Milk Builds Strong Bones?

[liamona]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

Liver and Cholesterol: Role of Liver in the Production of Cholesterol says:

I dunno, this article is a little iffy. It doesn't help its credibility that it's from a site pushing a cholesterol-lowering book.

The liver plays an important role in the production of cholesterol in all animals, including humans. Even vegetarians in the strictest sense get about 800-1,500 milligrams of cholesterol a day, just produced by their liver processing saturated fats and sugars.

I get the sugar part, that's what I've been trying to tell Beuford.

Culture and genes play a huge role in how much dietary cholesterol will translate into blood cholesterol. Some cultures and people can consumer high fat and high cholesterol diets without raising their blood cholesterol. This is true of one Southern African tribe of cattle herders who for thousands of years have consumed a diet [NOTE: I think he is talking about the Masai, who consume whole raw milk, meat and blood] that would have most modern day Americans in cardiac arrest.

But most Americans did consume a lot of dairy historically. And fat. And meat. Then why is it that we didn't start dying from heart attacks until 1921 (please disregard the fawning over Ancel Keys in link)?

Yet they manage to maintain more than ideal blood cholesterol levels of 150 mg/dL. This is because their liver production of cholesterol is able to balance out the consumption of high cholesterol foods.

So the Masai have some sort of special kind of liver that we white people don't have? I suppose this excludes the Europeans who have adapted to dairy, and the Chinese Mongols and Tuoli who consume massive amounts...and who else in the world am I leaving out?

[russianrocket]

I won't even debate this topic anymore lol I'll just let you do it all for me ( and a damn good job at that)

I know the facts that contradict everything they are saying, but you seem to have enough knowledge to show proof of those facts.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I won't even debate this topic anymore lol I'll just let you do it all for me ( and a damn good job at that)

Aw thanks a lot, you're leaving all the heavy lifting to me?

I know the facts that contradict everything they are saying, but you seem to have enough knowledge to show proof of those facts.

Maybe a little bit. But I've been reading up on nutrition since the 90s. I started off with the pro-veg literature and have only started reading the other side five years ago. It doesn't come easy, but it sure does help to go on forums like this!

[liamona]

To continue my heaving lifting....

The (real) China Study data that Denise Minger crunched on the milk-drinking Tuoli is an eye-opener (all text hers):

Surprised? Despite a massive intake of cholesterol, saturated fat, calories, animal protein, and all those other horrors ascribed to declining heart health, the Tuoli have relatively low levels of coronary heart disease and heart attacks. Seven near-vegan counties have higher rates than Tuoli, and six have lower rates.

And now for stroke mortality (per 1000 people).

Again, no significantly higher stroke rates for the Tuolians. Seven near-vegan counties have more incidences of stroke, and six have fewer incidences of stroke.

And since lack of fiber is supposed to harm colon health, here is a comparison of colon cancer and rectal cancer mortality (per 1000 people) between the plant-noshing counties and the vegetable-phobic Tuolians.

Looks like they’re doing pretty dandy without much fiber, right?

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by liamona

If your doctor tells you to lower your cholesterol with a low-fat diet, he hasn't done his research and needs to be fired. Plain and simple.

I didn't say fat raises cholesterol and eating low fat will lower your cholesterol. I'm saying a high carbohydrate diet will not clog your arteries with cholesterol.

Then you simply don't understand the mechanism of how your body deals with excess carbs. Not that I blame you—it's not information that's easy to find. I've been searching for a good old college biochem book to read myself.

Do you believe that dietary cholesterol does not affect your cholesterol levels? Like, you eat cholesterol and it magically vanishes from your body.

[Excellent Lodestar]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Do you believe that dietary cholesterol does not affect your cholesterol levels? Like, you eat cholesterol and it magically vanishes from your body.

Who cares whether it vanishes or not?
YouTube - Big Fat Lies

Look.Maybe you're missing the point...(that's what 1950's science can do for you)...Cholesterol has not been proven to to be bad (or good,for that matter)in any way shape or form. It's totally benign. Anyone who still buys into that ancient hypothesis probably still wears four inch cuffs on the bottom of jeans and is still waiting for man to land on the Moon....It's called the "lipid hypothesis" if you care to know what Dogma you're unknowingly(apparently) following.

This is 2010, seriously.

"cholesterol" is a joke.Just don't tell the Pharmaceutical co.'s who are raking in billions pushing statins. some folks have low some high.people who drop dead have low, some high.

Centenarians cholesterol levels are all over the map, just like their location.

Cholesterol is meaningless.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by Excellent Lodestar

Cholesterol has not been proven to to be bad (or good,for that matter)in any way shape or form.

So when someone's arteries get clogged up with cholesterol, that's not bad.

[Excellent Lodestar]

Originally Posted by Beuford

So when someone's arteries get clogged up with cholesterol, that's not bad.

the question is WHAT MAKES THEM CLOGGED? Cholesterol is synthesized through our Liver through means not under our immediate control (what we eat)--that is, our TOTAL cholesterol number is pretty meaningless; it's when we get into the breakdown of our readings that we find the ratio of LDL() and HDL() and Triglycerides(Blood fats)That reflects the effects of diet.

arterial inflammation is the real culprit, not foods that contain cholesterol.
in a sense, cholesterol is fine for humans in any amount, except when it is paired with copious amounts of sugars,Wheat and bad fats(Trans, Pufa O6)Sugars and wheat are, as you know ,Carbohydrates.So are fruits.
Is Fructose bad? Yes. Is Fructose in fruits bad? Some researchers think so.some don't. I myself am waiting for more conclusive Data.but I won't be downing 30 Bananas a day in the interim

and no, "just not eating cholesterol" is NOT a free pass to clear arteries, sorry.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Beuford

I didn't say fat raises cholesterol and eating low fat will lower your cholesterol.

But don't you think eating fat causes high cholesterol? So what do you think happens if you lower your dietary fat intake?

Do you believe that dietary cholesterol does not affect your cholesterol levels?

In most people, only about 15% of cholesterol eaten raises cholesterol levels, but insignificantly. Additionally, low cholesterol levels are linked with more health problems than not.

A really high cholesterol level may often be caused by a thyroid problem.

Like, you eat cholesterol and it magically vanishes from your body.

When you eat a lot of cholesterol, it does help spare your body from having to make all of it.

[spirowilliam]

I have read the truth by visiting of your mention URL. There is the nice description about the milk bones. I am really appreciated for your valuable description.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by spirowilliam

I have read the truth by visiting of your mention URL. There is the nice description about the milk bones. I am really appreciated for your valuable description.

how about you read the truth by reading the rest of the thread, where we show that his truth is not THE truth.

[Virtue121]

Consider the elephant. It is a mammal as we are. It has strong weight bearing bones and great physical strength and yet does not need to drink another animal's milk later in life does it?

There is a lot of propaganda from the meat and dairy industry promoting the supposed health benefits of their products. There is a lot of money involved and they employ advertising agencies etc.

Drinking milk is not necessary for strong and healthy bones. Just because a practice has gone on for generations does not take away from the fact that it is unnatural and unnecessary to drink another animal's milk which is designed to support their own offspring when they are too young to take in solid food.

[Bleicke]

Elephants also don't wear pants. Pants are unnatural. Does that mean we shouldn't wear pants?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Virtue121

Consider the elephant. It is a mammal as we are. It has strong weight bearing bones and great physical strength and yet does not need to drink another animal's milk later in life does it?

There is a lot of propaganda from the meat and dairy industry promoting the supposed health benefits of their products. There is a lot of money involved and they employ advertising agencies etc.

Drinking milk is not necessary for strong and healthy bones. Just because a practice has gone on for generations does not take away from the fact that it is unnatural and unnecessary to drink another animal's milk which is designed to support their own offspring when they are too young to take in solid food.

Who says that because of the MANY generations of humans drinking milk, that now our physiology hasn't become accustomed to it? Elephants and other mammals have never had to do it, yet we've been doing it for as long as we have recorded history. Our bodies just might be made like that now.

Our we can go to pants being unnatural . We shed our fur for a reason. Just like we now drink milk for a reason. We can't survive naked anymore, tho I'm sure at one point we used to be able to. What's natural anymore?

[SheldonCooper]

Reason 2 of why it is better to eat plant foods.

If true it would actually be a good example on why is it never a good idea to change your diet just because some nagging voice in the interweb or your life insists that you do it for "better health" without giving much evidence. Needless to say, that applies to advice to go vegetarian as well.

However, it was just a note on wikipedia probably posted by a neo-puritan trying to push his world-view, the only reference was the China Study which is really not exactly the most reliable source of information.

Science-Based Medicine The China Study
Science-Based Medicine The China Study Revisited: New Analysis of Raw Data Doesn?t Support Vegetarian Ideology
The China Study Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.

As of now, the statement was removed from wikipedia, it is just not the place for claims that rely on things as debatable as the China study.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Bleicke

Elephants also don't wear pants. Pants are unnatural. Does that mean we shouldn't wear pants?

LOL good point. Yes, elephants ought to wear pants sometimes. And men ought not to sometimes.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by SheldonCooper

However, it was just a note on wikipedia probably posted by a neo-puritan trying to push his world-view, the only reference was the China Study which is really not exactly the most reliable source of information.

Science-Based Medicine The China Study
Science-Based Medicine The China Study Revisited: New Analysis of Raw Data Doesn?t Support Vegetarian Ideology
The China Study Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

It's too bad you've only just joined this discussion, because I've posted a lot of links to critiques of Campbell's China Study book in this thread and another one:

Yet another independent debunking of "The China Study" book

As of now, the statement was removed from wikipedia, it is just not the place for claims that rely on things as debatable as the China study.

Well what do you know! I wonder why the link to the book was removed? I guess we're not the only ones to think that Campbell's weak defense of his book against detractors doesn't even scratch the surface.

I don't know if the new link is any better than The China Study, though, because there's tons of studies that show that dietary protein doesn't aversely affect bones.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Virtue121

Consider the elephant. It is a mammal as we are. It has strong weight bearing bones and great physical strength and yet does not need to drink another animal's milk later in life does it?

No, but a lot of animals greatly enjoy it if you give it to them! That's been pointed out in previous posts.

There is a lot of propaganda from the meat and dairy industry promoting the supposed health benefits of their products. There is a lot of money involved and they employ advertising agencies etc.

That is true, but don't forget the vegetable oil industry and food manufacturers that use tons of cheap carbs. The veg. oil industry along with its trade associations work behind the scenes to convince people through the controlled mainstream media that fat, especially saturated fat is bad for your health.

Big Agra along with its henchmen in government "health" agencies are against people having access to and consuming raw dairy.

Drinking milk is not necessary for strong and healthy bones.

It's not necessary, but it sure is an easy and tasty way to get calcium and other nutrients. The other way is to consume bone broths, which take time and effort to prepare.

Just because a practice has gone on for generations does not take away from the fact that it is unnatural and unnecessary to drink another animal's milk which is designed to support their own offspring when they are too young to take in solid food.

Did you know that you can feed abandoned baby mammals with milk from another species? Each animal's milk may be designed for its own species, but that doesn't mean it has no value to other ones.

Since the quality of our food has gone down due to poor soil quality, it makes more sense to add more foods to our diet than take things away. That is why an omnivorous diet is the best for these modern times. You get the greatest variety of foods and nutrients.

[Piercetheveil]

I, along with many people, have a milk allergy. I get my calcium other ways without the negatives which I largely adapted to but only because I got use to the poorer health consequences.

The below vid is by a pretty interesting (though lacks charisma) fellow who gives a fairly simple test to tell if you have milk allergies. Lots of personal research content too.

Oh, and I find better health begins with the ability to ask better questions of one's self. "Is milk good or bad" seems to me to be a poorly constructed question.

YouTube - Nutrients for Better Mental Performance

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Piercetheveil

I, along with many people, have a milk allergy. I get my calcium other ways without the negatives which I largely adapted to but only because I got use to the poorer health consequences.

The below vid is by a pretty interesting (though lacks charisma) fellow who gives a fairly simple test to tell if you have milk allergies. Lots of personal research content too.

Oh, and I find better health begins with the ability to ask better questions of one's self. "Is milk good or bad" seems to me to be a poorly constructed question.

YouTube - Nutrients for Better Mental Performance

You aren't allergic to raw milk, just like the majority of people who are allergic to milk. Don't blame the product, but the the way you consume the product.

[Piercetheveil]

If you are gonna drink it is best to drink raw. Period. Agreed. That seems to be your itch royster so I will scratch it.

The large reason I stay away from raw milk is because of sugar.

I enjoy raw milk. Crave it. There is no value I can gain from milk that I can not get from other sources.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Piercetheveil

If you are gonna drink it is best to drink raw. Period. Agreed. That seems to be your itch royster so I will scratch it.

The large reason I stay away from raw milk is because of sugar.

I enjoy raw milk. Crave it. There is no value I can gain from milk that I can not get from other sources.

Ok, fine, then you don't want the sugar. It obviously isn't the biggest reason, or you would have mentioned sugar first. If you are smart enough to drink raw, then you understand that cooked milk is pointless to drink. So why not use that reason instead of claiming you are allergic to milk, when you aren't? Just like this thread, it makes milk out to be the bad guy, when it's not.

[Piercetheveil]

I did not say I was NOT allergic to rawmilk now did I? After your response I knew it to be a pointless path.

If I were not allergic I would not consistently drink milk because of the sugar. I got off milk because of the allergy issue. I went raw. I still had issue. I got off raw. I had small issues left. I got off grains. No issue. I was playing with adrenalin/anxiety metrics. I killed insulin spikes. No sugar. See?

You seem to have an emotional attachment either to your argument or to milk. No biggie. Just seems to be the case.

Without ANY of the above I still would not drink milk for calcium. For enjoyment? Heck yes.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

You aren't allergic to raw milk, just like the majority of people who are allergic to milk. Don't blame the product, but the the way you consume the product.

Yes the right way to consume milk is to breastfeed. That is how all the animals in the wild consume milk. In the wild does not include animals that go through your garbage. They will eat anything like duck liver, snails and gummy bears that are in your garbage.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

In the wild does not include animals that go through your garbage.

Please explain how you can keep arbitrarily eliminating certain aspects of animal behavior and expect your data to remain valid.

Many wild animals enjoy eating stuff they find in garbage. That's a fact.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

Yes the right way to consume milk is to breastfeed. That is how all the animals in the wild consume milk. In the wild does not include animals that go through your garbage. They will eat anything like duck liver, snails and gummy bears that are in your garbage.

Ok, lets get a few things straight here. The natural way for an animal ( be it human or duck) to eat, is the way it's ancestors have been doing for more then just a few generations. MILK, from ANIMALS that are of a different species then us, AFTER the age that is normally decided upon for breastfeeding, is ....
wait for it. wait for it.


NATURAL.

Now you may ask, how can such a thing be natural, if after all, no other animal on the planet does that. Well, learning is unnatural then, because no other animal learns anything, other then what is required to survive. And any time they do learn anything, it's because humans have forced them to learn it, just like your trash can analogy. There for, we should stop learning anything, and stop evolving mentally. After all, it's unnatural to do so.

Tho, I suppose, if we really went along with nature the way you suggest, we'd still be in the stone age huh. Darn, oh well, next idea then.

Well, back to the whole milk thing. A strange thing happened THOUSANDS of years ago. Humans figured out that when it's to cold to grow plants, and they did not want to kill the animals they had, they figured out that they could drink the milk. Now, granted, we can only go back as far as recorded history, to show that through out our history, we've always drank milk. So it's unfortunate that we can't also go back 10's of thousands of years more, to show more milk drinking. I wonder if the beautiful and powerful thing we call nature, at one point decided
" hey you know what, they've been drinking milk and surviving much longer then they normally would have have, all because of milk. I should probably make it so it's natural for their bodies to take in milk and get nutrition from it. After all, some times the only thing people have is milk and meat, so there for I will make them have everything they need, from the things that they have available" .

I mean, yeah it's weird that all of a sudden human beings have weak bones. Some how it became unnatural for us. Some how everyone ignored all the things we've been doing to our natural habits over the past 100 years, and can't see how it's contrary to what our ancestors have been calling natural, for oh so many millenniums.

So again, lets blame the consumption of products, instead of how we consume them and the mindset we have while doing so. THAT'S the best way to live our lives.


so to sum things up.
WILD animals don't eat from our garbage, and NEVER HAVE.
Humans have been doing eating a certain way for TENS OF THOUSANDS of years.
There for, humans are soooo removed from your idea of wild animals, that your analogy needs to either be revamped, or completely eliminated from any further rational discussions between intelligent adults.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Please explain how you can keep arbitrarily eliminating certain aspects of animal behavior and expect your data to remain valid.

Many wild animals enjoy eating stuff they find in garbage. That's a fact.

But that does not mean animals should be eating what is in your garbage. You could leave poison in your garbage and disguise it as food and an animal would come eat it. He's just trying to say that without human interference milk is not consumed by adults.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

There for, we should stop learning anything, and stop evolving mentally. After all, it's unnatural to do so.

It's not about what is natural or not, it is about what is healthy. Just most of the time it is healthier to do what is natural when it comes to diet. This does not mean we should stop learning or take off all our clothes because it is unnatural.

Well, back to the whole milk thing. A strange thing happened THOUSANDS of years ago. Humans figured out that when it's to cold to grow plants, and they did not want to kill the animals they had, they figured out that they could drink the milk. Now, granted, we can only go back as far as recorded history, to show that through out our history, we've always drank milk. So it's unfortunate that we can't also go back 10's of thousands of years more, to show more milk drinking. I wonder if the beautiful and powerful thing we call nature, at one point decided

So a small amount of humans have developed lactose tolerances. Most humans are lactose intolerant at least to some level. That does not make milk a healthy drink.

" hey you know what, they've been drinking milk and surviving much longer then they normally would have have, all because of milk. I should probably make it so it's natural for their bodies to take in milk and get nutrition from it. After all, some times the only thing people have is milk and meat, so there for I will make them have everything they need, from the things that they have available"

We have not been living longer all because of milk(or vegans would die before 40). We've been living longer because humans no longer live in the wild. When have humans only had milk and meat? Never. Plant food is available all year round or all herbivores would die including the ones that produce milk. But maybe if you believe humans have evolved to drink milk you believe we should also eat wheat bread.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beuford

It's not about what is natural or not, it is about what is healthy. Just most of the time it is healthier to do what is natural when it comes to diet. This does not mean we should stop learning or take off all our clothes because it is unnatural.



So a small amount of humans have developed lactose tolerances. Most humans are lactose intolerant at least to some level. That does not make milk a healthy drink.



We have not been living longer all because of milk(or vegans would die before 40). We've been living longer because humans no longer live in the wild. When have humans only had milk and meat? Never. Plant food is available all year round or all herbivores would die including the ones that produce milk. But maybe if you believe humans have evolved to drink milk you believe we should also eat wheat bread.

No, most humans are NOT lactose intolerant. When it comes to processed dead milk, yes. If humans were lactose intolerant, we wouldn't be able to drink out MOTHERS MILK. Or is there no lactose in there...
Humans have been drinking milk for millenniums, yes some how all of a sudden we are intolerant to it? ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. It has nothing to do with milk and everything to do with milk that has been destroyed.
The difference between wheat bread and milk, is that one is processed and one is not. One is natural for an animal to consume ( mothers milk) and one is something humans created. MILK has been drank much longer then wheat bread has been consumed. The vegans of TODAY, ( considering there has NEVER EVER EVER been a civilization of vegans), have access to just about everything. In the old days, you just could not be a vegan. I don't think there has ever been a single civilization that survived and thrived on plant matter alone. Ugh there is so much more to say to you, but I'm in a hurry and gotta leave.

Oh and most herbivores can't consume the products we consume, and there for you can't compare us to them, just because they can survive on plant matter, which THEY are suitable for, which most of the time are plants that humans could never consume. The herbivores we raise in cold climates eat food we could never eat, so that we can get food out of them. Just so much UGH in your post I wanna respond to lol

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

No, most humans are NOT lactose intolerant. When it comes to processed dead milk, yes. If humans were lactose intolerant, we wouldn't be able to drink out MOTHERS MILK. Or is there no lactose in there...

You are born lactose tolerant but when you stop drinking breast milk you are supposed to become lactose intolerant. There is lactose in our mother's milk and there is lactose in cooked milk and there is lactose in raw milk. It does not matter what kind of milk you consume, raw or cooked, if you have lactose intolerance, like most of the world, to some level at least, then you will react to the lactose, not whether the product has been cooked or not.

It is the same with gluten, it does not matter whether you eat raw wheat or wheat bread if you are gluten intolerant you will react to the gluten. You can make milk as raw as you like that will not get rid of the lactose.

And humans did not start consuming milk until agriculture. So plant food could be eaten all year round. It's not like they had to drink milk because there were no plants available. It is not like they were in a forest covered in snow trying to find plants to eat. Food does grow in the winter also. Like oranges, here they grow in the winter and if it is summer they are imported from the US where it is winter.