Misunderstood milk

The reasons why it's excluded from this diet
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Mon 22 Apr 2019 08:35

panacea wrote:
Mon 22 Apr 2019 00:32
what matters is that hormones taken into the digestive system are broken down as food, not flooded into the bloodstream as hormones.
Hormones in generally, yes.
Here are some of the growth factors in milk:
- bombesine(a neuropeptide)
- GRP (Gastrin-releasing peptide)
- substance P (a neurotransmitter)
- CGRP (calcitonin-gene-related peptide, also a neurotransmitter)
- IGF-1 (Insulin-like growth factor-1)
- IGF-2
- EGF (Epidermal growth factor)
- NGF (Nerve growth factor)
- PRP (Prolactin-releasing peptide
- LHRH (or: GnRH, stimulates secretion of LH and FSH)
- progesterone
- peptide YY
- peptide histidine methionine
- neuropeptide Y (stimulating appetite)
- TRH (stimulating TSH secretion) TRH stimulates prolactin- and GH secretion, through T3.
- TSH (stimulating T3- and T4 secretion)
- T3 (Triiodothyronine) T3 increases the number of estrogen receptors, increasing estrogen-influence.
- GHRF (Growth-hormone-releasing factor) GHRF stimulates GH- and (through GH) IGF-1 and –2 secretion
- ACTH (regulating cortisol secretion)
- neurotensine
- cortisol
- insuline (regulating blood-glucose level)
- beta-endorphine (opioid peptide)
- small opioid peptides
- benzodiazepine-agonist peptides (neurotransmitters)

Peptides are small protein fractions that are not completely broken down into amino acids.
Growth factors are peptides that can be taken up into the bloodstream.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Mon 22 Apr 2019 08:36

panacea wrote:
Mon 22 Apr 2019 00:40
The important takeaway is that normal levels of ingested hormones like you would get from raw animal foods don't affect mice plasma and reproductive organs
The question is: does the intake of ingested hormones from cow's milk have any influence at all?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Mon 22 Apr 2019 08:46

panacea wrote:
Mon 22 Apr 2019 03:59
What you propose as being what nature intended means nothing, it's food.
Tell that to the animal that ate the wrong food.
What an animal can tolerate differs per specie.
How much of it can be eaten also differs per specie.
What food you eat matters.
If the levels of these substances in raw cow's milk and goats milk are 1/10000th the levels found in drugs and contraceptives, would you still believe they cause all kinds of disease? This is a fatal logical error.
Growth factors are in cow's milk because they have an effect on calves, correct?
Look at the weight of a calf.
Then look at the weight of an adult human being.
panacea
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Mon 22 Apr 2019 12:51

The burden is on you RRM to show these correlations you have made up, concerning raw and unprocessed mammal's milk from any healthy mammal. You have found them based only on cooked and processed foods and as I have stated, this only outlines the dangers of cooking and processing foods, which we already know cause cancer and other effects. Any and all links of growth hormones or anything else with these cooked and processed foods being linked to cancer or any other similar effects are tainted by the fact we know cooking and processing is correlated with these health effects, not necessarily the food.

How could we possibly know if growth factors in raw cow's milk have an effect on calves other than providing nutrients like any other food? You have shown no studies suggesting they do, and there exist no studies suggesting they don't, it's simply a made up idea carried over from unrelated cooked and processed animal food studies.

You seem to be very aware that cooking beef alters it, and causing bad things to happen when it's ingested, yet you support raw beef well enough, why is milk any different? All of your article linked studies about the beef being bad concern cooked beef, all of your studies about milk being bad concern cooked (pasteurized and probably homogenized) milk... Seriously wake up
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Mon 22 Apr 2019 14:38

You have found them based only on cooked and processed foods and as I have stated,
Not true.
It is based on the extensive growth factors in raw milk.
And the too high level of calcium in raw milk
How could we possibly know if growth factors in raw cow's milk have an effect on calves other than providing nutrients like any other food?
Growth factors do not provide any nutrients at all.
Growth factors stimulate cell growth.
why is milk any different?
Because milk being unsuitable has nothing to do with cooked versus raw.
Nothing.
Milk is about growth factors and excessive calcium. In RAW milk, as well as in processed milk.
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby Aytundra » Mon 22 Apr 2019 16:00

https://www.realmilk.com/health/tale-of-two-calves/
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_healt ... stMilk.pdf

Well a concern for beef eaters should be, was the calf raised on pasteurized milk?
If toxins are in processed milk, then doesn't it bio-accumulate to the beef we eat?
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Mon 22 Apr 2019 16:02

Panacea, do you think that the growth factors in raw milk naturally stimulate cell growth in calves?
Or do you think that their presence in milk has no effect, and is just a mistake?
panacea
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Wed 24 Apr 2019 01:01

RRM wrote:
Mon 22 Apr 2019 14:38
You have found them based only on cooked and processed foods and as I have stated,
Not true.
It is based on the extensive growth factors in raw milk.
And the too high level of calcium in raw milk

Do you realize how miniscule the amounts of growth factors/hormones are in milk relative to both how much our bodies produce without milk, and how much there is in other foods like eggs?
How could we possibly know if growth factors in raw cow's milk have an effect on calves other than providing nutrients like any other food?
Growth factors do not provide any nutrients at all.
Growth factors stimulate cell growth.

Orally ingested natural growth factors are broken down into food, no longer growth factors at all. You do realize what digestion is and that it happens when you eat stuff, right? There are drugs with modified growth hormones to survive the digestion process and the liver, and these (shocker) cause problems in the body, but this isn't a problem with raw milk.
why is milk any different?
Because milk being unsuitable has nothing to do with cooked versus raw.
Nothing.
Milk is about growth factors and excessive calcium. In RAW milk, as well as in processed milk.
Raw milk is suitable for just about all mammals, they can live on it solely, pasteurized milk will make just about all mammals die rapidly when it's the only thing they eat. So milk being unsuitable has everything to do with cooked versus raw. Everything. Milk doesn't even have high levels of growth factors. There is no data linking raw milk and its calcium being harmful to any mammal, at any point in their lives. Find one then make these outlandish fearmongering claims valid. You're the one trying to show to the natural world that a completely natural food created by mammals for mammals is somehow bad for mammals.
Panacea, do you think that the growth factors in raw milk naturally stimulate cell growth in calves?
Or do you think that their presence in milk has no effect, and is just a mistake?
Milk naturally stimulates cell growth by acting as a complete food, not because there are hormones in the milk. The hormones in the milk affected the mother, causing milk production and so on, not the baby. Even if the hormones somehow survived digestion and were absorbed, the levels are so low compared to the babies own (or adults own) hormone production of the same hormones ingested, that it would be less than 1% ingested intake of what they produce every day. Hormones in milk are not gross, cancerous, bad, in any way, it's natures perfect food for mammals, with zero bad stuff in it, designed to fuel mammalian bodies completely (babies). In humans, and some apes like orangutans, they naturally drink milk for 8+ years after birth, and yet, the fastest stages of growth take place in most of these mammals after milk ingestion has stopped, all without the help of milk. I wonder why.. oh it's because our bodies produce a shit ton of hormones and milk has very little, and even less that survive digestion.

It's also pretty wonderous to people so far backwards in their heads how all of this excessive calcium doesn't harm a tiny babies body, but somehow in adults it causes problems.. I really don't think there's any amount of data beyond the mountain that already exists out there that can convince someone how completely harmless raw milk is (only harm comes from our modern ways of processing it), you just have to think critically about it rather than regurgitate fear mongering beliefs instilled in you.

Now, I wouldn't recommend cows milk for infants because that's precisely when the body needs the specific formulation of milk from our own species, and while breast milk from healthy humans roaming around outside in the sunshine eating a 100% raw diet would be superior to cows milk, that's not going to happen, and raw cow's milk by all accounts is totally fine for adults and young humans. It has more calcium than we need, it's a mineral, the body can regulate its uptake just fine when it's raw milk and the digestive system is working normally, as it does when you don't feed it cooked or hard to digest food.

Interestingly though, human milk has 58% available calcium (34mg per 100g), and cows milk has 38% available calcium, even though the levels in cows milk are higher (113 per 100g). So roughly 20 per 100g calcium for human milk, and 43mg per 100g calcium for cows milk. Insanely toxic high levels? Nope, just a little over double human milk.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sat 27 Apr 2019 18:31

The hormones in the milk affected the mother, causing milk production and so on, not the baby.
I posted a long list of growth factors in milk.
Most of these are tiny molecules, and have been shown to get absorbed intact into the baby's blood.
Do you really think they all serve no purpose in the baby?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sat 27 Apr 2019 18:35

panacea wrote:
Wed 24 Apr 2019 01:01
Raw milk is suitable for just about all mammals
Raw cow's milk contains 4 times more calcium than raw human milk.
Babies need relatively more calcium than adults, due to fast calcification of their bones.
So, even human milk contains more calcium than adults need.
Do you think that the high intake of calcium from raw cow's milk has any effect on bone formation in adults?
panacea
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Tue 30 Apr 2019 21:25

Whether or not something gets absorbed into a literally underdeveloped human being (born premature solely for birth canal size reasons) doesn't really say anything about the digestive capabilities of adults. And no, the hormones in raw milk don't really serve a physiological purpose for the baby other than being broken down and used as food. Although, I admit I don't know much about human bodies at that early stage, it may be that very little gets broken down in digestion and therefore has an effect on the baby, since the baby is also very small compared to adults. However, everything before 6 months should be looked at as 'outside the womb' but still a developing baby, probably the baby would exit the birth canal much later if women's hips safely allowed for it. So, just like in the womb, the baby probably doesn't develop normal digestive capabilities until after around 6 months.

The available calcium in cow milk is lower than in human milk though, so even though there is more of it, less actually gets utilized. Also, just because they need 'relatively' more calcium, that's misleading: they need less non-relatively because their bodies are so small, they can weigh 14 pounds and need around 32 oz of breast milk a day! An adult can weigh 200 lb (like me) and drink only 128 oz for all nutritional needs. So, I weigh over 14 times more, and am probably similarly 14x as large, but only need to drink 4x the milk the baby does, and my cows milk has only double the available calcium that breast milk does. So, for all the large bones in my body, probably at least 14x the amount of a 14 pound baby, I'm only assimilating roughly 8x the calcium the baby is.

No I don't think the assimilation of normal amounts of calcium from raw cow's milk has any effect on bone formation or upkeep other than the normal process from any typical raw animal food, such as beef and fish.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 05 May 2019 12:37

panacea wrote:
Tue 30 Apr 2019 21:25
No I don't think the assimilation of normal amounts of calcium from raw cow's milk has any effect on bone formation
What you consider 'normal amounts of calcium' in cow's milk, is four-fold higher than in human milk. So, for humans, it is high.
Studies have shown that calcium from cow's milk is well assimilated.
And studies and statistics have shown beyond doubt that high calcium from cow's milk stimulates (osteoblast driven) bone formation.
The whole idea that high calcium in cow's milk stimulates bone formation has been extensively proven.
And statistics back those studies up:
In all countries where milk consumption is highest, average adult bone mineral density is highest.
That is not a 'genetic thing', as all immigrants from African or Asian countries adopting a western diet develop similar high bone mineral density.
panacea
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Sun 05 May 2019 15:01

We cannot go any further in the discussion about milk, until you have completely thrown away and disregarded all studies and data relating to pasteurized milk, which is not the same as natural raw milk. Studies on people that have been consuming pasteurized dairy are meaningless in regard to raw dairy. Enzymes, bacteria, and non-heated proteins all play a vital roles in how milk is digested/assimilated by the body, and where and how the components of milk ultimately interact with the body, including the bones. It would make absolutely no sense to compare the effects of supplemental calcium pills to raw milk, and it makes no sense to compare pasteurized milk to raw milk either, just like with the dietary pill extract, the pasteurized milk is a dead product, which can be looked at as a form of mineral and energy supplement, without the vital components that make ANY food a living food that would be consumed by any wild animal life naturally (without heat processing).

Also, the actual amount of calcium that is in a food doesn't matter, there are plant foods that are high in calcium but only about 5% is absorbed by the body. You are ignoring this mechanism, which I outlined above, so that when you look how much calcium actually gets absorbed, raw milk is only slightly more than double the calcium per serving than human milk. And yet, adults only need to drink 4x of the quantity of milk an infant does, despite weighing around 10 times more.

So, relative to weight, adults drinking only cows milk for their diet would be getting (by weight) less relative calcium than infants.

However, genetically speaking, it's quite interesting to note that certain people are much more adapted to drink milk through adulthood (after 5-7 years when speaking of milk) than others, in fact this is one of the strongest natural selection pressures in recent history, every word of this wikipedia article is worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

Basically though the article shows that certain people are really not suited to milk, while others (like the Irish who have a 100% lactase-persistent genes) are probably totally adapted to it.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8158
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 05 May 2019 17:11

panacea wrote:
Sun 05 May 2019 15:01
We cannot go any further in the discussion about milk, until you have completely thrown away and disregarded all studies and data relating to pasteurized milk
That is only the case if your assertion is that calcium from raw cow's milk is poorly assimilated.
Is that your assertion?
Also, the actual amount of calcium that is in a food doesn't matter, there are plant foods that are high in calcium but only about 5% is absorbed by the body. You are ignoring this mechanism, which I outlined above
No, i did not.
I am specifically talking about the amount of calcium that gets assimilated.
It has been proven beyond doubt that calcium from cow's milk gets assimilated well.

So, what is your argument?
That calcium from raw cow's milk gets poorly assimilated? (more so than processed milk?)
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby Aytundra » Sun 05 May 2019 17:14

But the Mongolians who have genetics that makes most of their population lactose intolerant, can still drink milk.
They have solved that by processing their milk via fermentation methods to decrease the lactose content.
Mongolians also eat the meat of the animals they herd.

The Maasai people who have a shorter lifespan compared to Mongolians don't do the same things as Mongolians do to their milk. In addition the Maasai people drink the blood of the cows they raise.

What these two population show us, is that Panacea is right, people can live on herds of cows (in addition with other 4 legged animals, goats, sheeps, horses...) . You don't need a study to show large groups of humans can be raised on milk generation after generation. These two tribes prove it. It is possible to have a diet heavy on milk and get through many generations.
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.
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest