Is drinking milk bad for Humans?!?!

Artemis Gordon

I've been trying to avoid this thread, but I have to ask one question. If having an MS (or BS) makes you a scientist, does having a BA, MA or MBA make you an artist? I know Ph.D makes you a doctor, even if you don't study any kind of medicine.
 

DeletedUser563

Is a work by stephen hawking purely theoretical and unproven science therefore. Since Hellstromm requires research and not interpretation on other facts. If he took a theory of Einstein and works a accepted theory out on that by interpretation only and also using new research by a new study it would also make him doing that work not a scientist and the work not science. A writer that do zero research and come up with a new scientific fact on a pure theoretical basis using only his scientific knowledge , that is proven by others later on would also not be considered a scientist. And so forth and hence forth because your trying to press the whole concept "scientist" into a tin can.

Ba and B.Sc is not the same thing its like comparing apples with pears. A Mba is a masters of business administration as far as I know and economics not art. Its about the concept of art. A journalist studies a B.A. but he doesnt study a branch of art if I'm correct whereas a bachelor of science in fact do study a branch of science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hellstromm

yes, well you're wrong. There is both a science degree and an arts degree obtainable on business administration/management. The difference is a few prerequisites. The application of such, as well as the depth of study, has an impact on whether they are a researcher or a technician. But neither can be logically argued to be scientists.

Even a degree in a pure science doesn't make someone a scientist. There are a multitude of degrees with the "science" label, but that does not make scientists out of the obtainers of such degrees, it only provides them an educational background that is clearly higher than yours, ya njub.

My very close friend has a masters degree in library science and works as a research analyst. If you were to call him a scientist, he would laugh you out the door. I have a relative who is a registered nurse. She has comparable education to the nutritionist in contention, but she would also laugh you out the door if you were to call her a scientist.

Give it up. You are raging on about this person allegedly being a scientist, but what really matters, and what you are constantly attempting to avoid, is the fact the article you presented is not a peer-reviewed study and is, instead, an op-ed (an opinion piece posed in a Men's Health magazine). It is devoid of attribution and dismissive of existing peer-reviewed studies. Even ignoring all the glaring "wrongness," I already indicated the author's schill status for being a paid sponsor to dairy products (whey protein, casein, etc). That cuts right into his credibility.

Geez Jakkals, you seem to have gone out of your way to completely ignore the peer-reviewed studies previously provided, and are instead jumping up and down about this opinion article as if it were gospel. Don't you see how ludicrous that looks?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

iggyberto

"iggy i think to bring this topic on topic again we must move the debate What is a scientist? to a seperate thread. im going out to play pool /darts in a minute or so so anyone else can start that topic then."

I am not going to move this to another thread because it fits so very nicely in this thread, which was intended to spark discussion. Also, if we can all settle on a definition of a scientist then we can move along.

HS, I have several family members who are in the nursing field, each with Masters degrees and higher, when asked they said that while they do not consider themselves to be scientists per se (mainly because they deal with patients and have compassion and operate on an emotional level as well) that they DO scientific research quite often. And as I said about forensic nursing in particular they could very easily be considered scientists.

As for the milk topic. It seems to me that most of the baby boomers grew up on milk and now have a longer life expectancy than my generation, which is going through the 2% / Skim milk faze. I am not claiming a causation there but there certainly may well be a correlation.
 

Artemis Gordon

I rather like the idea of being able to refer to myself as a scientist. ;) As far as the milk debate goes; I think it's bad for people because I don't like the taste! I have no idea if I'm lactose intolerant or not because I don't drink it, but I have no problem with yoghurt, cheeses or ice cream.
 

DeletedUser563

I would actually consider myself a scientist and am highly qualified lets just say more than one in a couple of different fields. I dont have to prove my education to you.

I also have a rather good idea who you are Hellstromm ;). And although from what I read I can deduce that you have atleast an interest in science I dont think you have a degree. You also always nitpick to your convenience again we have provided you with other angles for example the Stephen Hawking scenario when its however convenient to you avoid issues you always sidestep. i could call that a kind of cowardice but lets leave the name calling that you are so very fond of. Whether its peer reviewed or not its an interpretation piece based on his scientific knowledge. Also to the bottom there is room for comments so his peers had ample opportunity to "review" it. The fact that they didn't doesn't mean I cannot and will not use this in my arguments. Whether you like it or not. It seems logical that his interpretation is based on peer reviewed studies and in our language we would call it a "oorkoepelende"(translated as umbrella conveys the meaning but not certain) article therefore a article that uses several studies as its basis. The absolutely nonsense aspect of your arguments is that if a scientist with a doctors degree in the field we are discussing comes here and comments here you would say his comments is worthless because what he says is not peer reviewed...nitpicking pure and simple. The studies you refer to could also be funded by the anti milk organizations. You have bring no facts to the fore suggesting how he is bought by milk companies. So baseless allegations is fine for you but oh dare we use a not peer reviewed article you spill your milk and throws all of your toys out of your cot..






























Ps I could also joke that because you are lactose intolerant and this is a thread about milk you have developed a psychosomatic reaction to it(see rest of this deleted)that is since I am apparently a njub and so anyone who differs with you. But that is just a joke. Dont spill any milk over it :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hellstromm

Like I said before, circular reasoning. Also, calling me a coward is indeed an insult.

By your statements, it is obvious you do not know what a peer-reviewed article is, nor what constitutes scientific research. As such, due to your obvious lack of knowledge as to what these two constitute, it becomes quite evident you are not, in any fashion whatsoever, a scientist. As to my educational background, again it's none of your business, nor am I at any time in this discussion, attempting to impose my scientific background. Indeed, I am merely pointing out academic requirements, the definition of titles and labels, and the skills and means by which a lay person can differentiate between an op-ed, peer-reviewed article, and a research study.

Dance around the facts all day long, in the end the facts will still be there.

Meh, so is anyone still interested in debating the topic of this discussion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rice farmer

err.....milk is evil and should banned because it is an inefficient way to obtain nutrients... :D
 

iggyberto

put some chocolate syrup in it and it is delicious. Reason enough that milk is good!
 

Hellstromm

Meh, the chocolate was obtained through enslavement of children in West Africa. Good luck with those "good" feelings...
 

iggyberto

Meh, the chocolate was obtained through enslavement of children in West Africa. Good luck with those "good" feelings...

Hmmm, sounds like another possible thread starter. I thought chocolate came from Nestle in Hershey, PA.

Milk is delicious on it's own though but I don't think we were meant to drink it after we have been weened from our mothers. And breast milk is VERY important to a baby. Immunities, bonding, and good bones and teeth.
 

Hellstromm

Oi, talking about alternatives (we weren't? Well we should have been!), I drink almond milk. High in protein, calcium, and fortified with vitamins. After a workout, I drink a soy protein drink w/almond milk, and it provides more vitamins and protein than a whey protein drink. It's also cheaper. And finally, almonds are shown to help fight against cancer.
 

DeletedUser16008

Oi, talking about alternatives (we weren't? Well we should have been!), I drink almond milk. High in protein, calcium, and fortified with vitamins. After a workout, I drink a soy protein drink w/almond milk, and it provides more vitamins and protein than a whey protein drink. It's also cheaper. And finally, almonds are shown to help fight against cancer.

Tried that stuff once, like soya milk it tastes not very nice and here its not cheap at all at about $5 a litre whereas milk it $1.80 for 2 litres its a milk substitute rather an alternative for those who drink milk in quantities and not so sure thats a great idea

http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_5889714_almond-milk-side-effects.html

So its not at all safe for infants either, id go with soy if I had to or pure whey protein isolate, which has less than 0.1 gram of lactose per tablespoon re workouts.
 

Hellstromm

Hi Victor, that "unsigned" article is grossly misleading. The author took a report on soy, which is very high in goitrogens, and and "assumed" all things with goitrogens are alike. --- http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/164

Almonds have very little goitrogens, insignificant in fact. Almond milk is "safe" --- http://askgeorgie.com/?p=4809

Indeed much of what is fed to cows have high concentrations of goitrogens (particularly cows providing "organic milk") and a portion of that is transferred to the milk they produce. I have not yet looked for a report that indicates "how much" goitrogens are found in cow's milk, but I'm sure it is on or about as insignificant as that found in almond milk.

Nice try though. I suggest, in the future, you review the references for any "unsigned" articles, make sure they're accurately portraying the information.


edit: btw, my soy protein powder indicates it is low in goitrogens, due to the manner in which they process it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MelBrooks

Here is the funny thing about milk and humans, we are the ONLY species who regularly drinks milk after we have been weened AND from other species. Kinda funny isn't it, but this is not necessarily a bad thing, it is just something that we do that defines us from a dog, an ant, or other creatures. We were not originally supposed to do this, it is just something we picked up when, I assume, the first nomads decided to take another animal and milk for god knows what reason. Now, here is the thing, we have been doing this almost since the start of our civilization, it was probably the first thing that turned us from nomadacy to farmers, right between us hunting across the globe to farming. Now, since then milk and milk products have become ESSENTIAL in our society, because it is so easy to produce. Now, we don't necessarily need animal milk anymore but it is still the easiest to produce out of all of them, and, should something happen to our society as we know it, it may be the only one we can produce.

Thank you for reading this, Mr. Brooks:cool:
 

Hellstromm

Baby's are supposed to drink breast milk! Not soy milk!
umm, iggy, not all babies can drink breast milk, and not all mothers can produce breast milk, and I don't disagree with you about soy milk. However, when a child cannot drink breast milk, or when a mother cannot produce it, babies can take formulas. Some formulas include sou milk, other types include other ingredients. But, due to legitimate studies, soy has become increasingly unpopular as an alternative to milk. It is indeed something I've been avoiding for almost a decade, and the reason I drink almond milk.

Victor, you said you tasted almond milk. If it did not taste good, I must assume you tried the unsweetened version. It's the one I buy, but I don't drink it like that, for obvious reasons. I add low glycemic sweetener (avoiding high glycemic sugars, because they're bad for you). They sell cane sugar sweetened ones, and they are indeed sweet.

Also, I have no idea where you're getting those outrageous prices for it. Almond Milk sells for between $3 to $4 a half gallon (roughly equivalent to two liters). Compare this to milk, which is sold for about $3 for a half gallon. The price difference is not substantial, plus you can usually obtain a coupon from Silk and Blue Diamond (the two main producers of almond milk), bringing the price equal to or, in some cases, lower than milk.
 

DeletedUser16008

Prices are what they are, I live in the UK ;) milk is $1.20 for 2 litres so thats about $1.80 almond milk is indeed about $5 for 1 litre

I have no idea unsweetened or regular, i just remember its on the I dont like it but ive tried it list, damn now im gonna have to try it again just to be sure.
 
Top