Too Much Milk

Nutrition
61

[quote]swivel wrote:

evidence for what ? i’ve had it. i’ve used it. it’s so much better it’s like night and day.

croiky it’s like if i said “skiing when it’s sunny is sooo much better than skiing in the rain”

and you’d be all up with your " evidence ?" give it a rest bro.[/quote]

you know evidence for any benefit over the currently available milk products.

evidence for “soo much better” better for what? enema’s? better taste? better farts?

and unless you are doing a subjective ‘better’ in terms of taste for you, evidence involves some allowance to control confounding variables.

62

[quote]cycomiko wrote:
swivel wrote:

evidence for what ? i’ve had it. i’ve used it. it’s so much better it’s like night and day.

croiky it’s like if i said “skiing when it’s sunny is sooo much better than skiing in the rain”

and you’d be all up with your " evidence ?" give it a rest bro.

you know evidence for any benefit over the currently available milk products.

evidence for “soo much better” better for what? enema’s? better taste? better farts?

and unless you are doing a subjective ‘better’ in terms of taste for you, evidence involves some allowance to control confounding variables.[/quote]

day late and a dollar short but thanks for playing.

63

[quote]swivel wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
it’s kinda wierd to me that people, especially on this site, would be so resistant to something like eating fresh food. just damn backward if you ask me. [/quote]

After I posted, I thought to myself, “Well, citing T-Nation, isn’t exactly scientific proof, but really it’s not about whether raw milk has been scientifically proven to be better, it’s about freedom to buy it if we want.” Like you said, if people can buy cigarettes, which are proven to be unhealthy, then why is the government restricting the sale of raw milk. The same argument can be made for pro-hormones, ephedra and steroids.

And then I thought, “WTF, why would I feel compelled to prove that un-denatured protein would be better than denatured protein anyway?” It seems like common sense would support that concept.

“Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils.” General John Stark, 1809

64

I have never heard of that.

Are you having diarrhea after ingesting milk? When I was in college I tried downing half a gallon of milk as a meal. I tried this for 5 days straight. Each time, it would land me an hour in the crapper. However, I can tolerate a pint no problem. I’m Asian, so I’m assuming I have some version of lactose intolerance.

beef

65

[quote]swivel wrote:
day late and a dollar short but thanks for playing.[/quote]

yea not really.

guess what? there is tremendous andecdotal evidence (what people say about their experiences) for homeopathy curing ailments, scientology bringing happiness and purpose, alien abduction happening and making people crazy or believe or whatever, psychics reading the future, etc; yet all those things have very insufficient evidence that affects the masses. why? because they’re not controlled for variables. not controlling variables allows anybody to say anything about anything and get away with it.

the fact that raw milk makes you feel better has no bearing on how it would make others feel. using your logic i can say that you should think that Curb Your Enthusiasm makes you laugh becasue it makes me laugh. dont eat strawberries or peanuts because they kill some people.

when people ask for evidence they’re asking for that which can be applied to all. studies that control for variables properly and have enough subjects can be applied to 99.99% of people, 99.99% of the time.

P.S. the fact that you’re just saying how you feel about yourself is irrelevant because you jumped into a debate that had no bearing about how anybody felt about themselves.

66

[quote]swivel wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:

From the T-Nation product page for Grow:
“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.”

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459252

geez tool nice find. right there all the time. it’s kinda wierd to me that people, especially on this site, would be so resistant to something like eating fresh food. just damn backward if you ask me. [/quote]

so if it’s endorsed by T-Nation and Biotest then it’s right and good and scientific?

would you like me to point out your mistake?

67

[quote]fahd wrote:
From a JB article (Defeating Dietary Displacement ):

“Sure, if it were possible to get raw milk that was guaranteed aseptic, it would be better than processed, pasteurized milk.”

[/quote]
John Berardi has said a lot of things. am i to believe his word is based on control evidence and not anecdotal evidence or illogical deductive leaps?

68

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
swivel wrote:
day late and a dollar short but thanks for playing.

yea not really.

guess what? there is tremendous andecdotal evidence (what people say about their experiences) for homeopathy curing ailments, scientology bringing happiness and purpose, alien abduction happening and making people crazy or believe or whatever, psychics reading the future, etc; yet all those things have very insufficient evidence that affects the masses. why? because they’re not controlled for variables. not controlling variables allows anybody to say anything about anything and get away with it.

the fact that raw milk makes you feel better has no bearing on how it would make others feel. using your logic i can say that you should think that Curb Your Enthusiasm makes you laugh becasue it makes me laugh. dont eat strawberries or peanuts because they kill some people.

when people ask for evidence they’re asking for that which can be applied to all. studies that control for variables properly and have enough subjects can be applied to 99.99% of people, 99.99% of the time.

P.S. the fact that you’re just saying how you feel about yourself is irrelevant because you jumped into a debate that had no bearing about how anybody felt about themselves.[/quote]

hey bro we’re just a bunch of guys talking about milk here and guess what: what i’ve got to say is just as relevant as what anyone else is saying.

and that “dAl8$” crack wasn’t for you in the first place. it was for cycomiko who was being deliberately obtuse in ignoring evidence posted by fahd. positively concluisive evidence ? no. evidence that applies to all people in all situations ? no. but certainly something to put on the scale, of which i’ve yet to see anything on the other side.

so if you want to jump the bandwagon and play the evidence card then realize evidence goes both ways: where’s the evidence that pasteurization doesn’t destroy taste, beneficial flora, vitamins, and whey protein ? and, like i’ve said before, when you come up w/ it let me know 'cause that means 100 years of pasteurization is a fraud and we can all make a lot of $.

but you know what else ? who frickn cares anyway ? i’ve presented my position on this milk thing as one of opinion and personal experience because to attempt to argue it in some pseudo-scientific cut and paste war would be totally gay(nttawwt) it’s just frickn milk for chrissakes !

it really doesn’t deserve anything other than anecdotal evidence does it ? this whole site it built on word of mouth and anecdotal evidence isn’t it ? and it doesn’t come down to research, it comes to saying “hey steve-o do you like Grow! ?” and then steve-o says " oh yeah i’ve gained blah blah yadyada…" and then you try it and tell all your friends.

oops sorry didn’t mean you -hey let us know when you get your lab results back
on Grow! Spike, Alpha Male, and ZMA so we can all know, like fershur, if they actually do anything.

69

[quote]swivel wrote:

hey bro we’re just a bunch of guys talking about milk here and guess what: what i’ve got to say is just as relevant as what anyone else is saying.

and that “dAl8$” crack wasn’t for you in the first place. it was for cycomiko who was being deliberately obtuse in ignoring evidence posted by fahd. positively concluisive evidence ? no. evidence that applies to all people in all situations ? no. but certainly something to put on the scale, of which i’ve yet to see anything on the other side.

so if you want to jump the bandwagon and play the evidence card then realize evidence goes both ways: where’s the evidence that pasteurization doesn’t destroy taste, beneficial flora, vitamins, and whey protein ? and, like i’ve said before, when you come up w/ it let me know 'cause that means 100 years of pasteurization is a fraud and we can all make a lot of $.

but you know what else ? who frickn cares anyway ? i’ve presented my position on this milk thing as one of opinion and personal experience because to attempt to argue it in some pseudo-scientific cut and paste war would be totally gay(nttawwt) it’s just frickn milk for chrissakes !

it really doesn’t deserve anything other than anecdotal evidence does it ? this whole site it built on word of mouth and anecdotal evidence isn’t it ? and it doesn’t come down to research, it comes to saying “hey steve-o do you like Grow! ?” and then steve-o says " oh yeah i’ve gained blah blah yadyada…" and then you try it and tell all your friends.

oops sorry didn’t mean you -hey let us know when you get your lab results back
on Grow! Spike, Alpha Male, and ZMA so we can all know, like fershur, if they actually do anything. [/quote]

im sure you dont want to discuss this further, but just in case i have two questions for you.

  1. do you understand the difference between evidence (controlled, affects masses) and anecdote (n=1)?

  2. do you know why anecdote cannot be considered evidence?

P.S. you cant play the evidence card on me because im not purporting anything. im not saying that pasteurized is better than raw. to the contrary, i think that raw may be better in some ways, and i believe your personal story.

but the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and you’re the prosecution i.e. you’re purporting that raw is better than pasteurized. the defense is not so much saying it’s not, but we’re saying that we’d like to see some evidence that it is. without evidence it’s just a lot of saying.

70

[quote]swivel wrote:
day late and a dollar short but thanks for playing.[/quote]

aww, is providing some real evidence too hard for the baby.

71

[quote]swivel wrote:
hey bro we’re just a bunch of guys talking about milk here and guess what: what i’ve got to say is just as relevant as what anyone else is saying.[/quote]except you are making un validated claims, which is why you were asked for evidence, which you have not provided hyet.

[quote]and that “dAl8$” crack wasn’t for you in the first place. it was for cycomiko who was being deliberately obtuse in ignoring evidence posted by fahd. [/quote] considering I posted in reply to the mel siff quote, how was i ignoring it? saying it was complete shit repeated the insane rambmings of a stupid anti-milk site is a completely different thing to ignoring it.

[quote]positively concluisive evidence ? no. evidence that applies to all people in all situations ? no. but certainly something to put on the scale, of which i’ve yet to see anything on the other side.[/quote]you were the one asked for evidence for the claim you made. If you have noticed the only claim i have made is that mel siffs article is based upon a crap anti-milk site. You were the one making the claims, and common practice implies that you provide the evidence to back up your claims.

[quote]so if you want to jump the bandwagon and play the evidence card then realize evidence goes both ways: where’s the evidence that pasteurization doesn’t destroy taste, beneficial flora, vitamins, and whey protein ? and, like i’ve said before, when you come up w/ it let me know 'cause that means 100 years of pasteurization is a fraud and we can all make a lot of $. [/quote]Gee 100 years. There must be a pile of evidence to support you claims then.

[quote]but you know what else ? who frickn cares anyway ? i’ve presented my position on this milk thing as one of opinion and personal experience because to attempt to argue it in some pseudo-scientific cut and paste war would be totally gay(nttawwt) it’s just frickn milk for chrissakes ![/quote]when your making claims based around a measureable occurance, but provide nothing to back up it up, it basically boils down to being hype, nothing else.
If I say the Human race is evolved from little grey aliens, and Dr Micheal Walsh told me it was true, does that evidence enough?
and in terms of just friking milk, what are some of hte biggest selling items on this website. Surge, containing an isolated milk protein produced from pasteurised milk. and Grow!, Containing a variety of isolated milk proteins produced from pasteurised milk. Are you saying these products are worthless because of them being pasteurised?

[quote]it really doesn’t deserve anything other than anecdotal evidence does it ? this whole site it built on word of mouth and anecdotal evidence isn’t it ?[/quote]Wow, i wonder what those things at the end of most of hte articles are?

[quote]and it doesn’t come down to research, it comes to saying “hey steve-o do you like Grow! ?” and then steve-o says " oh yeah i’ve gained blah blah yadyada…" and then you try it and tell all your friends.[/quote]You mean qualatative taste analysis?

72

Raw milk isn’t homogenized.It still has good nutrients in it.

73

grim reaper is still posting non-sense. he still can’t tie his shoe laces.

74

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
swivel wrote:
but the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and you’re the prosecution i.e. you’re purporting that raw is better than pasteurized. the defense is not so much saying it’s not, but we’re saying that we’d like to see some evidence that it is. without evidence it’s just a lot of saying.[/quote]

nice post bro, really, and i understand your point and thanks for recognizing mine. i think this last paragraph you wrote is precisely where the dog is buried: you’ve got it backward, i’m not the prosecution. i’m merely making a choice between dead food and live food. why do you think pasteurization doesn’t work ? the evidence has already been presented. the effects of pasteurization are proven and commonly accepted as fact. cooking denatures. that’s what it does. that’s why we use it. milk that’s been heated has becomes less than it once was. vitamins are destroyed.living bacteria and enzymes are destroyed. protein is denatured. this is common knowledge. this is why pasteurization has been used for 100 years- because it works ! likewise w/ antibiotics. they work. they kill bacteria. ingesting them constantly creates more and more resistant strains of bacteria and diminishes antibiotic effect. this becomes a real downer if the situation arises when you really need them.
again these are basic, commonly accepted facts which don’t need footnotes or references. pasteurization is cooking. cooking denatures by definition. antiobiotics kill bacteria by definition. i don’t need to prove that.

both raw milk and processed milk are useable as food products. i never said processed milk wasn’t decent , useable nutrition. i grew up on it. lots of us did and still do. i’m saying it’s less than it once was and i’d rather have more. we have the technology.

75

[quote]swivel wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
swivel wrote:
but the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and you’re the prosecution i.e. you’re purporting that raw is better than pasteurized. the defense is not so much saying it’s not, but we’re saying that we’d like to see some evidence that it is. without evidence it’s just a lot of saying.

nice post bro, really, and i understand your point and thanks for recognizing mine. i think this last paragraph you wrote is precisely where the dog is buried: you’ve got it backward, i’m not the prosecution.

i’m merely making a choice between dead food and live food. why do you think pasteurization doesn’t work ? the evidence has already been presented. the effects of pasteurization are proven and commonly accepted as fact. cooking denatures. that’s what it does. that’s why we use it. milk that’s been heated has becomes less than it once was. vitamins are destroyed.living bacteria and enzymes are destroyed. protein is denatured. this is common knowledge.

this is why pasteurization has been used for 100 years- because it works ! likewise w/ antibiotics. they work. they kill bacteria. ingesting them constantly creates more and more resistant strains of bacteria and diminishes antibiotic effect. this becomes a real downer if the situation arises when you really need them.

again these are basic, commonly accepted facts which don’t need footnotes or references. pasteurization is cooking. cooking denatures by definition. antiobiotics kill bacteria by definition. i don’t need to prove that.

both raw milk and processed milk are useable as food products. i never said processed milk wasn’t decent , useable nutrition. i grew up on it. lots of us did and still do. i’m saying it’s less than it once was and i’d rather have more. we have the technology. [/quote]

you’re confusing what you think the prosecution should be or once was with what the prosecution is now.

ex: you say that it’s common knowledge or that there’s scientific evidence to back up the assertion that pasteurization denatures milk protein. im asking for evidence that cooking denatures protein.

under this circumstance, you are the one who is prosecuting. the fact that there was once a time when the pasteurizing crowd were the prosecution is not relevant.

also, you have a few semantic contradictions. ex: you claim that pasteurized milk is ‘dead’ food, yet consumers can live on it. ‘dead’ food implies that it has zero nutritional value, and without that it’s impossible to nourish. then, a couple sentences later, you express that it does have nourishing value.

although, i know that you’re not trying to contradict yourself. you’re reiterating what the anti-cooking convention says. the problem is that they use terminology dubiously defined and ambiguous.

that being said, i do agree that raw milk is better in some ways for some people, and maybe some ways for all people. but the problem is that the anti-cooking convention doesn’t have a scientific clue about what they’re talking about. if they actually learned about what pasteurization actually does then they’d learn that it doesn’t denature the macros, but that it kills enzymes and peptides or whatever and some people cant digest this as well as raw (actually, the latter is just speculation).

P.S. i agree that raw should be available. i would probably drink it.

76

[quote]wufwugy wrote:

you’re confusing what you think the prosecution should be or once was with what the prosecution is now.

ex: you say that it’s common knowledge or that there’s scientific evidence to back up the assertion that pasteurization denatures milk protein. im asking for evidence that cooking denatures protein.

under this circumstance, you are the one who is prosecuting. the fact that there was once a time when the pasteurizing crowd were the prosecution is not relevant.

also, you have a few semantic contradictions. ex: you claim that pasteurized milk is ‘dead’ food, yet consumers can live on it. ‘dead’ food implies that it has zero nutritional value, and without that it’s impossible to nourish. then, a couple sentences later, you express that it does have nourishing value.

although, i know that you’re not trying to contradict yourself. you’re reiterating what the anti-cooking convention says. the problem is that they use terminology dubiously defined and ambiguous.

that being said, i do agree that raw milk is better in some ways for some people, and maybe some ways for all people. but the problem is that the anti-cooking convention doesn’t have a scientific clue about what they’re talking about. if they actually learned about what pasteurization actually does then they’d learn that it doesn’t denature the macros, but that it kills enzymes and peptides or whatever and some people cant digest this as well as raw (actually, the latter is just speculation).

P.S. i agree that raw should be available. i would probably drink it.[/quote]

well jeez , being a died in the wool cartman disciple i sure don’t want to be using some god-damned hippie nomenclature.

in other news milk is preety frickn complicated !
www.library.uu.nl/digiarchief/dip/diss/2003-0113-110350/inhoud.htm

chapter 3 discusses how whey protein, which makes up 20% of total milk proteins,-btw that’s “protahne” in cartman speak- is definitely denatured by heat at pasteurization levels.

chapter 4 discusses interaction of the whey and the casein proteins- remaining 80% of milk proteins- and how the denatured whey binds to the casein micelles. i’m assuming this what tc means when he says micellar casein is destroyed when processed in any conventional way. technically no denaturation but rendered unavailable because of the interaction w/ the denatured whey ?

i like how he calls the casein micelles “the hairy brush”. Low-Carb Grow! will never be the same .

77

[quote]swivel wrote:

well jeez , being a died in the wool cartman disciple i sure don’t want to be using some god-damned hippie nomenclature.

in other news milk is preety frickn complicated !
www.library.uu.nl/digiarchief/dip/diss/2003-0113-110350/inhoud.htm

chapter 3 discusses how whey protein, which makes up 20% of total milk proteins,-btw that’s “protahne” in cartman speak- is definitely denatured by heat at pasteurization levels.

chapter 4 discusses interaction of the whey and the casein proteins- remaining 80% of milk proteins- and how the denatured whey binds to the casein micelles. i’m assuming this what tc means when he says micellar casein is destroyed when processed in any conventional way. technically no denaturation but rendered unavailable because of the interaction w/ the denatured whey ?

i like how he calls the casein micelles “the hairy brush”. Low-Carb Grow! will never be the same .[/quote]

okay, that’s cool. i would like to know what it means when consumed. in retrospect, i realize that i was being ambiguous because i do not believe that heat doesn’t alter the product. i believe that it doesn’t alter it beyond nutritional value other than in possible minute ways. usually, when the word ‘denatured’ is used in discussion it comes with the implication that it’s deleteriously denatured for human consumption.

i’d like to know if this is true. i’d also like to see proof that shows that micellar casein is better for humans than ‘denatured’ casein.

78

Nice discussion guys. Very interesting stuff!

79

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
swivel wrote:

well jeez , being a died in the wool cartman disciple i sure don’t want to be using some god-damned hippie nomenclature.

in other news milk is preety frickn complicated !
www.library.uu.nl/digiarchief/dip/diss/2003-0113-110350/inhoud.htm

chapter 3 discusses how whey protein, which makes up 20% of total milk proteins,-btw that’s “protahne” in cartman speak- is definitely denatured by heat at pasteurization levels.

chapter 4 discusses interaction of the whey and the casein proteins- remaining 80% of milk proteins- and how the denatured whey binds to the casein micelles. i’m assuming this what tc means when he says micellar casein is destroyed when processed in any conventional way. technically no denaturation but rendered unavailable because of the interaction w/ the denatured whey ?

i like how he calls the casein micelles “the hairy brush”. Low-Carb Grow! will never be the same .

okay, that’s cool. i would like to know what it means when consumed. in retrospect, i realize that i was being ambiguous because i do not believe that heat doesn’t alter the product. i believe that it doesn’t alter it beyond nutritional value other than in possible minute ways. usually, when the word ‘denatured’ is used in discussion it comes with the implication that it’s deleteriously denatured for human consumption.

i’d like to know if this is true. i’d also like to see proof that shows that micellar casein is better for humans than ‘denatured’ casein.[/quote]

me too. i would think it’s simply more available/easily accessed if it hasn’t been covered in crud.

80

[quote]wufwugy wrote:

okay, that’s cool. i would like to know what it means when consumed. in retrospect, i realize that i was being ambiguous because i do not believe that heat doesn’t alter the product. i believe that it doesn’t alter it beyond nutritional value other than in possible minute ways. usually, when the word ‘denatured’ is used in discussion it comes with the implication that it’s deleteriously denatured for human consumption.

i’d like to know if this is true. i’d also like to see proof that shows that micellar casein is better for humans than ‘denatured’ casein.[/quote]

I have been away to a conference for hte past week so I thought i would reply to this.

there is a big problem taking things completely out of context.

During heating (usually has to be significantly hotter than standard pasterurization and usually under differnetial pH than normal milk - to get more denaturing you increase the heat and alter the ph more) there can be a small amount of denaturing of whey, which allows some of the sulphur residues to bind to sections of the kappa casein section fo the casein micelle (kappa casein is the little hairs). This does not change its nutritional properties, but will change its functional properties within a food system. Casein will denature majorly in the stomach whether the product is ‘raw’ or not.
All digestion involves denaturing. Cooking eggs denatures them, cooking steak denatures it. Worrying about denaturing is missing the forest for the trees.

In terms of the casein micelle being destroyed by any normal processing, its a pile of garbage. All currently available (large scale ones) miceallar casein products in the USA are produced from pasteruized milk, and they generally sit around 97-99% undenatured protien. Milk protein concentrate is similar to micellar casein, the only difference is hte whey is not extracted out of the product, it is also around a similar level fo denaturing. Most wheys are highly digestible and around a similar rate of undenatured proteins, depending on what their end uses are for (some are used as a functional ingredient to improve gelling in a product etc.)

The only concern for denaturing whey proteins is any potential biological activity. But that depends on what you are taking gthe protein as. If its just for protein then its not a worry. if its for the bioactive properties, you are probably paying a fortune for biological properties that are not really backed by an evidence base to do anything (although research in the area is continueing)

Micellar Casein vs other caseins being better? better for what? There is very little research looking at Micellar or native caseins, and even then most are not really looking at comparing casein vs casein.