Misunderstood milk

The reasons why it's excluded from this diet
mario91
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri 08 Apr 2011 22:56

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby mario91 » Tue 07 May 2019 01:21

Aytundra wrote:
Sun 05 May 2019 17:14
Perhaps if Genghis Khan was successful, we would all be raising cows and horses in the old world.

The problem is that these tribes of people did not have an exceptionally long lifespan. That is why they have not gotten any blue zone awards.
Places like "Blue Zones" (a term he trademarked: Okinawa (Japan); Sardinia (Italy); Nicoya (Costa Rica); Icaria (Greece); and among the Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California." (from wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone)

The diet here seeks to find foods that promote an infinite lifespan.
We have already been raising cows and horses here in the Old World, for a long time! At least until mass urbanization took place and plant-based diets started being pushed. A great part of Europe has always relied on milk and dairy.

On the Blue Zones, I don't know if you're arguing for or against, but it's simply the biggest lie in nutrition. Just research Okinawan and Sardinian cuisines. Virtually all dishes are animal food based. There are barely any vegan dishes. It's pure vegan propaganda, from a guy who's a fake-meat investor. He took the information on what those peoples ate in the post-WW2 famine period and tried to promote it as their normal diets (except maybe for the Adventists.)

The Maasai and Mongolians don't have exceptionally long lifespans because, just like most other traditional peoples, are under constant attack by the government. And they also live in very harsh environments. Some even turn to drugs, alcohol, smoking, even bad diets. While the quasi-vegan 7th day adventists live in socially tight communities, in pleasant and safe (and non-toxic) environments, and don't poison themselves too often. The Innuit are also a fine example of this dicotomy.

I don't doubt that one can be healthy on milk, all these populations truly prove that, yet many were also healthy eating (properly fermented) grains. Radiation, pollution and chemicals are much more detrimental than any bad natural food. I still find some value in RRM's claims. Dairy has much less calcium than milk, and probably much less growth hormones in the case of cheese and butter (not sure about this). In my opinion we should rely more on cheese and butter (and eggs), because they truly are much more sustainable than meat. An intentional commune of people relying on these would be a very financially stable and leisurely intentional commune, unlike the current vegan hippie ones where they have to break their backs to grow a few pounds of (nutritionally useless) potatoes.
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby Aytundra » Sat 11 May 2019 20:16

A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8125
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 12 May 2019 11:31

Panacea, do you claim that calcium from raw cow's milk is poorly assimilated?

This article (Maubois JL) claims that "heat treatment undermines the organoleptic qualities and bioactivity of many molecules found in milk", including by destroying those molecules that increase the uptake of calcium, such as casein phosphopeptides.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8125
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 12 May 2019 11:46

mario91 wrote:
Tue 07 May 2019 01:21
Dairy has much less calcium than milk, and probably much less growth hormones in the case of cheese and butter (not sure about this).
Actually, cheese contains (much) more calcium than milk, because it is more concentrated (containing far less water) than milk, and because calcium is not destroyed by heat.

Calcium in mg/100g in some cheeses:
1184 Parmesan cheese
893 Edam cheese
829 Gruyere cheese
388 Camembert cheese
184 Brie cheese
(125 cow's milk)
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby Aytundra » Wed 15 May 2019 04:41

mario91 wrote:
Tue 07 May 2019 01:21
...unlike the current vegan hippie ones where they have to break their backs to grow a few pounds of (nutritionally useless) potatoes.
hahaha!
The vegan hippies are growing their vegetables wrong. Breaking their backs for few pounds of potatoes...
They should learn from the best!
Phillip Vowles from Wales is a gardener that regularly grows giant vegetables.
He is the world record holder 25 years ago for growing the largest cucumber.
He can grow 120 lb (pound) cabbage! A regular cabbage is 2 lb.
With one cabbage, he says it can feed 120 people. And he sells it to the local pub.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqOFUhP6cWk
{It looks more like he is growing veggies for giants}.

{I think Phillip Vowles should team up with Russ Finch to grow the biggest orange in the north}.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD_3_gsgsnk
Recap: Russ Finch is a backyard gardener who can grow citrus in Nebraska (northern US).
He also grows grapes, lemons and pomegranite. He can do this by digging an 8 foot deep tunnel to put pipes that bring warm air up to the surface.
You should also study his greenhouse wall and roof designs which maximizes the warm temperatures. Altogether he can grow things with little electricity. He needs electricity for the fan to circulate the warm air up. With 1 tree, that takes up 8 foot diameter, he can sale produce for $400 at a local farmers market.

These two gardeners shows us that we should really question our ability to use land. The modern agricultural methods are really (environmentally and economically) expensive in comparison.
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
mario91
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri 08 Apr 2011 22:56

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby mario91 » Wed 15 May 2019 19:51

Those gardening artists break their backs even more, at least per yield. Only shows that you must be an artist to sucessfully grow plants organically, while anyone can put a cow on pasture and collect 10-20 liters of milk a day (which will have indefinitely more nutrition than a day's worth of any plant).
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby Aytundra » Sun 19 May 2019 16:31

Yyeyyesss! Arrrtistz arrre wonderrrful!

Wouldn't it be great if everyone owned an artful home and garden and life?
Isn't that what humans are about?
Or do you want us to be a slave serving robots in a manufacturing industry?

"anyone can put a cow on pasture..." Mario91 is lazy. {sorry}
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
mario91
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri 08 Apr 2011 22:56

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby mario91 » Sun 19 May 2019 19:21

Aytundra wrote:
Sun 19 May 2019 16:31
Yyeyyesss! Arrrtistz arrre wonderrrful!

Wouldn't it be great if everyone owned an artful home and garden and life?
Isn't that what humans are about?
Or do you want us to be a slave serving robots in a manufacturing industry?

"anyone can put a cow on pasture..." Mario91 is lazy. {sorry}
I am lazy. We should be putting our time and effort and soul into art, philosophy, science, crafts, spirituality, entertainment, not into growing unnecessary, non-nutritious, pretty plant foods. Why put extra time and effort into something which is totally unnecessary and even counter-productive.
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby Aytundra » Sun 19 May 2019 20:12

mario91 wrote:
Sun 19 May 2019 19:21
art, philosophy, science, crafts, spirituality, entertainment, not into growing unnecessary, non-nutritious, pretty plant foods.
For Lazy Mario91
I suggest you purchase a herd of these cows and raise it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LewVEF2B_pM
Strandbeest by Theo Jansen

They look quite efficient. Will not require much grass to feed it.
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4345
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby Oscar » Fri 12 Jul 2019 13:02

When looking at history and tradition, I think it's important to keep in mind that survival and availability are more important than health. We humans are lucky to be omnivores, so we can survive on a lot of foods, but survival is not the same as being in optimal health. Also, 'healthy' is relative. For example, osteoporosis is a disorder which, due to the gradual depletion of osteoblasts over the years, takes many years to develop, and will only show visible signs at later age. If 99% of a population dies before that age has been reached, then one could be tempted to conclude that the disorder isn't present in that population.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests