downsides of dairy

The reasons why it's excluded from this diet
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts:4348
Joined:Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Postby Oscar » Thu 13 Jul 2006 10:03

curiousz wrote:
Do you see tigers, who are carnivores by nature, drink the milk of other species?
I'm sure if they encountered a cow full of milk, they'd consume it (including the milk).
Of course we're talking about regular consumption, not occasional. Besides, this is still speculation, unless you have proof of it.
curiousz wrote:My point was that you can find any study that claims something is bad for you and will cause cancer.
So this discussion is completely useless. Since you don't want to acknowledge the value of scientific studies, all your observations can be categorized as subjective personal opinions. Which is of course your good right.
nick
Moderator
Posts:534
Joined:Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

Postby nick » Thu 13 Jul 2006 23:06

They just showed how milk can cause cancer.
And it's a wrong assertion, backed up by no significant studies. I suppose calves are going to fall over and die of cancer now.

You need to be a little more careful in this argument with what I said.
Milk is meant for the suckling and the contents of the mothers' milk changes throughout the breast feeding cycle.
I did not mean to say that milk would cause cancer in the calves as since milk is its natural food. This would make no sense at all.

The point is that through consuming milk as a part of your diet, then you are more susceptible to cancer if your cells have been damaged in the case of a cystic breast:

"In cystic breasts, breast-cells are more sensitive to substances stimulating cell-fission, and therefore cell-reproduction-rate is higher. And by taking testosterone, prostate- and muscle-cells are more stimulated to reproduce. In tissues where reproduction-rate is increased, growth of mutated cells is stimulated as well, increasing cancer-risk.
By absorbing external growth factors, tumors can originate. And tumors can become malignant when they, due to a mutation, start producing more growth factors, stimulating their own reproduction.
Therefore, tissues sensitive to the growth factors in milk are susceptible to cancer through consuming milk.
A large number of scientific investigations have revealed that consuming milk increases prostate cancer-risk (28), and also breast (29) and lung cancer risk. (in men) (30)"
My point was that you can find any study that claims something is bad for you and will cause cancer.
True.
But look at the facts too.
You will see that the growth factors in milk can increase cell division and that perhaps in a cystic breast or cancerous cell those growth factors would stimulate fission, thus increasing the the spread of cancer.

Of course not all milk is going to immediatly give you cancer, just like everyone doesn't get cancer from smoking. Perhaps this will help your understanding of what I meant?
I believe that if animals consumed the flesh of cows, especially those that produced milk, that the animals would consume the flesh of their teets, along with some of the milk inside of the animal itself.
Sure.
But the point is that it isn't a staple of their diet.
Humans drink it everyday, while wild animals do not make it a part of their diet, unless there the young.
RAW MILK is PERFECTLY FINE for consumption.
What about the excessive calcium causes osteoporosis theory?
http://www.4.waisays.com
I largely agree with portions of what Wai says, about things being RAW, but I disagree about the propaganda about milk -- and I think the amount of fruit that the Wai diet asks for is absolutely ridiculous.
What about the high fruit consumption makes it so ridiculous?
Too much sugar?
Too little fat?
You can eat more animal food on this diet or even more avocadoes, its not like you have to eat all sugary fruit.
I consume mostly fat and protein in my diet, with a few fruits. And, in terms of health, I feel much better on this diet.
Good to hear.
Did you ever try the Wai diet?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts:8158
Joined:Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Postby RRM » Sat 15 Jul 2006 20:04

curiousz wrote: Just as natural as it is to consume the flesh and meat of another animal, consuming their blood, which largely contains the same things you argue are 'bad' in milk.
Not even slightly as much as the levels in cow's milk.
The things that we 'argue' are bad, are hormones that have been proven to promote cancer.
Therefore it is not surprising that statistical studies show that particularly prostate cancer and breastcancer are correlated to drinking milk.
I realize the Wai Diet asks for egg yolks.
Not necessarily. You can also eat fish.
But they have a lot of similar compositions, including the supposed factors and hormones.
No, milk is a concentrate regarding the hormones. This because in our own adult body we dont need to enhance growth that much anymore, whereas the suckling baby needs to grow a lot.
And it's a wrong assertion, backed up by no significant studies. I suppose calves are going to fall over and die of cancer now.
Its not one or a few studies. Its a whole bunch.
Calves NEED those growth hormones to stimulate their growth. Adults dont need them. Have you really never heard of the effects of hormones on cancer risk?
My point was that you can find any study that claims something is bad for you and will cause cancer.
So, you say hormone levels and cancer are not related?
(then you have all cancer specialists to convince)
curiousz
Posts:44
Joined:Sun 02 Apr 2006 22:42

Postby curiousz » Sat 15 Jul 2006 20:46

So, you say hormone levels and cancer are not related?
(then you have all cancer specialists to convince)
Can you say that those that consumed raw, grass fed milk by cows fed no external hormones would cause cancer?

What about in cultures (such as the Masai) that consumed it as their main dietary staple?

The Masai weren't falling over and dying due to cancer. Hormones are concentrated in many organ meats, which animals would consume. And, if the animal were consuming young calves, then they'd be getting elevated hormones.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts:8158
Joined:Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Postby RRM » Sat 15 Jul 2006 20:53

curiousz wrote: Can you say that those that consumed raw, grass fed milk by cows fed no external hormones would cause cancer?
Absolutely. The hormone levels are about the same, maybe a little higher for some, but these hormones are in there by nature.
What about in cultures (such as the Masai) that consumed it as their main dietary staple?
They havent been doing so for very long. Evolution wise, 10,000 yers is nothing, just a blink of the eye.
The Masai weren't falling over and dying due to cancer.
How do you know?
Do you know their life expectancy?
Do they have proper cancer diagnosis tools?
Hormones are concentrated in many organ meats,
Compared to other foods, but certainly not compared to milk.
which animals would consume. And, if the animal were consuming young calves, then they'd be getting elevated hormones.
No, the influence of hormone levels in the meat is way too small compared to those in milk.
curiousz
Posts:44
Joined:Sun 02 Apr 2006 22:42

Postby curiousz » Tue 25 Jul 2006 01:49

Absolutely. The hormone levels are about the same, maybe a little higher for some, but these hormones are in there by nature.
You didn't answer my question.
They havent been doing so for very long. Evolution wise, 10,000 yers is nothing, just a blink of the eye.
Regardless of the fact that they've seen no health problems as a result of this diet?
How do you know?
Do you know their life expectancy?
Do they have proper cancer diagnosis tools?
How do you know it does cause cancer?
No, the influence of hormone levels in the meat is way too small compared to those in milk.

Proof? What about in the blood itself, or organ meats?
johndela1
Posts:968
Joined:Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location:Portland, OR
Contact:

life ext of massai

Postby johndela1 » Wed 26 Jul 2006 00:50

I have some info on the life exp of the Massai... here is a quote from:http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/di ... price.html



"Similar statistics are available about the Maasai in Kenya. The Maasai are best distinguished by their jewelry and ornamentation in their
"self-deformation" of the body: elongated or torn ear lobes and stretched out lips. They do eat a diet rich in wild hunted meats and have the worst life
expectancy in the modern world today. Maasai women have a life expectancy of 45 years, and men only live 42 years. I know these red-meat loving nuts
will claim that those statistics are of the modern Maasai, not those of years gone by, but the data is also damaging even if you bring up statistics
from 20 or more years ago, when good data was collected. Real African researchers, not Weston Price who just briefly visited them, or the list of
Groves' Weston Price Foundation compatriots, documented that a Maasai rarely lived past the age of 60 and when they did, they were considered a very old
man. If you want to mimic that dietary style, I guess that is your right, but certainly we know a little more about nutrition than the typical Maasai
warrior. (Consider these sources: http://www.kenya.za.net/maasai-cycles-of-life.html and www.who.int/countries/Ken/en/)

Adult mortality figures on the Kenyan Maasai, show that they have a fifty percent chance of dying before the age of 59. "
curiousz
Posts:44
Joined:Sun 02 Apr 2006 22:42

Postby curiousz » Wed 26 Jul 2006 08:33

johndela1-

Take disease into account, lack of health care, a dangerous lifestyle and other factors.

Africa isn't a pretty place.
johndela1
Posts:968
Joined:Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location:Portland, OR
Contact:

Postby johndela1 » Wed 26 Jul 2006 17:36

I do take that into consideration. If it is true that they rarely live beyond 60 then everyone is dieing of accidents or hardships or they are not healthy. At least that is how I interpret it. If they where healthy, some many would live longer and of course some would die from the hard conditions you mention. But to say anyone rarely lives beyond 60 doesn't paint a good picture of health to me.

I guess we are both speculating, unless you have actually seen a post mortum to evaluate the cause of death and condition of a recently decest Massai.
nick
Moderator
Posts:534
Joined:Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

Postby nick » Wed 26 Jul 2006 18:44

Civil society has its hardhips and tolls on humans, but we would need to take a good look at what the Masai go through.

What does their everyday lifestyle include would be a good thing to look into.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts:8158
Joined:Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Postby RRM » Mon 31 Jul 2006 19:08

curiousz wrote:
Absolutely. The hormone levels are about the same, maybe a little higher for some, but these hormones are in there by nature.
You didn't answer my question.
I did. The answer was:
"Absolutely". (plus additional explanation)
How do you know it does cause cancer?
Because it contains compounds that stimulate growth of specific tumors.

Proof? What about in the blood itself, or organ meats?
Yes, please show me that proof!
What are the levels found?
avalon
Posts:818
Joined:Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Postby avalon » Mon 14 Aug 2006 12:32

Hey! Good Morning All! It's been a while since I've been here and it's good to see the banter again! The more I learn the more I think it's All up for debate.

2 cents worth:

Can we drink milk? Yes. Will it hurt us? Maybe. Heated, sterilized milk has been manipulated. Bad, Bad Milk! Some people swear by the curing power of RAW Milk. Can we eat flesh? Yes. Should we eat flesh? Who really knows. Fruitarians are very convincing. Wai is very convincing. Eggs are a nearly if not perfect food, depending on who you listen to. Should we hang a cow upside down and drain its blood and cut it up into chunks and then pieces and the grind it even more??? We can, we do. Should we catch fish in nets or with hooks, tearing their mouth to bits while they struggle to be free for our financial and sporting pleasure? We can, we do.

Because we can, we do. We, not the animals/fish have the hand-tools/machines to kill, cage and slaughter in mass quantity. I'm not talking about 'claws and teeth'. I just read somewhere something about what if slaughter houses had glass walls, what would we think then.

The Primal Diet is all flesh, some greens and Raw dairy. Many people have been cured of illness and disease( if they are to be believed). Is this just because they've given up 'processed' foods so either way their health will recover? Though they are healthier will they live as long with such high protien and flesh?

At least Dairy, from grass fed cows is a more humane and natural food product.

The real question is, because we can... Does that mean we should? And also when we do know the truth, will we listen? It's frightening to read health and nutrition articles, some over a hundred years old stating the same problems we have today- only our problems are worse because no one is listening still.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts:4348
Joined:Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Postby Oscar » Mon 14 Aug 2006 12:52

Hey Avalon, welcome back! :)

How did the moving go?
avalon
Posts:818
Joined:Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Postby avalon » Mon 14 Aug 2006 15:06

Hey Oscar! Moving is something like latge intestinal blockage... ehh, so better not go there if you know what I mean :)

I was spoiled before with highspeed connection and for the time being am on dialup but it sure is good to be back online.

Must go read some post so we can banter :) heh heh
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts:4348
Joined:Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Postby Oscar » Mon 14 Aug 2006 15:31

LOL! I've managed to avoid it for 40 years now, so we'll see... ;)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest