Is drinking milk bad for Humans?!?!

DeletedUser

Your argument is attempting to muddy the waters without disputing my contention. It is also an incorrect assertion. I did not say, "the sole cause." I specifically said it is, "directly attributable," which it is.

See, the problem with your argument (virtually the same argument ypu made throughout this debate) is that you claim dairy products are not the only bad thing. Well gee, let's apply that logic in a court of law, shall we?

District Attorney: The presented evidence clearly proves this man committed murder.
Defending Attorney: We're not disputing he killed the bugger, we're just saying people are killed all the time, no big deal.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
District Attorney: The presented evidence clearly proves this man committed murder.
Defending Attorney: We're not disputing he killed the bugger, we're just saying people are killed all the time, no big deal.
Click to expand...

Nope, bad analogy. It's not going after accomplices because you already convicted one person. I don't think anyone in history has ever been killed by dairy alone, unless they drowned in a vat of milk or had a giant wheel of cheese fall on them. Or if they were burned to death by Mrs. O'Leary's cow.
 

DeletedUser563

As to Victor Kruger I am basing my statements on a program I saw on TV. Basically the scenario was a massively overweight and underweight person. They had to live on each others daily normal diet. Well the particular one I remember and refer was some kind of construction worker who basically lived on m & m's and a pie a day. They showed him with only his pants on and the guy was basically a skeleton. the doctor that appeared then said that in fact it was more dangerous to be extremely underweight(should i have added extremely when your obviously referring to the morbidly obese). He said it was because your body does not get the required nutrients or whatever and therefore stuff like your organs dont function correctly anymore. I am certain if you want you can study it some more.

As to your comments about me I will chose to take the moral high road and ignore them today. As to Hellstromm studies dont trump personal experience I am certain that if I where lactose intolerant it would have manifested along time ago. I have figured out a manner to lower my weight whilst still eating healthy. Mostly too fatty foods(ribs for example) and watermelon is my achelis heel . Ginger for some unknown reason as well. Just because it is bad for you does not mean the whole humanity have too abandon it. Also I have a similar health problem than you I however have found that probiotics helps a lot with it. I just hope its healthy on the long run. You could also try yoga Buy B.K.S.Iyengar 's book Yoga it has some illness related exercises. I actually abandoned it as it requires much discipline and the feeling of I am now exercising was not there. Not his stuff actually it requires a lot of props . Well maybe I will return to it someday. And we are many cultures other cultures even use it more than us. Elmyr i think you can also add a herd of milk cows trampling you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Whoa, seriously?!? Studies don't trump personal experiences?!? Omg, seriously?!?!

That's exactly what studies DO trump! Geez Jakkals, your logic faculties worry me.

"I don' damn give a hell what yer damn numbers be sayin', I ain't never lost my life to divin' off no cliff butt nekked. No siree, ain't died yet an' I ain't gonna die this time neither!"

Followed shortly thereafter by a resounding, *splat*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

Hellstromm said:
Your argument is attempting to muddy the waters without disputing my contention. It is also an incorrect assertion. I did not say, "the sole cause." I specifically said it is, "directly attributable," which it is.

See, the problem with your argument (virtually the same argument ypu made throughout this debate) is that you claim dairy products are not the only bad thing. Well gee, let's apply that logic in a court of law, shall we?

District Attorney: The presented evidence clearly proves this man committed murder.
Defending Attorney: We're not disputing he killed the bugger, we're just saying people are killed all the time, no big deal.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is a bad one and at what quantity do you suppose say milk is bad for a person ? 1 pint a day ? 1 a week ? include cheese or not other dairy products, what your intolerance is or not ? You have no idea and neither do I but.....

You cannot just say Dairy products are bad for you..... end of statement. Actually I'm not even trying to win an argument whether it is or isnt, im simply saying to state "milk is bad for you" or specifically in your case Dairy products = obesity = unhealthy is wrong. Its pretty obvious that diary contains a lot of the type of fat thats stored by the body which is why diets generally advise cutting it out. Why can't you simply say it like it is ? Excess dairy products and overconsuming food in general can lead to obesity in many people. In the absence of dairy products in a diet there are still obese people, trying to attribute one with the other and attempting to make look like its directly responsible and the way you present is atypical of what an industry spin doctor or marketing person would do,why you do this I have no idea but ive noticed you do it a lot.

Jakkals if you make someone whos not had any digestive exposure to crap they wont process it properly and lacking therefore the bodys usual conditioned diet the body will become under nutritioned, the fat one will have a body conditioned to deal with all kinds of rubbish or normal food and will adjust to a healthy diet easier plus have a load of body reserves and just get thinner.

PS HS I thought these type of studies are often based on peoples personal experience, otherwise where would they get their data from, Wikipedia ?
 

DeletedUser563

Hellstromm said:
Whoa, seriously?!? Studies don't trump personal experiences?!? Omg, seriously?!?!

That's exactly what studies DO trump! Geez Jakkals, your logic faculties worry me.

"I don' damn give a hell what yer damn numbers be sayin', I ain't never lost my life to divin' off no cliff butt nekked. No siree, ain't died yet an' I ain't gonna die this time neither!"

Followed shortly thereafter by a resounding, *splat*
Click to expand...

Yeah and you misinterpret every thing let me clarify: I am not lactose intolerant . Therefore i can safely ignore any studies that say milk is bad for me. Also I have an idea of what "studies" I agree with and not. The one called "milk is bad for you" i do not agree with. I assume you take some calcium replacements. Which I do not consider safe for me and dont take unlike milk who provides me with calcium and dont make me feel anything. In fact I am drinking a big tall glass of milk on your health now hellstromm.

As to studies there is always counter studies. The most famous example would be the 911 conspiracy theories. If one reads through them the author sounds so knowledgeable his facts sounds correct. That is because he knows enough about science to make out a convincing argument. Then one read the popular mechanics article and all that really insane theories just become that. And after all my personal experience of that day would also lean more towards the account by popular mechanics. But yes this article contains a counter study and let me see for the first time from where your argument originates. I am no scientist and my personal experience has taught me that milk is indeed good for my body. So here is your counter study I only skimmed it but it seems it disproves all that is said here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2234930...t/does-milk-really-do-body-good/#.TxJwhlow_Ck

Oh no I just drank another glass lets hope I make it till tomorrow :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

A conspiracy theory is not a study, it's a mass of speculation. Look Jakkals, fallacious reasoning is the basis behind conspiracy theories, not so when it comes to actual scientifically arrived studies. If you can't tell the difference between fallacious reasoning (flawed thinking) and logic, that's your problem, but please don't bother to try and confuse everyone else with your incoherent babblings. You seriously need to go through a course, or two, in critical thinking.

I'm done with this discussion. Circular reasoning is all that's being brought to the table and it's gotten quite old, particularly after the third or fourth take.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser563

:ph34r:
Hellstromm said:
A conspiracy theory is not a study, it's a mass of speculation. Look Jakkals, fallacious reasoning is the basis behind conspiracy theories, not so when it comes to actual scientifically arrived studies. If you can't tell the difference between fallacious reasoning (flawed thinking) and logic, that's your problem, but please don't bother to try and confuse everyone else with your incoherent babblings. You seriously need to go through a course, or two, in critical thinking.

I'm done with this discussion. Circular reasoning is all that's being brought to the table and it's gotten quite old, particularly after the third or fourth take.
Click to expand...

great so another topic you like is crushed. great...:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: a round of milk on me. All your studies is anyway always obscure. I have said it before to you. You need to work on your respect towards other people. I am just as entitled to express my opinion as you are and if you have a problem with it let me tell you I will be here torturing you to death with my incoherent babblings for a long time :D and you know the really fun fact is you cant do anything about it.

I dont really agree with your assessment about me and know what the diff is between conspiracy theories and studies that was not my point. As you can see my article refers to studies but I guess there cant be that many studies and the pro studies says mostly the opposite of the con studies or answer them and vice verza. So indeed what do you expect then of people but circle reasoning. Finally I see you and Victor has the same basis of attack just insult the poster and make some derogatory remarks about him. Answer my posts please ... its incoherent bablings is not an acceptable response. iggy can you please make a separate forum for HS and Victor as apparently the rest of us is too dumb for them.

Also HS an Victor you are protected from the anger of other forum users by the rules. i dare you to set a date and chatango chat room so that people can in person have a unmoderated crack at you. You both have become rather unbearable and I think it would be useful for you to finally experience the wrath of your fellow forum users.

Iggy do you think there is anything else to discuss I dont see this topic going anywhere again but further name calling. Perhaps I also flame but its hard to not flame with Victor and HS in any thread. or perhaps without HS we can discuss it sensibly. Well I anyway think that article that I posted answered most of the cons. Well your call I erroneously assumed HS was the OP has now seen my error.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Jakkals, I'm not going to bother responding to your juvenile chest-pounding. No, you don't know how to differentiate. The article written by Alan Aragon is without attributions. If you bothered to research this guy, you would have found out some of his so-called clients are dairy producers. He's a schill.

Look, I didn't call you dumb, why bother? I know my professional and academic background, and I can tell when someone doesn't have the same or similar. When I'm telling you that you're repeatedly using fallacious reasoning, when I indicate you are unable to differentiate a legitimate study from advertising propaganda, these are educated observations. You can't handle the truth? Oh well...

(( btw, a course in critical thinking is a logics course, including a study of fallacious reasoning. By studying fallacious reasoning and how it is applied in politics, advertising, and debate, you develop critical thinking skills. ))
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser563

Your a writer what academic qualifications are your referring to. Well of course milk companies will hire academics to counter the con argument does this necessarily invalidate their research and articles. off topic: Millions of farmers and their workers make their living out of diary. I can tell you in South Africa with pricing its a very tough business you almost have to have a totally computerized and automated milking station. if everyone bought into this nonsense it could have a devastating impact on many lifes. So why you expect them to shut up and take it is beyond me. They have a right to hire their own scientist to produce counters to all the con arguments. If you respond again with any remark against that scientist I'm gonna call it quits as to this topic as what would be the purpose of searching for an independent scientist that says milk is good.

So again you have not responded sensibly to that article. Should we get your approval of our sources before placing them. As to chest pounding its not that but your are really never nice to most users. A lot of similar comments have been made by others. I know your friends think good old Hellstromm he he many users do not share this feeling towards you. I am really trying to like you but you are making it nearly impossible. So again we are left in the circle will you answer the article or should we drive again to the start of it.

Ps I have completed 2 courses in logic and apply it every day in my professional life so just shut up with your condescending nonsense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser563

Wouldnt that make it easier for you to disprove then. He is though M.S stand for medical scientist. :D

ps And neither are you?

Biography ► Alan Aragon has over 18 years of success in the fitness field. He earned his Bachelor and Master of Science in Nutrition with top honors. Alan is a continuing education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration, National Academy of Sports Medicine, American Council on Exercise, and National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alan recently lectured to clinicians at the FDA and the annual conference of the Los Angeles Dietetic Association. He maintains a private practice designing programs for recreational, Olympic, and professional athletes, including the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Kings, and Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Alan is a contributing editor to Men's Health magazine.

in short he has a B. Sc and M Sc degree that makes him a scientist. Nutrition would be equal to a food scientist in my country. Meaning his opinion is qualified and worthy of an answer from you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

wow, no it does not stand for medical scientist. Sheesh...


And while it's obvious you're fishing for my credentials, you're not entitled and I'm not inclined to share with a troll.
 

DeletedUser563

writer usually journalist,meaning BA degree and probably Masters? i dont care about your credentials . Well I am not fishing for them it would just lend some perspective if you admitted that your not a food scientist and technically your opinion is nothing more than the opinion of a layman. Which is not much more than Iggy would have expected when starting this debate i.e. a layman debate. Ok but you still have not answered his article to the bottom I placed his credentials he is qualified.


The audience is waiting in breathless anticipation oh master of many crafts Hellstromm enlighten your brethren with your enlightened response.
 

DeletedUser

Once again, he is not a scientist, nor is he accredited with participation in any research studies. He's a nutritionist. But back to the real point, the article he wrote is not attributed, he has clients in the dairy industry and pushes their products.

The information provided earlier, by other posters, were actual studies performed by accredited scientists performing legitimate research and providing legitimate reports/studies.

Now go troll somewhere else, you're wasting everyone's time and disrupting what was, before your intrusion, a friendly debate on milk, with your repeated demonstrations of ignorance, from thinking m.s. stands for medical scientist, to thinking I'm insulting you when I'm encouraging you to study critical thinking.
 

DeletedUser563

For the last time stop with your condescending nonsense A scientist may drew conclusions based on other studies. He has a master degree in science and has studied nutrition. That makes him a scientist. The fact is your obviously a layman in the field and cannot answer this but you are too ashamed too admit it. Also I will not be dictated where I post do you understand me. Answer it or dont answer it I am fed up with you. i will not respond to you ever again and that goes double for Victor. Therefore I have switched the ignore button on you both.
 

DeletedUser16008

lol funny reading, HS Jakkals is talking of those with Scientist titles outside of the traditional sense & you never made it clear what you consider or not a scientist in the first place regarding plausible or acceptable in your mind....

Would a nutritionist with scientist title in his academic achievement make him a plausible expert on food and the like as much as a medical scientist ? yes id say it would. As much as a guy in a white coat in the bowels of a research centre with a Phd in medicine.After all the academic community decides the titles and if its using scientist in them then thats what the man can use, officially. Times change and there are plenty holding the title scientist in all forms, if you just stick to the traditional term you are out of touch with the modern world.

loving the fact that jakkals has us both on ignore because now his posts will look even more silly when he cant see the counter arguments and respond.

PS regarding 911 etc there are hundreds of engineers architects and other highly QUALIFIED very well educated and scientific based people who absolutely bring information to the table that is being ignored etc ... careful what you say regarding conspiracies, they are not all tinfoil hat idiots that investigate and add credible logical and scientific information to the debate. Same with the global warming issue theres plenty in the REAL scientific community that refute it backed up by scientific evidence it is not happening at all the way the scaremongers are saying it is.

Topics over and done with for sure, time to move on.
 

DeletedUser

Victor Kruger said:
Would a nutritionist with scientist title in his academic achievement make him a plausible expert on food and the like as much as a medical scientist ? yes id say it would.
Click to expand...

For every expert there's another expert who disagrees with him.
 

DeletedUser

Elmyr said:
For every expert there's another expert who disagrees with him.
Click to expand...
Meh, it's a popular lay notion, but it's not true.

As to the 911 conspiracy theories, years back I was tasked to review much of what was being presented, and no, it's not credible scientists bringing forward these theories. In short order it became obvious the writers of such conspiracy lines didn't even grasp chemistry. And that's just one area of ignorance that glared off the pages. Yet, even ignoring all the errors in their pseudo-scientific assumptions, common sense would tell you that if it were true, Bin Ladin would have had a field day feeding that conspiracy. But he didn't, did he? No, of course not.

But you're right, we're not here to discuss 911, nor am I all that interested in such.

As to nutritionists, no they are deemed technicians, not scientists (particularly Mr. Aragon). So-called "modern world" interpretations of what constitutes a scientist is gobbletygook silliness. It's a deliberate distortion posed by people who want to grab some degree of credibility. A science degree does not necessarily constitute a scientist. It's a misconception, a misunderstanding of how academic fields are categorized, how degrees are differentiated.

But, back to the point, the article presented by Jakkals is without attributions and is filled with fallacy conclusions. A legitimate report would provide attributions and would not come to fallacy conclusions. Add to that the author's sponsorship of dairy products and, in short, the article is not credible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top