Is drinking milk bad for Humans?!?!

[DeletedUser]

As far as i'm concerned, -Neo-, the only one that needed to read it was you, and you opted to remain ignorant just so can continue your propaganda campaign with a clean (or more like empty) conscience.

Oi Elmyr, I definitely lamented the loss of my dairy food from my diet. Lactose intolerance and a slight allergy to casein were huge blows to my old ways of eating... the same ways of eating that gave me high cholesterol and temporarily put me in the overweight category.

My body rebeled, at least that's how I like to interpret it. It took awhile, but I found great alternatives to milk and cheese. Soy products suck, but lactose free yogurt cheese is excellent and works great for pizzas. Almond milk is an excellent alternative to cow's milk and is magic in mashed potatoes. Also works great for chocolate milk and does as good a job at turning off those chili fires. Smart Balance is another excellent product, which I've used for all sorts of butter replacement recipes. It actually tastes better, because it doesn't have that lingering aftertaste and doesn't leave you feeling "slimed."

Part of the problem is that people have become accustomed to dairy products, despite they being unhealthy in so many ways. Another problem is that it took decades for "good" alternatives to hit the market, further alienating people's taste buds. The lingering problems are lack of availabilty for "existing" good alternative products and a buttload of propaganda... as well as government sponsored catchy slogans --- "Got Milk?"

 

[DeletedUser]

]2nd, lactaid? thats a product for fat people who get bloated when they eat anything and want to blame their fatness on something else than their own greed of eating.

That was a typo(?) (I put the wrong word) I meant lactase

on the contrary, it seems that the more people drink milk and the more they are tolerant.
people are more tolerant in areas of higher consumption.

That's what I said - the countries that drink milk after it's no longer needed are where they continue to break down the proteins in milk after they grow up.

also, how do you come to the conclusion that most people are lactose intolerant?

It is estimated that 30 to 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant.
I thought there were 312 million people in the usa?
so that makes it 16% of the American population! which is nowhere near "most".

As these figures are for the USA and according to the law of greed (greedy countries have higher rates in everything bad) we can easily deduct that:
world lactose intolerance<usa lactose intolerance.

Here's a shocker for you. The majority of the people in the world are NOT Americans! The fact that most Americans can drink milk in no way shows that most people can, it just means that most Americans can.

Just to clarify for you, since my humor seems to go so far over your head that you don't even see a shadow from it (maybe everybody's head, I sometimes find strange things funny), my comment about goat's milk makes sense to anyone who knows that a baby goat is called a kid. Maybe that's only here, which would explain why that made no sense to you.

I just read all of the posts after the one I responded to, and I apologize for repeating so much that was already said. I guess I should have read them first because a few of them said the same things I did, only more eloquently

 

[DeletedUser]

While I refrained in my earlier post from personalising the discussion, Neo has correctly identified himself as the opinionated know-nothing I alluded to. For someone connected with the dairy industry his ignorance of the basis of lactose intolerance is staggering. His logic is even worse.

Just to consider his post in response:

Go tell a starving african that..

Gone from claiming milk as a healthy food to saying that it is preferable to death. Quite a difference. While on the subject of Africa, look up the Nestle powdered milk scandal which was responsible for the illness and death of a number of infants in that continent. Milk was not very healthy for them.

And whilst you are at it, tell him he can drink soya milk especially made for him by USA corp for only $2.99/bottle, and this months monsato seeds are on offer!
hooray!

Off topic by a country mile. But if you want to see how vested interests manipulate the market did you know that in the UK (where I live) it is not legal to sell anything as "Soya Milk"? The dairy industry and its lobbyists successfully illegalised the printed use of this common and universally used term on any marketable product lest people be persuaded to view it as an alternative to dairy milk. Thus it has to be sold as "Soyilk" or "Soya Drink" or some other circumlocution.

you say best is to eat live yoghurt?
naa best is raw milk. by far.

I was factoring in the risks from contracting TB, brucellosis, cowpox, salmonella, listeria etc. etc. although I did not make this explicit. Yoghurt is easier to digest and more nutritious than the milk it is made from. It also has more beneficial bacteria.

If you have a dairy farm near you then buy his raw milk, as is permitted by law.
Whilst you're at it, ask a few questions about milk and the dairy industry. you'll learn a lot more than reading BS off the internet.

I constantly scrutinise the moral implications of my actions and have read extensively on both sides of the argument. I have many vegan friends also, who are incredibly well-read and informed on these issues. I have probably asked and answered more questions on this subject than will ever pass through your empty noggin in a lifetime. Before making patronising assumptions about community members you should attempt to establish a few basic facts about their knowledge-base or you will be justifiably regarded as a mouthy ignoramus.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anarchy, just because someone teaches at a university doesn't make them a professor, nor does it make their statements gospel. That person you referred to as a professor, I can only assume you are taking his comments out of context. Cow's milk is perfect food --- for a calf. Human milk is perfect food --- for a baby, as long as that baby is capable of breaking down lactose/galactose and doesn't have an allergy to casein. Human milk is not the perfect food for adult humans, and cow's milk is particularly not.

Well that particular guy has a status of professor and his words are not here in the form of gospel, they're here to illustrate attitude of someone who spent his whole life in food industry, and by definition he should know something about it, subject was called milk technology for gods sake. As for his comments, at the time i understood that he was referring to chemical compound of milk which he considered the most complete of all easily available foods.

I am lactose intolerant and can tell you straight off, milk is a bane to 75% of adults. Unfortunately most of them don't even know that it's creating the bulk of their gastrointestinal hardships. ~ http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27939567_ITM

Mammals wean off of milk and almost universally become lactose intolerant into adulthood. As Elmyr indicated, humans are an exception, because we have historically been consuming milk for thousands of years, particularly in Europe (where lactose intolerance can be as low as 5% within the human pop). ~ http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scr...0100-879X2007001100004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

In addition, the American Gastroenterological Association indicates cow's milk is the #1 cause of food allergies among infants and children.

75%? That really sounds suspicious... Than again all articles of that type are self serving and aim only to impose their look on things.
I manage to found this article that gives percentage of lactose intolerant people by etnicity:

http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=661

It says balkans 55%, it comes as a suprise to me since in my 31 years i have met 1 person who is lactose intolerant here. Just goes to show every side here spins the story in its own favor.

All food allergies are caused by cows milk? Till what age?

“Consumption of dairy products, particularly at age 20 years, was associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in old age”. ~ “Case-Control Study of Risk Factors for Hip Fractures in the Elderly”. American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 139, No. 5, 1994.

“These data [12 year study on 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 years of age] do not support the hypothesis that higher consumption of milk or other food sources of calcium by adult women protects against hip or forearm fractures.” ~ Feskanich D, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. American Journal of Public Health. 1997.

It is somewhat true but than again its natural for bones to become brittle with old age, with calcium intake or not, you are more prone to
fractures because of loss of the elasticity protein within the bone.

But that does not mean you will be OK if you cut on your calcium intake, in fact you will earn yourself a truckload of new problems, that study is yet another spin that does not lie, just avoid telling you all of truth.

As Eli inferred, other factors to consider are that: "cows produce milk for the same reason that humans do: to nourish their young. In order to force the animals to continue giving milk, factory farm operators typically impregnate them using artificial insemination every year. Calves are generally taken from their mothers within a day of being born—males are destined for veal crates or barren lots where they will be fattened for beef, and females are sentenced to the same fate as their mothers.
After their calves are taken from them, mother cows are hooked up, several times a day, to milking machines. Using genetic manipulation, powerful hormones, and intensive milking, factory farmers force cows to produce about 10 times as much milk as they would naturally.
Animals are often dosed with bovine growth hormone (BGH), which contributes to a painful inflammation of the udder known as "mastitis." (BGH is used widely in the U.S. but has been banned in Europe and Canada because of concerns over human health and animal welfare.) According to the industry's own figures, between 30 and 50 percent of dairy cows suffer from mastitis, an extremely painful condition.
A cow's natural lifespan is about 25 years, but cows used by the dairy industry are killed after only four or five years. An industry study reports that by the time they are killed, nearly 40 percent of dairy cows are lame because of the intensive confinement, the filth, and the strain of being almost constantly pregnant and giving milk. Dairy cows' bodies are turned into soup, companion animal food, or low-grade hamburger meat because their bodies are too "spent" to be used for anything else." ~ http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/dairy-industry.aspx

And while I am adverse to posting comments from PETA, what they indicate above is not inaccurate.

Please, please, please do not quote PETA, if you're not disgusted by organisation that value animal life over human, than at least do it because of their habit to present absolutely worst case scenario and promote it as usual practice. They are not trustworthy source.

Even if we get in generous mood and grant all of the above is true, what is the problem and how would you solve it?
Animals are grown for food, yes they are artificially inseminated, what would you expect? Box of chocolates and cinema before that? Calves staying with their mother till the age of 18?

It ain't very humane but than again all of those animals probably wouldn't be able to live in the wild.

Your outrage is so misdirected mate...

I don't buy or consume dairy products for ethical reasons. There are plenty of excellent exposes of the cruelty and suffering surrounding the dairy industry for anyone who has a genuine interest in this.

Ethical reasons? It still amazes me there are people who are able to call the ethics card and keep a straight face. i will go little offtopic and ask you do you boycott all of the merchandise from countries that are or have been recently involved in needless wars and killings? Your own country included.
There is plenty of excellent exposes of cruelty and suffering surrounding everything if you bother to look.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ethical reasons? It still amazes me there are people who are able to call the ethics card and keep a straight face. i will go little offtopic and ask you do you boycott all of the merchandise from countries that are or have been recently involved in needless wars and killings? Your own country included.

Since you ask, the answer is "no" - the laptop I am typing this on for instance was made by a Japanese company. I guess it depends on how recent you think 'recent' is. I do avoid buying the produce of certain countries who deny basic human rights to some or all of their citizens and I do not travel to such places.
I try to live in accordance with my principles but sometimes I find I do have to compromise. For instance, I wear leather shoes but I would never buy a leather sofa. I try not to let the fact that I will never be perfect prevent me from trying to be better. I do think there is room for an ethical dimension in product consumption though, and yes, I say that with a straight face.

Well off-topic though. If you want to continue please PM or start a new thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

From http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/NICHD_MM_Lactose_FS.pdf

An estimated 30 million to 50 million American adults are lactose intolerant.4 The pattern of primary lactose intolerance appears to have a genetic component, and specific populations show high levels of intolerance, including approximately: 95 percent of Asians, 60 percent to 80 percent of African Americans and Ashkenazi Jews, 80 percent to 100 percent of American Indians, and 50 percent to 80 percent of Hispanics. Lactose intolerance is least common among people of northern European origin, who have a lactose intolerance prevalence of only about 2 percent.5

 

[Diggo11]

What about the option of lactose free milk? Supposedly regular cows milk with lactase enzyme added to break down lactose before consumed, it ought not to cause indigestion amongst those who are lactose intolerant. When this factor is removed, even if not substantially contributing to bone growth, it nevertheless poses a healthier substitute to most drinks such as soft drink, alcohol and juice. (Nothing beats water of course.)

Without having the immediate time to go into much detail, intolerance is more prevalent amongst all foods than you may think, largely due to the recent introduction of many additives. Whilst one may think that only "artificial" additives are problematic in this regard, it is also a lack of previous exposure to natural additives (e.g. non-Western Europeans and milk, a naturally created substance) that can contribute to these intolerances. For example, the artificial 282 and natural 160b (by Australian codes) have been known to cause adverse reactions, substances that now occur in common goods such as bread but never did until the late twentieth century. In fact, if every person reading this went on an elimination diet I'm sure you'd find yourself intolerant to at least one substance you tested for. For some it may be milk, for others it'll be something entirely different, but it's not abnormal that any individual is more suited to digesting some foods than others. Point is, it doesn't reduce the health benefit of the food or drink. The first lettuce didn't grow for the sole reason of us to consume it any more than cows grew to provide us with milk, it solely depends what food your body is capable of digesting. If you're intolerant or allergic to a not-unhealthy product like milk then fine, don't drink it, but that has to do with your makeup as much as it does with the milk's.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

lactose intolerant % ..........75% ok now im in that weird place called statistics, which are rarely true.

It is estimated that around 5% of adults in the UK have lactose intolerance so why the 70% diff here to there ? whats the % of different ethnicity ? & im sure it varys state to state... we the UK are a milk drinking nation also.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/lactose-intolerance/Pages/Introduction.aspx...

Now why would it be 75% in the US and yet 5% here ? somehow I seriously doubt the information about milk, it is a super food and humans have been consuming animal milk for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years, sure some say asians and hispanic etc may have less tolerance. So what is so special about the american diet ? maybe its a mix of milk and sugars thats certainly something america consumes with almost everything. Not Strangely second generation have more tolerance same as with hot spicy foods, you get used to it better if its introduced early enough whilst growing, your more likely to develop a tolerance.

The US is a place where 70% are overweight 75% lactose intolerant, 30% are on some anti depressant about 25% seem to have some kind of disorder like ADD etc Psychotherapeutics seems to be part of the weekly routine and everyone has an allergy to something.... in fact ill go as far as to say im amazed anyone is still living a normal life there with all the rubbish thats rammed down your throats about being inadequet in some way, its usually profit or lobby driven information anyways which is immediately suspect.

It's just not true about these numbers, statistics never are and should be put into perspective.

Bottom line for me ? Milk is a super food and if it dosnt suit dont drink it but don't try to convince me its actually bad for people as a sweeping statement cos im not buying it.

As for ethics ? well when people stop allowing their governments and corporations to break every humane law when they wish to suit their purpose then maybe it might carry some meaning, people do what they do yet youll find 99.9% only do so to what they term as convenient and like Eli buying leather shoes yet baulking at having a leather sofa is a perfect example...

BTW Eli if you are serious you have an option of wearing non leather footwear if you so choose, so your ethics are just as bendable as everyone else's.

 

[Diggo11]

lactose intolerant % ..........75% ok now im in that weird place called statistics, which are rarely true.

It is estimated that around 5% of adults in the UK have lactose intolerance so why the 70% diff here to there ... we the UK are a milk drinking nation also.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/lactose-intolerance/Pages/Introduction.aspx...

Now why would it be 75% in the US and yet 5% here ? somehow I seriously doubt the information about milk, it is a super food and humans have been consuming animal milk for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years, sure some say asians and hispanic may have less tolerance but indians certainly arnt lactose and nor are more europeans or africans so what is so special about the american diet ? maybe its a mix of milk and sugars thats certainly something america consumes with almost everything.

Bottom line for me ? the US is a place where 70% are overweight 75% lactose intolerant, 30% are on some anti depressant about 25% seem to have some kind of disorder like ADD etc Psychotherapeutics seems to be part of the weekly routine and everyone has an allergy to something.... in fact ill go as far as to say im amazed anyone is still living a normal life there with all the rubbish thats rammed down your throats about being inadequet in some way, its usually profit or lobby driven information anyways which is immediately suspect.

It's just not true about these numbers, statistics never are.

According to the information Artemis quoted 30-50 million Americans are lactose intolerant, which would be between 9.8% to 16.3%. Given that the same article also stated 60-80% of African Americans were lactose intolerant, it would be a fair guess to say around only that smaller 5% of the American white population are indeed lactose intolerant. According to Hellstromm's source 75% of the world are lactose intolerant, which would include the far more prone Hispanics, Africans, Asians, etc.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Id doubt that too, i know that a high % of these places rely on goats or other type of animal milk other than cows although im not sure if lactose is specific to cows milk products or not.

75% is way high as a world estimate and will assume just figures based on a few thousand x billions or population figures simple statistics to assume so many are intolerant rather than just its not part of the diet. Two very different things imo

Ive been to plenty of places and Milk is everywhere, especially the places keen on the health benefits to children when growing and the young generation seem to be doing fine on it. And that includes Asia, S America & the middle east.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well that particular guy has a status of professor and his words are not here in the form of gospel, they're here to illustrate attitude of someone who spent his whole life in food industry, and by definition he should know something about it, subject was called milk technology for gods sake. As for his comments, at the time i understood that he was referring to chemical compound of milk which he considered the most complete of all easily available foods.

That's fine. I was referred to as a professor at one time. Doesn't mean much.

Look, it doesn't matter what you "understood," nor does it truly matter who this nameless professor is. What matters are facts and evidence, which you have not provided.

75%? That really sounds suspicious... Than again all articles of that type are self serving and aim only to impose their look on things.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/187249-overview#a0199
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/june05/lactase.herding.ssl.html
http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/lactose_intolerance?open
http://www.uhs.uga.edu/nutrition/lactoseintolerance.html

Just to post a few...

It says balkans 55%, it comes as a suprise to me since in my 31 years i have met 1 person who is lactose intolerant here. Just goes to show every side here spins the story in its own favor.

No anarchy. People generally don't advertise their health issues and food allergies. And, as I indicated earlier, there are a buttload of people who don't even know they're lactose intolerant. Posing myself as an example, I suffered for many years before I was able to pinpoint the causes of my gastrointestinal distress.

All food allergies are caused by cows milk? Till what age?

Not what I said... you have an odd way of reading things buddy. I said, "the American Gastroenterological Association indicates cow's milk is the #1 cause of food allergies among infants and children."

Tell me, how does #1 cause translate to all?

It is somewhat true but than again its natural for bones to become brittle with old age, with calcium intake or not, you are more prone to
fractures because of loss of the elasticity protein within the bone.

Your logic is flawed, horribly flawed. Your interpretation even moreso.

But that does not mean you will be OK if you cut on your calcium intake, in fact you will earn yourself a truckload of new problems, that study is yet another spin that does not lie, just avoid telling you all of truth.

No... that report is pretty clear, you're just not reading it correctly. It indicates that consumption of dairy products was associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in old age, meaning that those who did not consume dairy products had a reduced risk of hip fracture (compared to those who consumed dairy products) as they enter into grandma status.

Seriously anarchy, work on your reading comprehension.

Please, please, please do not quote PETA, if you're not disgusted by organisation that value animal life over human, than at least do it because of their habit to present absolutely worst case scenario and promote it as usual practice. They are not trustworthy source.

Typical opportunism. The statements presented are not incorrect. Attacking the source does not discredit the statements. They are merely one source that indicates the exact same thing about how the dairy industry does business. Your ignorance, your dislike of PETA, does not stand as contra-evidence, only as dramatics in an effort to distract from the points presented.

Even if we get in generous mood and grant all of the above is true, what is the problem and how would you solve it?
Animals are grown for food, yes they are artificially inseminated, what would you expect? Box of chocolates and cinema before that? Calves staying with their mother till the age of 18?

I didn't even bother discussing the environmental impact, resource mishandling, etc and so on. Do you really want to discuss alternatives or are you just trying to make more distractions to the points presented? Because, quite frankly, there are a multitude of far more efficient, environmentally friendly, alternatives.


Respectfully, anarchy, you have not discredited anything I or anyone else presented. You merely attempted to distract from those points. You have not provided contra-evidence, have not demonstrated a sincere knowledge, or even practical research, on this topic, and are instead posing arguments about "ethics," "alternatives," your failings in comprehension, etc. The evidence is substantial, the research ample. There really is no valid argument you can present, but you're welcome to continue to try and distract from the points presented.

 

[DeletedUser]

Here's a shocker for you. The majority of the people in the world are NOT Americans!

No, but I try not to hold it against them.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Can i just say that Hellsromms point of view is Mooooot

 

[DeletedUser]

Can i just say that Hellsromms point of view is Mooooot

You want the truth? You want the truth?!? You can't HANDLE the truth!!!

 

[Diggo11]

Id doubt that too, i know that a high % of these places rely on goats or other type of animal milk other than cows although im not sure if lactose is specific to cows milk products or not.

75% is way high as a world estimate and will assume just figures based on a few thousand x billions or population figures simple statistics to assume so many are intolerant rather than just its not part of the diet. Two very different things imo

Ive been to plenty of places and Milk is everywhere, especially the places keen on the health benefits to children when growing and the young generation seem to be doing fine on it. And that includes Asia, S America & the middle east.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between an intolerance and an allergy. An intolerance means you either lack the enzymes necessary to break down a certain food compound or cannot absorb the nutrients in your intestines. You won't die from consuming the food, however you will feel symptoms of discomfort such as indigestion. In fact, in most cases the symptoms can be so mild that it takes years to realise that you actually have an intolerance.

One of my parents happens to have a few food intolerances Victor, but it was only in the past five years they discovered that eggs was one of them. Eggs are friggin everywhere in Australia, a staple carried through from the United Kingdom, yet the more of them they eat the more severe symptoms they get. Not only were they intolerant anyway despite the plentiful exposure but they also didn't even realise they were intolerant for decades. It's not like they collapse and needs an epipen every time they eats a slice of cake.

I'm sure Hellstromm can elaborate better than I can on the three races you mentioned there, however I can see logical reasons for at least on. In South-East Asia, soy milk seems to be more common than cow's milk, which happens to be lactose free. You only need to go as far as the wikipedia page to note that. As you move across into West Asia then the extreme rates of lactose intolerance begin to drop off. The

Cows are not native to the Americas, so presuming these are the people you reckon drink "other types of milk" then yep it would seemingly sound "dodgey". There are, however, many people who can consume goat's milk but not cow's milk without showing symptoms of intolerance. This webpage suggests that perhaps some instances of intolerance are actually misdiagnosed instances of mild allergy, whilst also identifying that the different chemical structure is easier for us to break down overall, leaving less undigested material for our body to deal with.

 

[DeletedUser]

lactose intolerant % ..........75% ok now im in that weird place called statistics, which are rarely true.

Are you sure you understand what statistics involves? It's a mathematical tool.

Now why would it be 75% in the US and yet 5% here ?

Read the posts carefully and you will see that's not what's being said.

you get used to it better if its introduced early enough whilst growing, your more likely to develop a tolerance.

Even this far into the discussion you still seem not to understand what is meant by 'intolerance'. It's a question of the body not producing an enzyme, something that is coded in your DNA - it's not about likes, dislikes or acquiring a taste or acclimating your body to something. Unless you believe a person can change the structure of their own DNA?

The US is a place where 70% are overweight 75% lactose intolerant, 30% are on some anti depressant about 25% seem to have some kind of disorder like ADD etc

Statistics?

As for ethics ? well when people stop allowing their governments and corporations to break every humane law when they wish to suit their purpose then maybe it might carry some meaning, people do what they do yet youll find 99.9% only do so to what they term as convenient and like Eli buying leather shoes yet baulking at having a leather sofa is a perfect example...

Off-topic. I like it that me buying some hiking shoes is the moral equivalent of invading Iraq tho'.

Eli if you are serious you have an option of wearing non leather footwear if you so choose, so your ethics are just as bendable as everyone else's.

That was my point. Although we have to fudge some ethical choices it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be the best person we practically can be tho' imho.
Let me repeat - please stay OT or PM me or start a new thread. Thx

 

[DeletedUser]

That's fine. I was referred to as a professor at one time. Doesn't mean much.

By whom? being referred to as the professor by someone and having a status of professor at university are two different things.

Look, it doesn't matter what you "understood," nor does it truly matter who this nameless professor is. What matters are facts and evidence, which you have not provided.

Jozsef Bozso is the name, happy?
We talk about facts? Half of the studies you provided in previous posts are clean spins that avoid looking at the whole picture and i show you the flaw of their logic, now after all is said you are attacking me fully aware most of your post and sources are c__p. Its a good logic though, try posting lame research, ignore facts and logic, and after that yell GIVE ME FACTS!!

About this new set of links i will look at them when i get the time and update post accordingly

No anarchy. People generally don't advertise their health issues and food allergies. And, as I indicated earlier, there are a buttload of people who don't even know they're lactose intolerant. Posing myself as an example, I suffered for many years before I was able to pinpoint the causes of my gastrointestinal distress.

Really Hell? I thought they have a green board on their chest with list of diseases and medical conditions they have.
About 20 people that i consider close friends i know VERY intimate things including their medical conditions, interestingly for region of the world with 55% lactose intolerant people, not a single one of them has it. One i know that is lactose intolerant is not so close with me.

Not what I said... you have an odd way of reading things buddy. I said, "the American Gastroenterological Association indicates cow's milk is the #1 cause of food allergies among infants and children."

Tell me, how does #1 cause translate to all?

Misread it, Thousand apologies o great one.

Your logic is flawed, horribly flawed. Your interpretation even moreso.

No, my logic is perfect in this case, you just choose to be blind because you can't stand the fact you're wrong. Its easier to attack someone and shovel feces on them instead trying to think critically.

No... that report is pretty clear, you're just not reading it correctly. It indicates that consumption of dairy products was associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in old age, meaning that those who did not consume dairy products had a reduced risk of hip fracture (compared to those who consumed dairy products) as they enter into grandma status.

Seriously anarchy, work on your reading comprehension.

Have you even tried to read what you just wrote Hell?
Calcium intake=risk of fracture
less calcium intake=less risk of fracture

How __________(insert offensive adjective) do you have to be to actually accept this as a fact? Lack of calcium intake from dairy products is good for you?! Oh come on... I thought you were smarter than this.

Typical opportunism. The statements presented are not incorrect. Attacking the source does not discredit the statements. They are merely one source that indicates the exact same thing about how the dairy industry does business. Your ignorance, your dislike of PETA, does not stand as contra-evidence, only as dramatics in an effort to distract from the points presented.

Statements presented in my post are truth, and thats well known MO of PETA. Source is discrediting himself for a number of years with that way of doing things. Your love for PETA and blindness to facts you dislike doesn't add up to evidence either.
ethics of PETA are whole different topic and i dont have intention to go that far off topic.

I didn't even bother discussing the environmental impact, resource mishandling, etc and so on. Do you really want to discuss alternatives or are you just trying to make more distractions to the points presented? Because, quite frankly, there are a multitude of far more efficient, environmentally friendly, alternatives.

No you didn't. You got stuck on ethics, and thats a joke, we can't discuss alternatives because you did not offer any, you are doing exact thing you are accusing me of, making a distractions by harsh and somewhat rude discussing with me, ignoring every point that you might not like in the process.

Respectfully, anarchy, you have not discredited anything I or anyone else presented. You merely attempted to distract from those points. You have not provided contra-evidence, have not demonstrated a sincere knowledge, or even practical research, on this topic, and are instead posing arguments about "ethics," "alternatives," your failings in comprehension, etc. The evidence is substantial, the research ample. There really is no valid argument you can present, but you're welcome to continue to try and distract from the points presented.

Not a word in your post that was aimed at me could not get in "respectfully" category Hell. You choose dogmatic look on things regardless on how illogical or flawed they are. You manage to hide that by eloquence and wide vocabulary, but that doesn't change a fact that points you are defending are joke.


And Happy New Year

 

[Diggo11]

Even this far into the discussion you still seem not to understand what is meant by 'intolerance'. It's a question of the body not producing an enzyme, something that is coded in your DNA - it's not about likes, dislikes or acquiring a taste or acclimating your body to something. Unless you believe a person can change the structure of their own DNA?

A person can't consciously change their DNA, however which pieces of genetic information are being used to make you exist can. Whilst allergies are medically seperate from intolerance, it's not unheard of for childhood allergies to simply disappear during later life and vice versa, that is new allergies emerging coming into adulthood. I'm sure the same could phenomenon could occur for intolerances, and if not prove me wrong. Besides, there's always another tolerance you can definitely build in a lifetime: a pain tolerance

Btw, going to throw out a challenge for you here. It was largely only Europeans who acquired the trait of continuing to produce lactase past infancy, who so happened to rely on milk as a dietary staple. Given the cause is solely a genetic, what are the odds this mutation would occur in Europe and only in Europe? Lactose intolerance is not a matter of life and death, it's not like "natural selection" will kill off anyone with a bit of indigestion. Similarly acquiring the ability to produce lactase for a life time is not harmful, any other racial group to acquire the trait would in no way be negatively affected by having the genes...

 

[DeletedUser16008]

"sigh" some here need to know when im being serious and when im being tongue in cheek eli most of my previous post was the latter nor do i care if you wear fabric or leather, just pointing out ethics conveniently have an importance structure. An animal activist would or should care and feel just as strongly about torture or animal abuse as with humans, both have ethics who decides one over the other ?

Im, well aware of what intolerance means and the difference between that and an allergy, very kind of you to ask tho,the question is who decides what and when intolerance is... everyone is different, everyone has an agenda, and everyone's perspective is personal.

If I drink cider I often get heartburn, intolerance ? naa just the acid build up although correct there's an intolerance to high acid levels compared to say a regular cider drinker, would i call myself cider intolerant ? no I would'nt but ill bet others would.

Bussel sprouts make you fart as do beans, white bread for many affect digestion, chocolate or cheese can give migranes, etc etc i just don't use the word intolerance, it suggests theres something wrong with a person by saying "cannot" when in fact its more accurate to often use the term low tolerance, totally different undertones for me. I really dislike the victim sympathy culture that is encouraged by this kind of labeling.

Digg i suspect its something to do with the cold and the body adapting and using fat from the milk and producing bigger body capable of coping with the cold only N Europeans had to deal with on a 24/7 basis. Nothing grainwise survives that well in cold wet climate apart from seasonal but animals are available all year round and the sustenance they give, also they were for a long time nomadic having to move with the seasons, you cant take your fields with you but you can your animals and have to in order to keep them alive. In contrast hotter climates allowed other cultures to become farmers rather than hunter gatherers.

I would be curious if Mongolians are lactose intolerant as they have lived nearly entirely on animals for a long long time, totally guessing but id suspect they arn't. Neither are they European but are Asian. Also they inhabit a very cold climate...... come to think of it what about Eskimos ?

 

[DeletedUser]

.....

Im, well aware of what intolerance means and the difference between that and an allergy, very kind of you to ask tho,the question is who decides what and when intolerance is... everyone is different, everyone has an agenda, and everyone's perspective is personal.

If I drink cider I often get heartburn, intolerance ? naa just the acid build up although correct there's an intolerance to high acid levels compared to say a regular cider drinker, would i call myself cider intolerant ? no I would'nt but ill bet others would.

Bussel sprouts make you fart as do beans, white bread for many affect digestion, chocolate or cheese can give migranes, etc etc i just don't use the word intolerance, it suggests theres something wrong with a person by saying "cannot" when in fact its more accurate to often use the term low tolerance, totally different undertones for me. I really dislike the victim sympathy culture that is encouraged by this kind of labeling.

Digg i suspect its something to do with the cold and the body adapting and using fat from the milk and producing bigger body capable of coping with the cold only N Europeans had to deal with on a 24/7 basis. Nothing grainwise survives that well in cold wet climate apart from seasonal but animals are available all year round and the sustenance they give, also they were for a long time nomadic having to move with the seasons, you cant take your fields with you but you can your animals and have to in order to keep them alive. In contrast hotter climates allowed other cultures to become farmers rather than hunter gatherers.

I would be curious if Mongolians are lactose intolerant as they have lived nearly entirely on animals for a long long time, totally guessing but id suspect they arn't. Neither are they European but are Asian. Also they inhabit a very cold climate...... come to think of it what about Eskimos ?

Firstly, 'intolerance' in this context has a specific, scientific, measurable meaning. If you lack the enzyme necessary to digest lactose (I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'll call it 'lactase' for convenience) then you are intolerant to it. If you don't, you're not. It has nothing to do with associated discomfort or any subjective side-effect whatsoever.
If you have 'lactase' you are not lactose-intolerant, even if dairy products make you sick.
If you don't have 'lactase' you ARE lactose-intolerant even if you have no symptoms and do not even realise it. It's all in your DNA, nothing to do with culture or victim role-playing.
Generally, if you lack this 'lactase' you will have undigestible lactose in your gut if you eat dairy. Other bacteria will then get to work on what you cannot break down and that may cause bloating or irritation incidentally as a side-effect, but that is not 'intolerance' in the scientific sense. The enzyme is either coded for or not, so 'low-tolerance' in this context does not make sense.

As for the Mongols, as I recall, one of their staple foodstuffs is kvass, which is made from fermented mare's milk, not cow's milk. The key here may be 'fermented' which could mean that they allow other bacteria to break down the lactose before consuming the milk themselves. I believe the Masai of East Africa subsist largely on the milk and blood of their cattle. It would be interesting to know whether they are lactose-intolerant. I expect that the Inuit have no lactase as they would have no use for it. Seal's milk? I think not.