Milk does the body good or does it ???

[AXx]

What about this?? What say the guru's?? This was an interesting read. I was lead here after a guy asked me about milk after workout and I didn't know how to answer him. I have always heard that if you are trying to lose weight you should avoid milk, even skim!!! Let's hear it boys

[Times Roman]

gives me gas. plus don't need all the sugar. when my diet is spot on, i only drink water. calcium and vit D are easy things to get in your diet. don't need milk for that...

[Coolhand5599]

It's made for a cow with two stomachs. I prefer milk from my wife its sweeter

[JohnnnyBlazzze]

There's no doubt that Milk has its nutritional values and is healthy for you. For somebody trying to cut and lower BF% Milk is not necessarily ideal due to the sugar content. As TR mentioned, If i'm cutting I stay away from milk, you can easily supplement the vitamins and nutrients that milk contains while avoiding the sugar intake.

[JohnnnyBlazzze]

They did the study with -

Carbohydrate Sports Drink (Most likely Gatorade or Powerade)
Soy Beverage
Milk

Of course Milk is going to win going up against these. Imagine if they would have done the study with plain ol water, a scoop of protein and oats or even some chicken and brown rice.

[AXx]

That's true Johhny, I actually supplement calcium/vit D. Just thought it might be interesting for some other members that were on the fence.

[JohnnnyBlazzze]

That's true Johhny, I actually supplement calcium/vit D. Just thought it might be interesting for some other members that were on the fence.

I would include skim milk if I were bulking or maintenance but I don't believe it has a purpose in a cutting diet, just my opinion though.

Interesting read, thanks for sharing .

[Turkish Juicer]

I have abandoned cow's milk and switched to unsweetened almond milk a few years ago since its benefits exceed the downsides of cow's milk.

Almost zero carbs, no bloating and gas, no question marks regarding whether pasteurized milk still retains its nutritional values as milk producers claim did it for me.

[gbrice75]

Here's the rap on milk, from my point of view:

> as a protein source, it's perfectly fine. On par with any other complete source - meats, eggs, etc.

> if you're able to handle dairy/milk, then it's a good choice for you, in general. Some people do not handle dairy well, as we lack the enzyme necessary to process the lactose, hence, lactose intolerance. Some do better than others. Unfortunately, I am not one of them... but I LOVE milk

> Milk contains lactose. Lactose is a form of sugar. On a cutting diet, sugar should be kept to a minimum, and certainly shouldn't be 'collatoral damage' from a primary protein source. So when cutting, I avoid it completely.

[JAB1]

I am going to add milk to my diet on next cycle to get some more cals. Its free at work and goes down easy so what the hell, Ill be buliking!!

[SexySweetheart]

....

[gbrice75]

i cant imagine cave men running up to cows to suck a tit ~ so seeing that I dont think humans bodies were made to have other animals milk

I've heard this argument quite a bit, mostly from the anti-milk people. However, think of this (and forgive me, I can't remember where I read it - it may have been been another post on this board. In any event, i'm paraphrasing):

The idea that we weren't 'meant' to drink animals milk is proposterous. Let me get this straight: It's ok for us to eat a cow's muscles, but not ok to drink the very milk which helped the cow grow these muslces? You are what you eat, right?

Just a perspective... think about it!

[SexySweetheart]

....

[Turkish Juicer]

Allergic to Meat? 12 Unusual Allergic Reactions Revealed

By DAN CHILDS (@DanChildsABC) , KIRK FERNANDES and RADHA CHITALE
March 3, 2010

In the world of allergies, there are a few common culprits to which many sufferers can relate. Pollen, peanuts and even egg and wheat are some that are widely known and, hence, widely understood. They're annoying for sure, but at least their victims can take solace in the fact that they are not alone in their misery.

But what of those whose allergies fall outside of the mainstream. For example, those allergic to meat?

"We've been looking into this for a couple of years, but it was really unclear how widespread it was," said Dr. Scott Commins, an allergist and immunologist at the University of Virginia. On Sunday, Commins presented the findings of his latest research on meat allergies before those gathered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) in New Orleans.

What Commins and his colleagues found in their preliminary study of 60 patients was that some people may have an allergy to a carbohydrate naturally found within meat. He said that while allergies to certain proteins in meat has been documented before, such cases are very rare. But the idea that there is another component of meat that can spur allergies means that the pool of people within the population who have a meat allergy may be more than previously suspected.

It gets stranger. Commins said the patients with this allergy that he studied experienced a peculiar delay in symptoms.

"Initially they will experience nothing," he said. "About three to four hours in, they'll start experiencing some itching, which often proceeds to hives."

Commins said that in some patients the reaction can get even worse, progressing to breathing difficulties, acute onset diarrhea and cramping.

While more details on this allergy will only come with additional research, Commins said the preliminary results suggest that people with certain blood types -- specifically B and AB -- may be less likely to have this type of allergy than those with other blood types. He also said the research shows that those who have been bitten by ticks or certain other blood-sucking insects may be more likely to have this allergy.

"What is it about tick or chigger bites that causes the production of this antibody?" he said. "We don't think it is something infectious, as with Lyme disease and other conditions, but we are certainly keeping an open mind."

Dr. Clifford Bassett, assistant clinical professor of medicine and otolaryngology at The Long Island College Hospital, SUNY-HSCB, in Brooklyn, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, called the study "thought-provoking," particularly in patients whose allergies have no conventional explanation, a condition shelved under the description "idiopathic anaphylaxis."

"This condition, idiopathic anaphylaxis, often goes with no concrete cause for it," he said. "We should consider this [research] in evaluating this condition."

...

Source: ABC News

[Turkish Juicer]

Severe allergic reaction to meat may not be rare


By JoAnne Allen

WASHINGTON | Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:01am EST

(Reuters) - Eating meat may be a much more common trigger for anaphylaxis -- a severe and potentially deadly allergic reaction -- than previously thought, U.S. researchers said on Sunday.

A study of 60 patients who had unexplained severe allergic reactions suggests that a compound in meat known as alpha-galactose may be the culprit, according to research presented at a meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology in New Orleans.

They found immune system proteins called IgE antibodies in 25 out of 60 patients who had unexplained allergic reactions.

"We believe that the presence of IgE antibody to this sugar is wider spread in the human population as a whole than we had initially expected," Dr. Scott Commins of the University of Virginia, who led the research, said in a telephone interview.

"What we're finding is that this traditional notion of allergy to meat being very rare may, in fact, not be true," Commins added.

Alpha-galactose is produced in most mammals but humans and great apes make an antibody to the sugar, Commins said.

"So the problem becomes when people make IgE antibody to this sugar and then they eat meat or dairy products that contain the sugar then they get a delayed reaction," Commins said.

The anaphylaxis may seem to appear out of the blue because the meat or dairy may have been eaten four to six hours earlier, Commins said.

"The typical scenario has been if you don't react to food within two hours, then it's not the food, in this case that doesn't seem to be true, Commins said.

Typically, anaphylaxis occurs within minutes.

Commins and colleagues screened blood samples from 60 patients, testing for the antibody to alpha-galactose. The people in the study -- 22 at the University of Virginia, 20 at the University of Tennessee and 18 at John James Medical Center in Australia, had anaphylaxis and no apparent cause for it, Commins said.

Twenty-five tested positive for alpha-galactose and no other patterns were found that would have otherwise explained the cause of their anaphylaxis, the researchers said.

[oscarjones]

I would say try to abstain from ingesting cow's milk, as it's shown to be linked triggering type-1 diabetes. Casein (80% of milk protein) is exceedingly hard to digest and is the ingredient that gives Elmer's glue it's gluey consistency. The protein beta casein A-1 may be responsible for the human body to lose self-tolerance and form auto-antibodies to a number of self-structures relating to diabetes type-1.

If you do decide to drink cow's milk, I would say try to aim for organic and stay away from pasteurized. Raw milk would be a good choice, except for the high parasitic content.

[Turkish Juicer]

Sexy4mySweetheart, you are a perspectivist. The problem with perspectivism is that it relies on rather analogies (as in the example of you comparing eating habits of humans to other mammals) to construct a rhetoric, meaning that it doesn't have a motive to be scientific. Where mere rhetoric stars, science ends, because the motive is now to win the argument, not uncover the truth. Humans are humans, they are vastly different from other mammals and have evolved in the ways it was required for them to do so. There is no need to compare humans to other carnivore mammals in order to be able to understands why they did what they did regarding diet through the course of history, because human nutrition doesn't need a historicist perspective to be enlightened and understood, since our kind has quite advanced in nutritional science which is a very specific realm of scientific inquiry. I too would have been interested in your little philosophical discourse if we were currently living in the 19th century but that's not the case now, is it?

[oscarjones]

What other carnivore can you think of that will drink the milk from an animal naturally? Even baboons that live on shore lines dunk their food in ocean salt water for the extra taste and minerals yet don’t drink milk lol

it was just man being lazy and settling down over time, growing crop to make all the yummy carb/glucose food we now eat (and % of us are allergic too) and milking animals (also % of people are allergic too) so they don’t have to run around chasing their dinners...how many people are allergic to meat? None

Correct, we started our nutricide journey about 10,000 years ago when our species transitioned from a hunter/gatherer diet to a civilized stationary way of living. Grasses are the catalyst to our malnourishment and continue to help fuel our declining food supply and overall afflicted soil environment.

[oscarjones]

Sexy4mySweetheart, you are a perspectivist. The problem with perspectivism is that it relies on rather analogies (as in the example of you comparing eating habits of humans to other mammals) to construct a rhetoric, meaning that it doesn't have a motive to be scientific. Where mere rhetoric stars, science ends, because the motive is now to win the argument, not uncover the truth. Humans are humans, they are vastly different from other mammals and have evolved in the ways it was required for them to do so. There is no need to compare humans to other carnivore mammals in order to be able to understands why they did what they did regarding diet through the course of history, because human nutrition doesn't need a historicist perspective to be enlightened and understood, since our kind has quite advanced in nutritional science which is a very specific realm of scientific inquiry. I too would have been interested in your little philosophical discourse if we were currently living in the 19th century but that's not the case now, is it?

Have to disagree. Her statements are fairly accurate in terms of human history. We, as humans weren't agricultural to begin with. Her perspective, however contradictory to our current station of living (relatively unchangeable through the will of a single mind), is accurate and portrays a truth not many realize or care to admit to.

[Turkish Juicer]

Have to disagree. Her statements are fairly accurate in terms of human history. We, as humans weren't agricultural to begin with. Her perspective, however contradictory to our current station of living (relatively unchangeable through the will of a single mind), is accurate and portrays a truth not many realize or care to admit to.

If you read my post again, you will see that my disagreement is with the underlying approach, not the content of historical/evolutionary perspective brought into the argument and/or whether it is accurate or not.

I am well aware that her statements are fairly accurate in terms of human history, however, there is a vast difference between investigating current nutritional regimen of humans from a scientific perspective and reaching at conclusions regarding what we should eat and not eat, and doing as such by merely remaining within the context of historical discourse and trying to reaching at certain conclusions about our nutritional regimen. ''Humans are the only carnivores that drink other mammal's milk = don't drink mik''; ''Humans are the only mammals who farm = don't eat oats''; ''Humans are the only mammals who garden = don't eat fruit'' are amongst the typical argument examples of this mindset. I can, on the other hand, give you more reasons than the count of fingers in your both hands why and how farming (leading to massive production and consuming of carbs) has helped us to evolve to be the most intelligent species on this planet and allowed us to build the most advanced civilization yet known to mankind, but I find this unnecessary because human nutrition should remain under the scope of nutrition science, not historicists and perspectivists.

The perspectivist approach can easily lead to a confusion of concepts and notions by clouding the air with never ending analogies, comparisons and examples of such... Here is an authentic example for ya'll: Humans are the only mammals that have sex for pleasure ... and what kind of a conclusion should we reach here?

[gbrice75]

Excellent thread guys, I love intelligent debates like these. Let's keep it going, but please keep it respectful!

Props to 3J's for getting it started.

[oscarjones]

If you read my post again, you will see that my disagreement is with the underlying approach, not the content of historical/evolutionary perspective brought into the argument and/or whether it is accurate or not.

I am well aware that her statements are fairly accurate in terms of human history, however, there is a vast difference between investigating current nutritional regimen of humans from a scientific perspective and reaching at conclusions regarding what we should eat and not eat, and doing as such by merely remaining within the context of historical discourse and trying to reaching at certain conclusions about our nutritional regimen. ''Humans are the only carnivores that drink other mammal's milk = don't drink mik''; ''Humans are the only mammals who farm = don't eat oats''; ''Humans are the only mammals who garden = don't eat fruit'' are amongst the typical argument examples of this mindset. I can, on the other hand, give you more reasons than the count of fingers in your both hands why and how farming (leading to massive production and consuming of carbs) has helped us to evolve to be the most intelligent species on this planet and allowed us to build the most advanced civilization yet known to mankind, but I find this unnecessary because human nutrition should remain under the scope of nutrition science, not historicists and perspectivists.

The perspectivist approach can easily lead to a confusion of concepts and notions by clouding the air with never ending analogies, comparisons and examples of such... Here is an authentic example for ya'll: Humans are the only mammals that have sex for pleasure ... and what kind of a conclusion should we reach here?

I agree with many of your points in this post, however, in relation to your first response to Sexy, the fact remains that despite all the advances we've made, in relation to intelligence and communication, by becoming civilized, it doesn't change the fact that our bodies haven't quite undergone a significant change in comparison. Biologically speaking, we still have the same body we had 10,000 years ago, and to claim that human diet doesn't need historic perspective to be understood is ludicrous. Science is based on accumulative knowledge! I'm in no way trying to start a debate that we should all become hunter/gathers again, but lets not be naive about our biological roots and where we came from.

[Turkish Juicer]

I agree with many of your points in this post, however, in relation to your first response to Sexy, the fact remains that despite all the advances we've made, in relation to intelligence and communication, by becoming civilized, it doesn't change the fact that our bodies haven't quite undergone a significant change in comparison. Biologically speaking, we still have the same body we had 10,000 years ago, and to claim that human diet doesn't need historic perspective to be understood is ludicrous. Science is based on accumulative knowledge! I'm in no way trying to start a debate that we should all become hunter/gathers again, but lets not be naive about our biological roots and where we came from.

I am in by 110% agreement with your statement that -biologically speaking- we still have the same body we had 10,000 years ago and our bodies haven't quite undergone a significant change in comparison. Moreover, I also happen to agree with you on that there could be a great value in placing human diet into its historical discourse for the sake of understanding why we eat what we eat today. However, I beg to differ from perspectivists like Sexy4mySweetheart when it comes to reaching drastic conclusions about human diet in our day by putting a rational distance between the two. When you miss out on putting that distance, then the hunter/gatherer or namely the ''caveman's diet'' analogies are brought to life, as we have seen this to be the case on this forum before and elsewhere. Not that this shouldn't be subjected to intellectual debate, but it is also far from being rational in its roots.

[oscarjones]

I am in by 110% agreement with your statement that -biologically speaking- we still have the same body we had 10,000 years ago and our bodies haven't quite undergone a significant change in comparison. Moreover, I also happen to agree with you on that there could be a great value in placing human diet into its historical discourse for the sake of understanding why we eat what we eat today. However, I beg to differ from perspectivists like Sexy4mySweetheart when it comes to reaching drastic conclusions about human diet in our day by putting a rational distance between the two. When you miss out on putting that distance, then the hunter/gatherer or namely the ''caveman's diet'' analogies are brought to life, as we have seen this to be the case on this forum before and elsewhere. Not that this shouldn't be subjected to intellectual debate, but it is also far from being rational in its roots.

Agreed. We can't expect to live like the caveman and base conclusions on such rational distances, however I'd like to think we can always learn form our past. My opinions may have been a bit punctual because I follow a hunter/gatherer diet, and it's helped me in all areas of health and wellness, so I extend apologies if in anyway I diminished your original motif.

[SexySweetheart]

*she tips her hat off in a bow*
check and mate TJ ~ people allergic to meat, who would have thought?
great info!, learn something new every day

i agree with most of your points and still I think it weird, gross and not that fab for the body to drink other animals breast milk, but to each their own


perspectivist...really? lol i dont agree with others opinions, have my own reasons for doing something and try to make it lite by throwing in a silly extreame example, you know me only by what I portray on THIS site ~yet you have no issues with throwing a label on me...awesome

1 guess as to the label I have for you...




and shes out

[Turkish Juicer]

perspectivist...really? lol i dont agree with others opinions, have my own reasons for doing something and try to make it lite by throwing in a silly extreame example, you know me only by what I portray on THIS site ~yet you have no issues with throwing a label on me...awesome

1 guess as to the label I have for you...

Perspectivism offers a great deal of value in areas of liberal arts such as philosophy, literature and history, as it allows you to look at the given scheme from an entirely different perspective and hence gives you the ability to reach an unorthodox conclusion. I believe perspectivism to be unnecessary and somewhat dangerous, however, when one steps into the realm of a positive science, such as nutritional science. Nevertheless, perspectivism does not implicate any method of inquiry nor a structural theory of knowledge in general; whereas, nutritional science, does.

I am sorry that you have received my analysis on a personal level, it wasn't my intention to label you as a person but rather define your style regarding this very specific discussion. I wouldn't bother with it if someone called me a ''objectivist' or ''perspectivist'' because such labels can only define one's discourse of rhetoric, not personality.

FYI, cross-species nursing is quite common in nature. You may find it gross, but others may find it cute.

[oscarjones]

Perspectivism offers a great deal of value in areas of liberal arts such as philosophy, literature and history, as it allows you to look at the given scheme from an entirely different perspective and hence gives you the ability to reach an unorthodox conclusion. I believe perspectivism to be unnecessary and somewhat dangerous, however, when one steps into the realm of a positive science, such as nutritional science. Nevertheless, perspectivism does not implicate any method of inquiry nor a structural theory of knowledge in general; whereas, nutritional science, does.

I am sorry that you have received my analysis on a personal level, it wasn't my intention to label you as a person but rather define your style regarding this very specific discussion. I wouldn't bother with it if someone called me a ''objectivist' or ''perspectivist'' because such labels can only define one's discourse of rhetoric, not personality.

FYI, cross-species nursing is quite common in nature. You may find it gross, but others may find it cute.

All seriousness aside, I must go feed my goat now... "Here goaty goaty goaty..." (They love man-milk).

[AXx]

For what's it worth my father in law I highly allergic to meat, namely red meat. Like cow, he can eat buffalo and deer. It must be something in the beef that we eat.
Something the processors put in it.

[rampaige77]

Damn you guys broke this shit down to where its original point has eluded the common knuckle dragging gorilla like myself (not really ) but the conclusion i myself take from this is im gonna keep drinking milk unless im trying to shred up , i almost posted this question about milk myselfs because after joining this site ive cut so much crap outa my diet im living on tuna eggs milk greens ect ive cut butter that ive replaced with EVOO but im keeping milk n salt its to subjective , but im greatful for all the information im gathering here

[Turkish Juicer]

All seriousness aside, I must go feed my goat now... "Here goaty goaty goaty..." (They love man-milk).

[Misery13]

No matter what your opinion is. I love milk. I grew up on a dairy farm though. I from.k it daily, unless I'm cutting than I will only drink it as a treat.

[Nuzzi]

I cut out dairy milk completely a while back, unsweetened almond milk is a great alternative. aside from the argument whether or not our bodies should or shouldnt be drinking dairy milk the reasons I switched was based on what is actually in the milk you drink. Do a search of whats actually in milk and you wont want to touch it ever again. To name a few, cancer cells, PUSS, feces, get the idea? It also raises estrogen.

[kronik420]

before i started dieting, i used to drink milk somewhat regularly (whenever i felt like it), then i went on a cut, and cut out all the crap including milk, for about 3 months, now whenever i try to drink milk i get diarrhea. so now i just buy almond and oat milk and use them to make my shakes. idk what happened in those 3 months but yea i guess my body adapted to no dairy.

[Far from massive]

Milk is a great whole protein source for your average Joe. However for anyone seriously interested in fitness, bodybuilding, competitive sports or just staying healthy ( allergen acceleration etc.) milk is a very poor choice there are much better alternative sources out there.

I am not going to spend the time to cut and paste all the infor on why milk is bad or study after study on problems it can create but if you doubt it simply google it and look for good nonbiased (neither by the cow commies or the anyti-milk nazi's) studies, done under controlled conditions.

[MuscleInk]

Humans are the only species that drink the milk of another species. Anyone else find that odd?

The simple reason we consume so much milk???

The dairy industry.

[BigBadWolf]

If you read my post again, you will see that my disagreement is with the underlying approach, not the content of historical/evolutionary perspective brought into the argument and/or whether it is accurate or not.

I am well aware that her statements are fairly accurate in terms of human history, however, there is a vast difference between investigating current nutritional regimen of humans from a scientific perspective and reaching at conclusions regarding what we should eat and not eat, and doing as such by merely remaining within the context of historical discourse and trying to reaching at certain conclusions about our nutritional regimen. ''Humans are the only carnivores that drink other mammal's milk = don't drink mik''; ''Humans are the only mammals who farm = don't eat oats''; ''Humans are the only mammals who garden = don't eat fruit'' are amongst the typical argument examples of this mindset. I can, on the other hand, give you more reasons than the count of fingers in your both hands why and how farming (leading to massive production and consuming of carbs) has helped us to evolve to be the most intelligent species on this planet and allowed us to build the most advanced civilization yet known to mankind, but I find this unnecessary because human nutrition should remain under the scope of nutrition science, not historicists and perspectivists.

The perspectivist approach can easily lead to a confusion of concepts and notions by clouding the air with never ending analogies, comparisons and examples of such... Here is an authentic example for ya'll: Humans are the only mammals that have sex for pleasure ... and what kind of a conclusion should we reach here?

Dolphins also have sex for pleasure.

[MuscleInk]

Dolphins also have sex for pleasure.

The pigmy chimp also copulates for pleasure!

[gbrice75]

Humans are the only species that drink the milk of another species. Anyone else find that odd?

I've never liked this argument, I find it weak. Humans are the only species that has done MANY things... because we have the ability to where other species don't.

I'm not really arguing for or against milk here, just point out that I find this overused logic flawed.

[greenwell001]

Like arnold said....milk is for babies.

[>Good Luck<]

Like arnold said....milk is for babies.

Yes he said milk is for babies because he drank whole creme instead. Up to a gallon a day.



Has anyone mentioned it's the absolute cheapest source of protein? 4L of milk contains 144grams of protein and skim milk has 0 fat.... So there is sugar in it... Big deal, run a little. I'll stick with my milk at 144g protein for 4.50