food Safety Standards organizations are all just as corrupt. Asia (and Oceania) aren’t all dirt-poor 3rd world nations with shocking food safety (ie, China) you know - many Asian nations are approaching or already at first world levels…

Ok…leaving aside economic argument. Considering in UHT, milk is heated to an even higher level than in pasteurization (275 Farenheit vs 165 F for pasteurization) do you consider it to be even more harmful to health? Is UHT even worse considering it can cause changes to the taste or look of dairy - due to caremelization of milk sugars?

True or false: Raw organic food is best for fermenting beneficial microorganisms.

“Consult with Medical Doctors”

I don’t know about that, most Medical Doctors have limited information on nutrition.
The state of national health in the US and the UK can attest to that, then again Johnny Bowden seems to be one of these new age guru’s that preach for everything obvious with no negative info.

You know that scene from “Kingpin” when Woody Harrelson comes back to the farm house with a bucket of white liquid, claiming he milked a cow. The farmer states, “we don’t have a cow”, and the camera pans back to a very happy bull.

Personally, I’d take MODOK’s word on nutritional matters before any doctor I’ve ever met. I’ve had numerous medical doctors try to convince me that stomach acid is simply not necessary.

I guess I don’t really need testosterone, either.

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Personally, I’d take MODOK’s word on nutritional matters before any doctor I’ve ever met. I’ve had numerous medical doctors try to convince me that stomach acid is simply not necessary.

I guess I don’t really need testosterone, either.[/quote]

x2

Plus, there are a ton of fat unhealthy doctors. Are you going to take BB advice from a 140lb personal trainer or the dude with 20 inch guns.

Modok knows his shit and thankfully takes the time to explain things in detail here for peoples knowledge. Ok, my post is over because I will go back to learning…and laughing at this debate of course.

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Personally, I’d take MODOK’s word on nutritional matters before any doctor I’ve ever met. I’ve had numerous medical doctors try to convince me that stomach acid is simply not necessary.

I guess I don’t really need testosterone, either.[/quote]

I’m confused by this statement.

Stomach acid “not necessary”? That doesn’t even make sense and makes me wonder if you misunderstood more than believe doctors think stomach acid is now useless.

I personally won’t take anyone’s word for much of anything until I do my own research as well on it.

I see nothing wrong with raw milk…but am amazed at the people acting like store bought milk is pure shit and that we all need to be drinking milk straight from the cow without treatment.

Still waiting on the proof that drinking raw milk literally makes me healthier with defined markers.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Personally, I’d take MODOK’s word on nutritional matters before any doctor I’ve ever met. I’ve had numerous medical doctors try to convince me that stomach acid is simply not necessary.

I guess I don’t really need testosterone, either.[/quote]

I’m confused by this statement.

Stomach acid “not necessary”? That doesn’t even make sense and makes me wonder if you misunderstood more than believe doctors think stomach acid is now useless.

[/quote]

No, I understood perfectly.

The idea is that food can be digested and absorbed without acid, which is somewhat true, maybe, kinda. These are the same doctors that see nothing wrong with lifetime administration of Proton-Pump Inhibitors, which eliminate 95% + of the acid in your stomach.

I believe the general logic is that digestive enzymes do the actual work involved in breaking down food, and the hydochloric acid is, like, bonus.

[quote]Vicomte wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Personally, I’d take MODOK’s word on nutritional matters before any doctor I’ve ever met. I’ve had numerous medical doctors try to convince me that stomach acid is simply not necessary.

I guess I don’t really need testosterone, either.[/quote]

I’m confused by this statement.

Stomach acid “not necessary”? That doesn’t even make sense and makes me wonder if you misunderstood more than believe doctors think stomach acid is now useless.

[/quote]

No, I understood perfectly.

The idea is that food can be digested and absorbed without acid, which is somewhat true, maybe, kinda. These are the same doctors that see nothing wrong with lifetime administration of Proton-Pump Inhibitors, which eliminate 95% + of the acid in your stomach.

I believe the general logic is that digestive enzymes do the actual work involved in breaking down food, and the hydochloric acid is, like, bonus.[/quote]

Lol. I guess fermentation of raw foods aiding in digestion helps as well… as does many other things like soaking, sprouting, heating, chewing, proper gut microflora (eradicating h. pylori in the stomach, and optimizing healthful bacteria in the intestine), proper hydration, optimized fat soluble vitamins in the diet, optimizing (and or improving below normal) mineral levels, fat balance, regular exercise, etc. etc. But no, digestion will not properly occur without normal acid levels in the stomach. Health problems will occur.

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
But no, digestion will not properly occur without normal acid levels in the stomach. Health problems will occur.[/quote]

That’s what I said.

To which the response is always: ‘Well, I haven’t seen…’.

[quote]Vicomte wrote:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
But no, digestion will not properly occur without normal acid levels in the stomach. Health problems will occur.[/quote]

That’s what I said.

To which the response is always: ‘Well, I haven’t seen…’.

[/quote]
Yeah dudes can live to 75 these days and still have significant health problems. Miracle!

On a mildly related note: Got lactase? - Understanding Evolution 99% of Chinese are lactose intolerant!

edit: I’m trying to say that digestion/nutrition are not the same for everyone.

“Prevalance of lactose tolerance and reliance on dairy products vary throughout the world (FOR A REASON).”

[quote]MODOK wrote:

But the question is not how “bad” pasteurized milk is. You can drink it if you please. The question is, why the hell are people not allowed the option to drink unpasteurized milk? There is no logical reason, other than the obvious that I have stated of lost revenue for commercial dairies and CAFO operations. Simply implement the same grade A pathogen testing that standardized pasteurized dairies use. Pretty simple. Its insane that a substance that we have consumed for 10000 years is deemed unfit for human consumption. Its simply a lie.[/quote]

This assumes that the people who would sell it commercially can also withstand the lawsuits should anyone become ill.

Every decision doesn’t have to be due to “the evil and corrupt THEY”. In general, people are stupid. That is why they put “do not swallow” on toilet deodorizers…because someone did.

I am all for you and everyone else getting the chance to make that choice themselves…but again, that is a far cry from acting like people drinking regular milk are somehow harming themselves or that they would be significantly healthier if they only drank more raw milk.

OBVIOUSLY the protein isn’t damaged that badly because it helped me grow muscle. I am still looking for proof…and it doesn’t seem we really have any…which means, yes, this boils down to preference.

Don’t get worked up MODOK, there are plenty of people that can be given reams of information and still not get it. As an aspiring author you’ll need to except that.

I find it interesting that today, mankind thinks that the natural products we have consumed for hundreds if not thousands of years, can be improved upon or altered. Mass grains for high populations aside, they should just leave it the hell alone.

[quote]TITOV BIG BOY wrote:
Don’t get worked up MODOK, there are plenty of people that can be given reams of information and still not get it. As an aspiring author you’ll need to except that.

I find it interesting that today, mankind thinks that the natural products we have consumed for hundreds if not thousands of years, can be improved upon or altered. Mass grains for high populations aside, they should just leave it the hell alone.[/quote]

Not get it? Gee, yes, it must be that anyone who isn’t on the raw milk train must have a comprehension problem.

There are as many sites discussing the harm of raw milk as there are biased sites for it.

Not shaking pom-poms doesn’t mean anyone is missing anything.

By the way, MODOK, I can not find the actual study for “Lancet. 2001 Oct 6;358(9288):1129-33; J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 Jun;117(6):1374-8; Clinical & Experimental Allergy. 2007 May; 37(5) 627-630)” that you listed as a reference. I can find tons of websites who are referencing this one study, but can not find the study itself.

way late here, but why should “the proof” have to lie on organics side. It’s logic, to think organic isn’t better than cnoventional is beyond retarded and goes to show how brainwashed we are.

Part of it is we are so removed from our food supply we just don’t care. I guarantee that if I put a “safe” amount of antifreeze diluted in water and sprayed it on an apple right in front of a parent, they wouldn’t feed it to their kid. Yet, because we don’t have to see these chemicals added and are told they are safe, we blindly trust.