Milk Builds Strong Bones?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beuford

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.

Actually, you are 100% wrong. MOST people can tolerate raw milk, and have zero intolerance to it. It's all about the friendly bacteria. That's why cooking anything is bad, because it kills the good bacteria. The RAW milk has the friendly bacteria which allows your body to create lactase, which counteracts lactose. There for ( you don't make milk raw, what an ignorant anti milk type statement. That's like vegans always using the word carnivore to refer to meat eaters.) milk that is NATURAL, does not need to be rid of lactose. Just like people are warned now, not to eat egg whites, even tho mother nature knows how to make something perfect, and includes the egg yoke to counter act what you are getting in the whites.

You are not supposed to become lactose intolerant when you stop breast feeding. I have no idea where you would have even gotten that idea.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Actually, you are 100% wrong. MOST people can tolerate raw milk, and have zero intolerance to it. It's all about the friendly bacteria. That's why cooking anything is bad, because it kills the good bacteria. The RAW milk has the friendly bacteria which allows your body to create lactase, which counteracts lactose. There for ( you don't make milk raw, what an ignorant anti milk type statement. That's like vegans always using the word carnivore to refer to meat eaters.) milk that is NATURAL, does not need to be rid of lactose. Just like people are warned now, not to eat egg whites, even tho mother nature knows how to make something perfect, and includes the egg yoke to counter act what you are getting in the whites.

You are not supposed to become lactose intolerant when you stop breast feeding. I have no idea where you would have even gotten that idea.

Why does friendly bacteria in raw milk make your body create lactase? You are supposed to become lactose intolerant because that is what happens after weaning. It happens in all animals that drink milk. Except some humans. I'll even quote the wikipedia page for you.

"Humans are born with high levels of lactase expression. In most of the world’s population, lactase transcription is down-regulated after weaning, resulting in diminished lactase expression in the small intestine.[12] Diminished lactase expression causes the common symptoms of adult-type hypolactasia, or lactose intolerance."

"Some population segments exhibit lactase persistence resulting from a mutation that is postulated to have occurred 5000-10,000 years ago, coinciding with the rise of cattle domestication.[13] This mutation has allowed almost half of the world’s population to metabolize lactose without symptoms."

[russianrocket]

What you just posted might go along with some things you said, but it also goes against others. Such as, most people of the world being intolerant to lactose. While what you just posted says half the world has NO symptoms.
If our bodies didn't require or at least can handle lactose, then it wouldn't be diminished lactase production, but would be no lactase. Why does our body still create lactase if we aren't meant to handle drinking milk?
I think I'll go with the stronger half.

oh and, again, back to RAW milk. Have you maybe googled what I said? Most of the people who are intolerant today, are only intolerant to the processed milk, because our bodies DO produce lactase, even if it's in a diminished capacity for the other half of the population. And there for if they drank milk that is raw, there would be a MAJORITY who has NO symptoms.

on and, here is the rest of what is written about the things you picked from your wiki page.
Genetic Signatures of Strong Recent Positive Selection at the Lactase Gene
read a little of it. By the way, I'm obviously European, there for I have the ( as the person you qouted suggests) " selective advantage based on additional nutrition from dairy "

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

What you just posted might go along with some things you said, but it also goes against others. Such as, most people of the world being intolerant to lactose. While what you just posted says half the world has NO symptoms.
If our bodies didn't require or at least can handle lactose, then it wouldn't be diminished lactase production, but would be no lactase. Why does our body still create lactase if we aren't meant to handle drinking milk?
I think I'll go with the stronger half.

Actually it says almost half, so saying most of the world is lactose intolerant to at least some level is correct and that's what I have been saying. It also says most of the world too. Your body still produces lactase because a genetic mutation and/or because you don't stop consuming lactose after weaning.

oh and, again, back to RAW milk. Have you maybe googled what I said? Most of the people who are intolerant today, are only intolerant to the processed milk, because our bodies DO produce lactase, even if it's in a diminished capacity for the other half of the population. And there for if they drank milk that is raw, there would be a MAJORITY who has NO symptoms.

Some people can drink a lot of milk, some people can only have a small amount, and some people cannot have very much at all. There is the same amount of lactose in cooked milk and raw milk so I do not know how you came up with your therefore statement.

By the way, I'm obviously European, there for I have the ( as the person you qouted suggests) " selective advantage based on additional nutrition from dairy "

The start of this sentence is "It has been suggested that a" then after the part you quoted it finishes with "explains these genetically determined population differences, but formal population-genetics–based evidence of selection has not yet been provided". So it is a maybe, and he did not suggest that, the source in brackets in the link suggested it. But there is nothing in dairy that a human needs that isn't in plants so I disagree that it is an advantage.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Beuford

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.

I'm not saying they should. I'm just saying that they DO.

To me, continuing to insist that animals do NOT do something that they obviously DO is pointless, and undermines any argument about why it's better to not eat cooked food and better to not drink milk. Why take humans out of the equation? Do humans not exist?

The reason adult animals don't drink milk is because other adult animals don't let them. That's got nothing to do with whether adults drinking milk is bad for them or good for them. It has to do with adult animals having teeth.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Beuford

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.

Many early humans battled through harsh winter conditions and probably ate mostly meat. They could have brought animals with them as well for milk and meat.

Consider the Paleo-Indians in America who survived through the Younger Dryas 10,000 year cold spell which also included an extended period of dust covering the sun (from asteroid impact).

Before them early humans crossed into the US over the Alaskan land bridge. Many cultures were used to year round cold.


What exactly is milk doing to humans? Are they proven or just speculation?

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Why does friendly bacteria in raw milk make your body create lactase?

Raw milk (and fermented dairy products) contain the "good" Lactobacilli bacteria which help the body digest the lactose.

If you leave a glass of raw milk out overnight, the next day you get clabber, a delicious semi-solid dairy product that's similar to yogurt.

If you leave pasteurized milk out on the counter, you get a putrid mass that smells like formula-fed baby vomit. Don't try that at home! lol.

Humans aren't the only ones that benefit from consuming all this good bacteria. Some farmers are experimenting with the skim milk that's left over after the cream is taken off by "watering" plants and soil with it.

Nebraska dairyman applies raw milk to pastures and watches the grass grow

"The test began with the spraying of the milk in mid-May, with mid-April being a reasonable target date here in central Missouri. Forty-five days later the 16 plots were clipped and an extra 1200 pounds of grass on a dry matter basis were shown to have been grown on the treated versus non-treated land. That’s phenomenal, but possibly even more amazing is the fact the porosity of the soil – that is, the ability to absorb water and air – was found to have doubled."

So we can add plants to the long list of creatures that *heart* raw milk.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Why does friendly bacteria in raw milk make your body create lactase? You are supposed to become lactose intolerant because that is what happens after weaning. It happens in all animals that drink milk. Except some humans. I'll even quote the wikipedia page for you.

"Humans are born with high levels of lactase expression. In most of the world’s population, lactase transcription is down-regulated after weaning, resulting in diminished lactase expression in the small intestine.[12] Diminished lactase expression causes the common symptoms of adult-type hypolactasia, or lactose intolerance."

"Some population segments exhibit lactase persistence resulting from a mutation that is postulated to have occurred 5000-10,000 years ago, coinciding with the rise of cattle domestication.[13] This mutation has allowed almost half of the world’s population to metabolize lactose without symptoms."

YouTube - The Demise of Raw Milk

[davidmorgan744]

Yes I completely agree to that milk and milk products are really beneficial for bones. Milk is recommended by the health experts and doctors. It produce effective and quick results.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by davidmorgan744

Yes I completely agree to that milk and milk products are really beneficial for bones. Milk is recommended by the health experts and doctors. It produce effective and quick results.

While milk is beneficial for health and bones, the "milk" that most people drink shouldn't even be considered suitable for human consumption. They've destroyed everything beneficial in it. Cept for protien.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

While milk is beneficial for health and bones, the "milk" that most people drink shouldn't even be considered suitable for human consumption. They've destroyed everything beneficial in it. Cept for protien.

You really are passionate about milk aren't you RR

Man's gotta have a passion in life.