Misunderstood milk

The reasons why it's excluded from this diet
panacea
Posts:987
Joined:Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08
Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Thu 04 Apr 2019 20:13

As a new lover of milk, I want to point out some important things concerning milk because a lot of people think milk and dairy products in stores are the only type of dairy there is, when really almost all store bought dairy is pasteurized, homogenized, or otherwise processed. Even some 'certified raw' dairy is heated high enough to kill enzymes, but they can still call it 'certified raw'.

This is like the equivalent of selling cooked and processed orange juice. It should be no surprise that cooked milk as well as cooked and processed orange juice will be bad for you. That shouldn't mean that raw oranges and raw milk have the same effects. Heat destroys/alters beneficial bacteria, enzymes, denatures proteins, etc.

In the case of milk this is especially harmful, because raw milk digests itself to an extent, preventing lactose intolerance effects (especially if allowed to clabber). Additionally, the enzymes in raw milk make it very easy for your body to digest and assimilate it (especially in small meals of it).

You can take all the research done concerning the effects of 'milk' like cancer or anything else based on pasteurized milk and throw it out, it's like saying routinely drinking cooked fruit juice causes cancer, well yes it might but that is not the fault of the fruit or its juice. Pasteurized dairy is a relatively recent invention, and it makes no sense to associate cooked milk with its raw form as if the raw form doesn't even exist, just because it's not sold in most stores.

In addition, there is some raw and pasteurized milk out there where cows are fed primarily grain, in other words, not their natural diet of grass. It's wrong to associate bad effects from such milk to the milk itself, when really the animal is being malnourished and/or poisoned with grains, soy, etc.

If we malnourished fruit trees so they only got a little artificial light and no sun, toxic water and poor soil, I'm sure they would produce some poor quality fruit if they could produce at all. What our food eats, matters a great deal, plant and animal food alike.

In fact, this is similar to what happened to raw milk in the early United States, when the waste product slop from distilleries in cities was basically used exclusively to feed cows, which became extremely diseased. It was said the stench could be smelled for a mile away. Along with horse-manure polluted waters and this toxic slop feed, horrible stagnant conditions for the cows breathing this toxic stench air 24/7, and never allowed to exercise, people became very sick on 'raw' milk and pasteurization was used as the solution, just to cover up the complete ignorance of the cows natural diet and lifestyle.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts:8158
Joined:Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 07 Apr 2019 18:51

Milk is specifically designed to make very young animals grow rapidly until they can eat normal food independently.
This translates into an extensive list of growth hormones and growth factors in milk.
Perfect for babies. Not so much for adults.
Do you really think that these growth hormones have no adverse effects in adults?

Secondly, (tiny) humans should drink human milk.
Calves should drink cow's milk. etc.
Why?
Because each specie has very different nutrient needs.
Cow's milk, for example, contains 4 times more calcium than human milk. And human milk already contains way more calcium than adults need, simply because unlike babies, their bones don't need rapid calcification. Hence that in countries where most milk is consumed, average adult bone density is greatest, and bone health in elderly poorest, due to premature exhaustion of this calcification process (osteoblast replication rate).

Adult humans drinking milk designed for calves goes against all logic, and not without adverse consequences.
panacea
Posts:987
Joined:Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Tue 09 Apr 2019 02:53

Any data on pasteurized milk having a correlation with its intake and bone problems, or any other problem, does not in any way relate to raw milk. The milk is significantly changed when it's pasteurized, homogenized, and processed. And just as important, the vast majority of that pasteurized milk comes from cattle fed a varying degree of an unnatural diet, among other problems.

There's simply no evidence that raw milk from healthy cows is correlated with any problem whatsoever.

How would you reason about findings if there was a correlation of any health problem in a population that consumes 97% of their fruit after it has been subjected to cooking temperatures killing the bacteria and enzymes, homogenized oxidizing any fat in the fruit such as with avocado juice, and the fruiting plants/trees were given substandard nourishment?

Food does not control whether a body grows rapidly or not, the body itself does. Food is just nourishment. There are certain amounts of hormones from the mother's milk because the mother herself has these hormones and they come from the blood, it has no effect on the child other than to give them the full nourishment they need to grow to their full size. They've done studies on rats proving this, only when the rats are fed an amount extremely high (such as 1000x the normal amount in a natural food) so that their body cannot break down all of the hormones do the hormones end up having an effect as if produced by their own body. So, the reality is if the body does not need to grow any further, the body will break down the hormones and use it as food. If you somehow concentrate the hormones into an extract or something, it will overload the organs trying to break it down, acting like a poison. Raw milk doesn't do this.

Milk from other animals is not designed to be eaten by humans, but it's designed to be eaten by their young, which more often than not have extremely similar needs to humans (all mammal tissues share more or less the same needs). More must be harvested and consumed to sustain a human, but this has been going on for a long time in cattle. A lot of foods are not designed to be eaten - such as the cow itself, or the grass the cow eats, yet predators can eat prey and herbivores can eat plants, even if the prey was designed to live longer and the plant was designed to grow further. In other words, the original intent of the food does not matter one iota, if it is food then it has a dual purpose, for any animal that can digest that food.
mario91
Posts:268
Joined:Fri 08 Apr 2011 22:56

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby mario91 » Tue 09 Apr 2019 10:12

Excellent arguments, Panacea. Like I said in our other discussion, I trust empirical/historical data way more than studies. People have been domesticating cattle and consuming large ammounts of raw milk and dairy for a long time. (On the other hand, no population has ever subsisted primarily of fruit.)

Weston A. Price observed several tribes which consumed large ammounts of raw milk and dairy (some even more than 90% of their diets) and none suffered from our modern degenerative diseases. Yet, I still think RRM has some strong arguments on his side, so I'm not trying to gotcha him or anything because there's still no definitive answer on this matter. But I'm more inclined to your side of the argument.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts:8158
Joined:Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 14 Apr 2019 11:31

panacea wrote:
Tue 09 Apr 2019 02:53
Food does not control whether a body grows rapidly or not, the body itself does. Food is just nourishment.
So, all those growth factors in milk are there for no reason at all?
panacea wrote:
Tue 09 Apr 2019 02:53
it has no effect on the child other than to give them the full nourishment they need to grow to their full size. They've done studies on rats proving this,
Can you direct me to those studies?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts:8158
Joined:Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 14 Apr 2019 11:42

mario91 wrote:
Tue 09 Apr 2019 10:12
Weston A. Price observed several tribes which consumed large ammounts of raw milk and dairy (some even more than 90% of their diets) and none suffered from our modern degenerative diseases.
"Observed" is the key word here. Observations don't compare to scientific studies.
What was their life expectancy?
As i understand, it was quite low.
In most African countries for most inhabitants they don't even know what their causes of death are. People just die, without proper examination. How many of those deaths are related to cancer, cardiovascular diseases etc is mostly unkown.
panacea
Posts:987
Joined:Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Tue 16 Apr 2019 00:48

The studies I was talking about are all referenced in this article: http://sciencedrivennutrition.com/hormones-milk/

The growth factors in the milk are there for a reason, just not any harmful ones that we know of so far. It should be relatively obvious that even when children are raised without hormones in foods, they can still grow to their full size, and yet when they are still breastfeeding or drinking cows milk on the farm into their early teens, they don't have any freakish growth. It's just ridiculous to think that the body will 'grow' because we ingest growth hormone in natural food in its natural state, just as it's ridiculous to think that the body will become 'fat' because we ingest natural fats. Nutrition and biology isn't that simplistic. We don't get larger hearts if all we ate were animal hearts, we don't grow abnormally thick skin if we eat a lot of collagen, it's just junk science to thing there is some linear step from ingesting something natural to it not being able to be broken down as food so it just floats around in the body determining what our body does.

Weston A Price didn't have any surefire way to record the ages of the tribes he met as there were no birth certificates or anything, except visual appearance and how old they told him they were, but there were many elderly people in such tribes (70's, 80's, etc) in perfect health, he was a kind of dentist so he was mostly interested in their teeth, these elderly people with no dentist visits ever had great teeth, the only thing he found semi-regularly in the elderly was some gingivitis and some loosening of the teeth (nearly all the teeth were present and very little evidence dental caries ever existed). He met with tribes people that were over 100 years old, living in the harsh elements not in a cushy retirement home.

If people were to attempt to forego dentists and other modern luxuries to sustain our way of life nowadays, people would end up committing suicide - that's exactly what happened to many young Eskimos when they grew up in new port cities where dentists hadn't set up shop yet, yet they ate modern food. The oral pain was so great they just ended up committing suicide. Eskimos were known before this time as being the happiest people on Earth.

Weston Price's book with photos is available free here: https://archive.org/details/NutritionAn ... generation
panacea
Posts:987
Joined:Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Wed 17 Apr 2019 07:00

Here's the specific study about mice and milk estrogen

https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/a ... xt?rss=yes

and the Conclusions from it are :

"The results of our study demonstrate that in mice, consumption of milk from pregnant cows did not affect plasma E1 and E2 levels; uterine weight in females; or testosterone levels, testicle, and seminal vesicle weights in males. We found elevated plasma estrogens and estrogenic effects in both sexes if milk with added 100 ng/mL of each E1 and E2 was included in the diet, but these doses exceeded physiological concentrations of estrogens by 1,000 times, and it is therefore extremely unlikely to find such concentrations in native cow milk. Our results suggest that estrogens in milk, even when derived from cows in the third trimester of pregnancy, do not pose a risk to reproductive health; even estrogens at concentrations 100 times higher than usually found in native milk (milk 10, 10.093 ng/mL of E1 and 10,065 ng/mL of E2) did not cause any physiological effects in the present study."
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts:8158
Joined:Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 21 Apr 2019 20:16

panacea wrote:
Wed 17 Apr 2019 07:00
estrogens in milk, ...do not pose a risk to reproductive health
That is a very limited scope of that study.
By no means does that rule out any adverse effects in adults of growth factors in milk.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts:8158
Joined:Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby RRM » Sun 21 Apr 2019 20:18

panacea wrote:
Tue 16 Apr 2019 00:48
The growth factors in the milk are there for a reason, just not any harmful ones that we know of so far.
Any positive effect has an adverse effect in other circumstances.
Yes, we do know the effects of exposing adults to elevated levels of growth factors.
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts:1711
Joined:Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby Aytundra » Sun 21 Apr 2019 21:22

panacea wrote:
Wed 17 Apr 2019 07:00
https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/a ... xt?rss=yes

"We found elevated plasma estrogens and estrogenic effects in both sexes if milk with added 100 ng/mL of each E1 and E2 was included in the diet, but these doses exceeded physiological concentrations of estrogens by 1,000 times, and it is therefore extremely unlikely to find such concentrations in native cow milk. ...; even estrogens at concentrations 100 times higher than usually found in native milk (milk 10, 10.093 ng/mL of E1 and 10,065 ng/mL of E2) did not cause any physiological effects in the present study."
But they used a small sample size! 18 mice.
They stored the milk in plastic at feeding time. And were careful about rinsing the tube.
But they didn't say how they stored the milk from the cow to the lab. (What if it was exposed to estrogen in plastics...(BPA?)?)
"Milk was given to animals in plastic conical centrifuge tubes measuring 17.1 × 120 mm, 15 mL (TPP, Technoplastic Plastic Products AG, Trasadingen, Switzerland). At the conus of the tube, a hole with a diameter of 1.7 mm was drilled and carefully sanded. The whole tube was thoroughly washed with distilled water and dried under UV light. Each mouse received 4 mL of test milk in the tube. We developed this procedure on 12 animals initially, to ensure that they could drink from the tubes, and that the tubes were not leaking. During the experiment, we observed the tubes for leaking during the first 10 min of exposure, but none of the tubes leaked. The amount of milk in the tubes was checked every 2 h. Mice were given milk for 8 d. Fresh milk was added every morning at 0800 h. All mice had consumed almost all of the milk by 1200 h, except on the first day of treatment, when some mice (18 altogether randomly across all groups) consumed 2 to 4 mL of milk."

They used DSMO. Why did they do that? Did that enable the additives to get in easier?
"We assessed the accuracy of the test (recovery) by measuring known amounts of E1 and E2 added to milk; E1 (Fluka, St. Galen, Switzerland) and E2 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) were separately dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) in concentrations of 300 ng/mL. After that, 10, 20, 30, and 40 μL of dissolved E1 or E2 (as well as 50 and 60 μL for E1 only) were added to 100 mL of milk to reach concentrations of 0.03, 0.06, 0.09, and 0.12 ng of added E1 or E2 per mL of milk (as well as 0.15 and 0.18 ng/mL for E1 only). Every spiked sample was measured in 6 replicates."

And they only measured after 8 days of treatment, what if the mice were allowed to live longer, would we see the problems develop?
"After 8 d of treatment, mice were euthanized, blood was collected, and the uteruses, testes, and seminal vesicles were weighed."

Because they allowed a longer time for their mice to recover from ovariectomies...
"The incisions were stitched with absorbable sutures (Braun, Tuttlingen, Germany) and mice received 2 injections of butorphanol (2 µg/g of BW; Fort Dodge Animal Health) after surgery to alleviate potential pain. Animals were allowed at least 14 d to recover from the ovariectomies."
Doesn't that mean that organs need time to process change?


They should title the study as '''Adding E1 and E2 to milk with DSMO affects mice plasma and reproductive organs'''.
panacea
Posts:987
Joined:Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Mon 22 Apr 2019 00:32

RRM wrote:
Sun 21 Apr 2019 20:16
panacea wrote:
Wed 17 Apr 2019 07:00
estrogens in milk, ...do not pose a risk to reproductive health
That is a very limited scope of that study.
By no means does that rule out any adverse effects in adults of growth factors in milk.
What the scope of the study is doesn't matter to me, what matters is that hormones taken into the digestive system are broken down as food, not flooded into the bloodstream as hormones. Only when the dose is at toxic levels and the body can't break it all down, does it have an adverse effect, same bad effects would happen if you drank far too much water or anything else that is healthy at normal levels but toxic in excess as well.
panacea
Posts:987
Joined:Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Mon 22 Apr 2019 00:40

Here's another related study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22561023

A 2012 study was performed in order to quantify and compare the amount of estrogen, Estrone E1 and Estrone sulfate E1S (inactive endogenous steroid) concentrations in whole milk and its skim and fat fractions. Here are the major findings of this study5:

Approximately 90% of ingested hormones (including estrogens) are inactivated by the gastrointestinal and hepatic system immediately upon absorption5
Quantity of E1 and E1S in 3 glasses of milk (237 mL): 68 ng/day
Endogenous production of total Estrone E1 (E1 + E1S) and E2
54,000 ng/day: Prepubertal girls
100,000 ng/day: Prepubertal boys
140,000 ng/day: Men
630,000 ng/day: Women
In terms of the consumption of milk products, 3 glasses of milk represents only 0.001% to 0.1% of individuals’ endogenous estrogen production rates.5
panacea
Posts:987
Joined:Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Mon 22 Apr 2019 03:32

Aytundra wrote:
Sun 21 Apr 2019 21:22
panacea wrote:
Wed 17 Apr 2019 07:00
https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/a ... xt?rss=yes

"We found elevated plasma estrogens and estrogenic effects in both sexes if milk with added 100 ng/mL of each E1 and E2 was included in the diet, but these doses exceeded physiological concentrations of estrogens by 1,000 times, and it is therefore extremely unlikely to find such concentrations in native cow milk. ...; even estrogens at concentrations 100 times higher than usually found in native milk (milk 10, 10.093 ng/mL of E1 and 10,065 ng/mL of E2) did not cause any physiological effects in the present study."
But they used a small sample size! 18 mice.
They stored the milk in plastic at feeding time. And were careful about rinsing the tube.
But they didn't say how they stored the milk from the cow to the lab. (What if it was exposed to estrogen in plastics...(BPA?)?)
"Milk was given to animals in plastic conical centrifuge tubes measuring 17.1 × 120 mm, 15 mL (TPP, Technoplastic Plastic Products AG, Trasadingen, Switzerland). At the conus of the tube, a hole with a diameter of 1.7 mm was drilled and carefully sanded. The whole tube was thoroughly washed with distilled water and dried under UV light. Each mouse received 4 mL of test milk in the tube. We developed this procedure on 12 animals initially, to ensure that they could drink from the tubes, and that the tubes were not leaking. During the experiment, we observed the tubes for leaking during the first 10 min of exposure, but none of the tubes leaked. The amount of milk in the tubes was checked every 2 h. Mice were given milk for 8 d. Fresh milk was added every morning at 0800 h. All mice had consumed almost all of the milk by 1200 h, except on the first day of treatment, when some mice (18 altogether randomly across all groups) consumed 2 to 4 mL of milk."

They used DSMO. Why did they do that? Did that enable the additives to get in easier?
"We assessed the accuracy of the test (recovery) by measuring known amounts of E1 and E2 added to milk; E1 (Fluka, St. Galen, Switzerland) and E2 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) were separately dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) in concentrations of 300 ng/mL. After that, 10, 20, 30, and 40 μL of dissolved E1 or E2 (as well as 50 and 60 μL for E1 only) were added to 100 mL of milk to reach concentrations of 0.03, 0.06, 0.09, and 0.12 ng of added E1 or E2 per mL of milk (as well as 0.15 and 0.18 ng/mL for E1 only). Every spiked sample was measured in 6 replicates."

And they only measured after 8 days of treatment, what if the mice were allowed to live longer, would we see the problems develop?
"After 8 d of treatment, mice were euthanized, blood was collected, and the uteruses, testes, and seminal vesicles were weighed."

Because they allowed a longer time for their mice to recover from ovariectomies...
"The incisions were stitched with absorbable sutures (Braun, Tuttlingen, Germany) and mice received 2 injections of butorphanol (2 µg/g of BW; Fort Dodge Animal Health) after surgery to alleviate potential pain. Animals were allowed at least 14 d to recover from the ovariectomies."
Doesn't that mean that organs need time to process change?


They should title the study as '''Adding E1 and E2 to milk with DSMO affects mice plasma and reproductive organs'''.
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, but abnormally high doses do, this is what one would expect, even abnormally high intake of water can be toxic, or abnormally high intake of any food (overeating) can be toxic, as it puts too much stress on the body and its organs, this is a universal pattern. Basically once the mice had too much hormone to break down, their bodies couldn't do it, the same would be expected in any animal. Whether something is toxic or not usually depends on the quantity of it, and often things which are toxic in excess (like oxygen) are extremely beneifical, or even vital, in the right amounts (such as in atmospheric air).
panacea
Posts:987
Joined:Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Misunderstood milk

Postby panacea » Mon 22 Apr 2019 03:59

I was reading this milk cancer article on wai and a logical error:
Milk from every mammal is mother's milk, meant for the suckling. All milk therefore contains growth factors, hormones and other peptides. The reason why every mammal stops drinking mother's milk at a certain age, is because by then it produces all its own hormones, growth factors and other peptides. Production, secretion and level of those substances is regulated through a complex system of interaction. This system is impaired by absorbing similar substances from drugs, contraceptives etc. Logically, level of any of these substances is also influenced by absorbing similar substances from cow’s milk, goat’s milk etc., causing all kinds of diseases.
First, the baby calf is meant for growing up, not getting eaten, it doesn't stop a predator from eating the baby, or even the mother with her full of milk udders if they get the chance. What you propose as being what nature intended means nothing, it's food.

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. The levels are nowhere near each other. Also, one is a raw food with bacteria and enzymes to break things down, and the other are heavily processed, altered by heat and chemical medicines.

Growth hormones are digested in the body anyway, I don't see how any of this article is relevant. Most of the studies from the article link cured/processed meats and milk (processed/pasteurized milk) with cancer and other diseases which would be expected and says nothing about the raw forms. There's a reason insulin and growth hormones are injected, not taken orally, it gets broken down before absorption if you take it orally. Even if none of it did though, the levels in natural foods like meat and milk are nothing even close to what our own body produces each day.

All this article really reveals is that cooked and processed food is linked to cancer. Creator of the article overlooked what happens to any food when cooked and processed. Just throw out all the studies about cooked and processed animal foods and then try to find a correlation.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest