Author Topic: drinking milk and dying earlier  (Read 5626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline dair

  • Bear Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2018, 09:58:24 pm »
They say the risk for men is only 30% higher, but is still there.

Offline PaganGoy

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Wewant2live
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2018, 03:44:28 am »
Fuck, you people really hate dairy.
Just a thought, post a study on raw milk consumption next time.

Offline PaganGoy

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Wewant2live
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2018, 04:19:02 am »
In the case of osteoporosis Weston a price cites raw milk studies to the contrary in dairy consuming populouses including increased dental arches/development and lack of any kind of dental cavities.
This includes a wide variety of research materials not just indigenous communities.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2018, 04:39:05 am »
Weston-Price is not considered too reliable. He, after all, came up with some nonsense ideas re dentistry, since disproven, such as the focal infection theory. He is also guilty of the Noble Savage theory nonsense.

Bear in mind that  health-problems derived from raw dairy consumption  are the most common a  RVAF diet. Raw veggie-juice is 2nd, followed by others in descending order. I grant that some RVAFers seem to have no initial problems with raw dairy of any kind, but  far more people have problems with the stuff.

"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2018, 04:48:45 am »
Oh, and here is some scientific data linking osteoporosis to dairy consumption. Note that excess calcium is blamed, so the issue of raw vs pasteurised is irrelevant here, as both contain excessive calcium:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm

I wish I had  come across that study as a child. As a kid, I was force-fed grains and dairy at school, and my foolish parents believed the lies that doctors told them about dairy consumption building stronger bones. Interesting point re a lower lifespan being caused by malabsorption of galactose. So, it's not casein or lactose per se that is the real problem, it seems. There is a more severe example of this, called galactosemia, where complete inability to digest galactose means a baby so afflicted suffers severe inflammation, and, within months, brain-damage and death, if it consumes any dairy, raw or pasteurised, whether from their mother's breasts or from cows' milk or whatever.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2018, 04:45:48 pm by TylerDurden »
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline van

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,758
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2018, 07:07:19 am »
In the case of osteoporosis Weston a price cites raw milk studies to the contrary in dairy consuming populouses including increased dental arches/development and lack of any kind of dental cavities.
This includes a wide variety of research materials not just indigenous communities.


As I remember, the Swiss as studied by Price, had the highest incidence of dental carries of indigenous populations.   granted the numbers weren't high, but compared to the tribes on the coast in South America where he inspected the corpses buried above ground, out of something like over a thousand, not one had a dental carrie.   
   My guess is that you're young, Paganboy.   And that you've only been using milk for a limited amount of time.   If so, just pay attention to how you fare over the months and years ahead.   The other interesting thing you might do, is to visit the dairy where your milk is coming from.  And while there pay attention to the visual and other signs of the health of cows.  Look for mucous running out of their noses, and the general smell of the barns if kept indoors during these winter months.  It might instruct you. 

Offline PaganGoy

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Wewant2live
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2018, 07:16:20 am »
@van
Uh huh, good to note.  I already have visited the farm, my age and first introduction to dairy is available in my journal.

Offline Eric

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • EricGarza.info
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2018, 09:33:15 am »
For whatever it is worth, I thought so highly of AV when I first read his books back in the early 2000s. I still respect the man. He was definitely a trailblazer. I have long since abandoned his ideas regarding raw dairy, veggie juice and raw honey. While I might eat these things occasionally, I absolutely do not treat them as dietary cornerstones.
Eric Garza
Check out my podcast, YouTube channel , and website
Connect with me on Facebook and Instagram

Offline PaganGoy

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Wewant2live
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2018, 10:48:08 am »
Thanks, fair enough

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2018, 04:47:16 pm »
I forgot to add the relevant link. Here it is:-

http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm

(also inserted into the relevant post above as well).
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline dariorpl

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2019, 05:45:48 pm »
Oh, and here is some scientific data linking osteoporosis to dairy consumption. Note that excess calcium is blamed, so the issue of raw vs pasteurised is irrelevant here, as both contain excessive calcium:-
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm

I wish I had  come across that study as a child. As a kid, I was force-fed grains and dairy at school, and my foolish parents believed the lies that doctors told them about dairy consumption building stronger bones. Interesting point re a lower lifespan being caused by malabsorption of galactose. So, it's not casein or lactose per se that is the real problem, it seems. There is a more severe example of this, called galactosemia, where complete inability to digest galactose means a baby so afflicted suffers severe inflammation, and, within months, brain-damage and death, if it consumes any dairy, raw or pasteurised, whether from their mother's breasts or from cows' milk or whatever.

You keep using pasteurized dairy studies to justify your bias against raw dairy. The researchers can "blame" whatever they want, that doesn't mean they're right, that's not how science works and you should know it. Even if the calcium itself is the problem, it could very well be that pasteurizing the dairy has an effect on the calcium molecules and how they're bound to other nutrients, as well as the absorption / fixing / elimination once they enter the body.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that humans have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years without anyone ever blaming any diseases on them until pasteurization came along?

And before you bring up grains, it was well known that grains weren't healthy, which is why they were the food of poor people who couldn't afford more expensive foods. It's only in recent times that grains have been touted as health foods.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 05:56:03 pm by dariorpl »
We now live in a world where medicine destroys health, law destroys justice, education destroys knowledge, government destroys order, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and banking destroys the economy

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2019, 06:35:29 pm »
You keep using pasteurized dairy studies to justify your bias against raw dairy. The researchers can "blame" whatever they want, that doesn't mean they're right, that's not how science works and you should know it. Even if the calcium itself is the problem, it could very well be that pasteurizing the dairy has an effect on the calcium molecules and how they're bound to other nutrients, as well as the absorption / fixing / elimination once they enter the body.
  The whole text was based on the dangers of excess calcium, not on the issue of raw vs pasteurised. Your suggestion that raw calcium is somehow magically protected from wearing the osteoblasts out is dodgy and not yet supported by any science.
Quote
Doesn't it strike you as odd that humans have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years without anyone ever blaming any diseases on them until pasteurization came along?
Dead wrong. The whole point of the palaeolithic diet is that  Neolithic consumption of grains and raw dairy led to vast ill-health in humans. Bear in mind that, prior to pasteurisation, dairy was mostly drunk in raw form. Also, bear in mind that scientific evidence shows that palaeolithic-era skeletons all had much stronger bones compared to Neolithic-era skeletons, yet palaeo HGs did not consume raw dairy unlike Neolithic-era HGs. So, clearly, raw dairy consumption leads to weaker bones. Also, consumption of grains and (mostly raw) dairy led to significantly decreased average height, plus may have been responsible for the c. 10-11% drop in average human brain-size.
Quote
And before you bring up grains, it was well known that grains weren't healthy, which is why they were the food of poor people who couldn't afford more expensive foods. It's only in recent times that grains have been touted as health foods.
Grains were consumed by all social classes in Neolithic times.
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline dariorpl

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2019, 08:32:26 pm »
  The whole text was based on the dangers of excess calcium, not on the issue of raw vs pasteurised.

Precisely my point. They use problems from pasteurized dairy to attack raw dairy.

Your suggestion that raw calcium is somehow magically protected from wearing the osteoblasts out is dodgy and not yet supported by any science.

There's plenty of science supporting it. Including Pottenger's vasts studies on cats, as well as Weston Price's studies on indigenous peoples. Not to mention the simple fact that all mammals fed their raw mother's milk develop much better bone and teeth health than those fed pasteurized or cooked milks. You claim this is because it's the mothers' milk, or milk from the same species. I'm sure this has benefits. But it could just as well be the cooking of the milk that causes most of the problems.

Dead wrong. The whole point of the palaeolithic diet is that  Neolithic consumption of grains and raw dairy led to vast ill-health in humans. Bear in mind that, prior to pasteurisation, dairy was mostly drunk in raw form. Also, bear in mind that scientific evidence shows that palaeolithic-era skeletons all had much stronger bones compared to Neolithic-era skeletons, yet palaeo HGs did not consume raw dairy unlike Neolithic-era HGs. So, clearly, raw dairy consumption leads to weaker bones. Also, consumption of grains and (mostly raw) dairy led to significantly decreased average height, plus may have been responsible for the c. 10-11% drop in average human brain-size.

None of this proves that raw dairy was in any way part of the problem, that is simply an assumption you make on zero evidence. For all we know they could've been even worse off without the raw dairy and consuming more grains and cooked meats/vegetables instead.

Grains were consumed by all social classes in Neolithic times.

Hard to say if that was in fact the case. And even if it was, it might be in moderate amounts like we see in later periods.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 08:38:33 pm by dariorpl »
We now live in a world where medicine destroys health, law destroys justice, education destroys knowledge, government destroys order, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and banking destroys the economy

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2019, 02:09:58 am »
Precisely my point. They use problems from pasteurized dairy to attack raw dairy.
No, they were indicating that excess calcium was the problem. You have not put forward any proof that excess  calcium from raw dairy would be immune to this issue.
Quote
There's plenty of science supporting it. Including Pottenger's vasts studies on cats, as well as Weston Price's studies on indigenous peoples. Not to mention the simple fact that all mammals fed their raw mother's milk develop much better bone and teeth health than those fed pasteurized or cooked milks. You claim this is because it's the mothers' milk, or milk from the same species. I'm sure this has benefits. But it could just as well be the cooking of the milk that causes most of the problems.
  Wrong. Milk is not only widely different among the various mammals, it is also different, depending on the mother's and infant's needs, as the female body changes nutrients as required:-

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seven-most-extreme-milks-animal-kingdom-180956588/


https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways-breastmilk-changes-to-meet-your-babys-needs/

Pottenger's study was very unscientific. It focused on cats, not humans, and it did not take into account the obvious fact that cats would thrive better on a raw meat diet than on diets including lots of raw cows' milk. Weston-Price made all sorts of absurd unscientific claims with short visits to many different tribes. He therefore could not have amassed sufficient data to back up his claims. Now, if he had spent, say, a year or two for each tribe, that would have been more credible.
Quote
None of this proves that raw dairy was in any way part of the problem, that is simply an assumption you make on zero evidence. For all we know they could've been even worse off without the raw dairy and consuming more grains and cooked meats/vegetables instead.
. No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.

 The http://darwinian-medicine.com/does-milk-really-strengthen-your-bones/  fact is that  if raw dairy were indeed so good for bones, then pastoral societies, which consumed raw dairy but no grains, would have had bones  as strong or stronger than in Palaeolithic times.

Hard to say if that was in fact the case. And even if it was, it might be in moderate amounts like we see in later periods.
Quote
Wrong, here's some info on the ancient egyptian diet which states that
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss15/2015/02/12/the-ancient-egyptian-diet/ which states that bread was a major component of all social classes' diets there.
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline norawnofun

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2019, 06:25:11 am »
Since I eat a lot of raw dairy and find it very important for my wellbeing, I started to look at the calcium issue that you posted in this link. http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm It is indeed very interesting. Then I had a look at the recommended daily calcium intake, which seems to be 1000-1200mg per day, which equals around a liter of raw milk per day http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/calcium.html.

Whenever I am abroad I drink a liter of raw cows milk from (IMO) predominantly older A2 breeds with every meat meal, which means 2-3 times a day. Sometimes I drink more in between. To each meal I eat around 250 grams of raw cheese. So to summarize I have 3 liters of milk, plus 750g of cheese. So my daily calcium intake is 1200mgx3 + another lets say 1200x3 from the cheese. = 7200mg daily intake. When I am at home, I have less goat dairy but it seems that the calcium content is higher, so i might have a similar intake. Considering the fact that milk has vitamin D in it, the absorption should be ok. Then comes the calcium to phosphorus ratio (Ca/P), cows milk seems to be slightly higher than goat http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/05/is-milk-good-sheep-milk-dairy/. More on that below. Either way, thinking about it I have a extremely high daily calcium intake, so I thought if I should be concerned. But then I had a look at this:

https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/calcium-protein-strong-bones

Quote
What all the studies show is that the amount of calcium you excrete depends on more than just how much protein you eat. The amounts of phosphorus and magnesium in your diet, for instance, play a significant role. But even more importantly, there's simply a lot of normal variation in the amount of calcium individuals absorb from their food—some people just absorb more than others, for reasons researchers still don't understand. In fact, your ability to absorb calcium from your food is probably more important to your bone health than the total amount of calcium you take in.3

Results from the long-running Framingham Osteoporosis Study, also published in 2000, showed that eating a diet high in protein has a protective effect on your bones as you age. Among the 615 elderly people in the study, the ones who ate the most protein had the strongest bones, while the ones who ate the least protein had the weakest bones. And over the four-year study period, the people who ate the least protein lost significantly more bone mass than the people who ate the most protein. The connection held up regardless of age, weight, smoking habits, calcium intake and even estrogen use.6

More good news came in March 2002, when an important study showed that the combination of a high protein intake and calcium and vitamin D supplements significantlyslows bone loss in older adults. The double-blind study followed nearly 350 sixty-five-year-old men and women over a three-year period. All the participants ate their usual diet, but half were also randomly assigned to take a supplement containing vitamin D and 500 milligrams of calcium, while the others took a dummy pill. Neither the participants nor the researchers knew which group they were in. At the end of three years, the researchers found that among the people taking the calcium and vitamin D supplements, the ones who ate the most protein had the strongest bones and also absorbed the most calcium. Among the people taking the dummy pills, there was no connection between the amount of protein in the diet and the amount of bone loss.

What do all these studies show? They show that when a high-protein diet is combinedwith high calcium intake, calcium absorption is increased and bones stay stronger.

And here https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-and-milk/calcium-full-story/

Quote
But as your body digests protein, it releases acids into the bloodstream, which the body neutralizes by drawing calcium from the bones. Following a high-protein diet for a few weeks probably won’t have much effect on bone strength. Doing it for a long time, though, could weaken bone. In the Nurses’ Health Study, for example, women who ate more than 95 grams of protein a day were 20 percent more likely to have broken a wrist over a 12-year period when compared to those who ate an average amount of protein (less than 68 grams a day). (13) But this area of research is still controversial, and findings have not been consistent. Some studies suggest increasing protein increases risk of fractures; others associate high-protein diets with increased bone mineral density. It is still unclear what level of protein intake provides the best protection against osteoporosis, and more research is needed.

I found quite some people which do a carnivore diet and eat/drink lots of raw dairy, and it seems to do them very well, like me. They heal all kinds of things. Now when looking at the above one could possibly conclude that a carnivore diet, which consists of a very high intake of animal protein, needs a very good amount of calcium to counterbalance the calcium excretion by eating a good amount of raw dairy or animal foods high in calcium.

So basically one could think that a high raw dairy intake on carnivore is no problem, but it is a problem when you eat a normal low animal protein diet, like many "normal" people do, as the general consent is that animal protein is unhealthy and vegetables, whole grains and fruit are better. Then you might be in trouble. None of the links posted from some of you take a high animal protein diet such as carnivore into account. So then it´s normal that many westerners drink lots of milk, but then have big issues like osteoporosis later, because of low meat consuption, as I think that vegetables are useless for calcium intake.

And if you now say that there is no different between raw milk and pasteurized milk in terms of (Ca/P) ratio and absorption, I recommend looking into this study: http://www.jbc.org/content/79/1/283.full.pdf There are, for example, HUGE differences between dried and raw milk. I also noticed that when I eat pasteurized joghurt, my bones sometimes crack, and I get tartar. So there is no way that somebody can tell me that raw milk and heat-treated milk is the same. So all these amazing studies showing how bad milk can in my optinion, be thrown in the trash!


Offline van

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,758
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2019, 08:50:41 am »
epidemiologic studies are so all over the place.  For instance, in what you quoted from one study ' ca. with vit D had a bone-strengthening effect.    Well, when you consider Most people are deficient in Vit D,  who's to say what really was going on?

  It's very easy to interpret what you want. 

  More and more low carb researchers are saying don't take ca. supplements due to its nature to combine with the plaque on your arteries.  Look into ca. scan for ca. deposits on your arterial walls.  A Hotly debated subject.  Worth researching.  Proponents say it's the number one test for heart disease.  I tend to agree.  But in fairness, the ca. is presumably laid down when there is inflammation.

   

Offline thehadezb

  • Boar Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2019, 08:38:14 pm »
Vitamins are much more important than minerals esp in humans. Vegans get lots of minerals in their diet and their bones suffer much more than an omnivore. What they need are complex fat soluble vitamins. AAs are also important in this regard.

That thing about calcium being leached out of the bones to counter balance the acid-forming pH of meat has been debunked several times. I don't have the sources now but It worths googling it.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2019, 09:26:47 pm »
There are of course many other problems with raw dairy, such as the hormone factor and the unbalanced calcium:magnesium ratio. In my own case, I found that dairy consumption greatly weakened my teeth pre-RPD diet(in fact I would have lost all my teeth in another year if I had not switched to an RPD diet), and that a diet consisting only of raw animal foods led to a sudden looseness in my teeth after just 3 weeks on it.
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline dariorpl

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2019, 01:34:25 am »
No, they were indicating that excess calcium was the problem. You have not put forward any proof that excess  calcium from raw dairy would be immune to this issue. 

Again, they can claim whatever they want, but that's not how science works. You're still looking at people having trouble when consuming cooked dairy and grains, and blaming it on raw dairy.

Wrong. Milk is not only widely different among the various mammals, it is also different, depending on the mother's and infant's needs, as the female body changes nutrients as required:-

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seven-most-extreme-milks-animal-kingdom-180956588/


https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/breastfeeding/magical-ways-breastmilk-changes-to-meet-your-babys-needs/

This is like saying that meat from different animals is different, so that some will be ideal for humans whereas others would be harmful. Of course meats from different animals is different. But what's more different, meat from deer to rabbit, or meat that is cooked versus raw?

We even know that regarding the quality of the meat, it's often more important what the animal fed on and how it lived, than the particular species we're dealing with.

Pottenger's study was very unscientific. It focused on cats, not humans, and it did not take into account the obvious fact that cats would thrive better on a raw meat diet than on diets including lots of raw cows' milk.

How does that make the studies unscientific? I'm not sure you understand what something being unscientific means.

The studies showed that raw milk was vastly superior to cooked milk in preventing disease and in recovering from it, showing there's a huge difference between the two, about as much as the difference between raw and cooked meat, perhaps even more.

They also showed that both a high amount of dairy with a lower amount of meat and a low amount of dairy, with a high amount of meat, had the same effects on the cats' health as long as the foods were raw versus cooked. With milk in particular, besides being cooked, it became worse the more processed it was. And even if the milk was raw, but came from cows fed irradiated yeast to produce additional artificial vitamin D, it did not have the healing properties as the regular raw milk. Even the plants fed the excretions of the cats that ate the raw meats and dairy grew much better than those fed the excretions of the cats eating cooked meats and dairy.

You complain about these studies being done on cats, rather than humans. However, the typical paleo argument against dairy is that humans have only been consuming it as adults for 10k years, so they are poorly adapted to it. (which is suspect as I've discussed in my thread about dairy possibly being paleo). Also, that cows and other hervibores have different requirements than humans, and so their milk doesn't suit our needs.

Well these two arguments are much stronger when used on cats. Cats have been exposed to dairy as adults for far less time than humans (and even if you say it's more generations, historically cats wouldn't be fed as much milk as adult humans would consume). Likewise, as a herbivore, a cow's digestive system is more similar to humans, which are omnivores than to cats, which are carnivores. Finally, dairy cows have been bred over thousands of generations to provide milk and dairy products that are more beneficial to humans. It could even be that this effect has been so dramatic that a cow's milk might be even better for humans than for the cows' own offspring.

Weston-Price made all sorts of absurd unscientific claims with short visits to many different tribes. He therefore could not have amassed sufficient data to back up his claims. Now, if he had spent, say, a year or two for each tribe, that would have been more credible..

How does this discredit his findings? Does he have to spend years with each tribe to get a general idea of what they eat and how good their health is compared to city dwellers?

No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.

The http://darwinian-medicine.com/does-milk-really-strengthen-your-bones/  fact is that  if raw dairy were indeed so good for bones, then pastoral societies, which consumed raw dairy but no grains, would have had bones  as strong or stronger than in Palaeolithic times.

They did. Again, Weston Price.

Wrong, here's some info on the ancient egyptian diet which states that
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss15/2015/02/12/the-ancient-egyptian-diet/ which states that bread was a major component of all social classes' diets there.

Even in that study, there is confusion. The art is telling them one thing and the lab studies are telling them another. They could be wrong in one or the other or both.

In any case, by the time we get more recorded history, the tendency is clear: large amounts of grain are for the poor. Those who aren't poor mainly eat meats, dairy, eggs, honey, vegetables and fruits.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 01:55:04 am by dariorpl »
We now live in a world where medicine destroys health, law destroys justice, education destroys knowledge, government destroys order, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and banking destroys the economy

Offline dariorpl

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2019, 01:43:30 am »
There are of course many other problems with raw dairy, such as the hormone factor and the unbalanced calcium:magnesium ratio. In my own case, I found that dairy consumption greatly weakened my teeth pre-RPD diet(in fact I would have lost all my teeth in another year if I had not switched to an RPD diet), and that a diet consisting only of raw animal foods led to a sudden looseness in my teeth after just 3 weeks on it.

In the interest of full disclosure I will add that I had the same problem when consuming vasts amounts of what I thought at the time was raw dairy, but it might not have been. Some of my teeth became loose and I could move them a little. After stopping the consumption of dairy, the looseness in my teeth went away.

My teeth continued to get worse since then, on a diet of mainly meats and fruit, but the looseness hasn't returned.

I intend to try dairy again once I can find a reliable source and be certain as to the quality of it.

Another thing that might have damaged my teeth was the copious amounts of lemon juice I was consuming, sometimes up to 1 liter or more a day. Although I stopped that a while prior to stopping the dairy consumption.
We now live in a world where medicine destroys health, law destroys justice, education destroys knowledge, government destroys order, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and banking destroys the economy

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2019, 03:14:03 am »
Again, they can claim whatever they want, but that's not how science works. You're still looking at people having trouble when consuming cooked dairy and grains, and blaming it on raw dairy.
Like I said before, they were targetting the issue of excess calcium in dairy, the issue of raw vs cooked is not relevant since you have no solid  scientific data to prove that raw dairy is more protective of bones than pasteurised dairy.
Quote
This is like saying that meat from different animals is different, so that some will be ideal for humans whereas others would be harmful. Of course meats from different animals is different. But what's more different, meat from deer to rabbit, or meat that is cooked versus raw?

We even know that regarding the quality of the meat, it's often more important what the animal fed on and how it lived, than the particular species we're dealing with.
Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy. Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all. Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.

How does that make the studies unscientific? I'm not sure you understand what something being unscientific means.
Quote
The studies showed that raw milk was vastly superior to cooked milk in preventing disease and in recovering from it, showing there's a huge difference between the two, about as much as the difference between raw and cooked meat, perhaps even more.

They also showed that both a high amount of dairy with a lower amount of meat and a low amount of dairy, with a high amount of meat, had the same effects on the cats' health as long as the foods were raw versus cooked. With milk in particular, besides being cooked, it became worse the more processed it was. And even if the milk was raw, but came from cows fed irradiated yeast to produce additional artificial vitamin D, it did not have the healing properties as the regular raw milk. Even the plants fed the excretions of the cats that ate the raw meats and dairy grew much better than those fed the excretions of the cats eating cooked meats and dairy.

You complain about these studies being done on cats, rather than humans. However, the typical paleo argument against dairy is that humans have only been consuming it as adults for 10k years, so they are poorly adapted to it. (which is suspect as I've discussed in my thread about dairy possibly being paleo). Also, that cows and other hervibores have different requirements than humans, and so their milk doesn't suit our needs.
The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans. Cats may be mammals but do not have much in common with humans. The studies also  did not focus on a low amount of dairy but on lots of it. Even the study focusing on lesser amounts of raw dairy involved the raw dairy component being 1/3 of the diet. For scientific rigor, they should have done long-term tests on cats fed only on raw dairy only. Interestingly, in the meat study on wikipedia:- " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr.  In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems. So, the study shows that, even including 1/3 of the diet as raw dairy was not enough to stop the cats from developing health-problems.
Quote
Well these two arguments are much stronger when used on cats. Cats have been exposed to dairy as adults for far less time than humans (and even if you say it's more generations, historically cats wouldn't be fed as much milk as adult humans would consume)
  Wrong, cats were domesticated well before dairy was invented as a food by humans. Therefore the likelihood is that cats have been exposed to raw dairy as long as humans have been.
Quote
Likewise, as a herbivore, a cow's digestive system is more similar to humans, which are omnivores than to cats, which are carnivores. Finally, dairy cows have been bred over thousands of generations to provide milk and dairy products that are more beneficial to humans. It could even be that this effect has been so dramatic that a cow's milk might be even better for humans than for the cows' own offspring.
Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans. Also, humans are very poor at eugenics. Usually, any eugenics programs lead to horrors like the Habsburg Lip - take domesticated animals for example. Researchers have found that they on average have brain-sizes c.10% less than their wilder counterparts, and are generally more stupid than the latter. Cows with their unnaturally large udders get extra health-problems due to the millenia of dysgenics, and other domesticated species like dogs also have special health-problems if they are too inbred a breed. And, as I pointed out before, cows' milk is designed to feed a calf and get it to adult size within  a 2 year period - human milk differs considerably from cows' milk as it is designed to grow a much larger hominid brain compared to a cow. Here is data showing the wide differences:-

http://www.jbc.org/content/16/2/147.full.pdf
Quote
How does this discredit his findings? Does he have to spend years with each tribe to get a general idea of what they eat and how good their health is compared to city dwellers? 
In order to get an accurate idea of peoples' health, it is necessary to spend more than a few days or weeks to examine them. That way, he could have learned a lot more about health-problems that take much longer to manifest. Basically, he was a naive believer in the Noble Savage theory and focused too much on the issue of teeth. I mean, just by lacking sweets and modern sugars, the tribespeople would have had healthier teeth - it does not mean that they thrived on raw dairy consumption.
Quote
No, the evidence, provided by archaeologists, is clear-cut and available all over the Internet.

They did. Again, Weston Price.
*sigh* The evidence that palaeo-era bones were much stronger than in Neolithic times is all over the Net and easily googleable. My point was simple:- if raw dairy really helped build bones, then one would have seen some sort of positive effect on bones, particularly among Neolithic-era societies which consumed raw dairy but no grains. Yet, the bones of palaeo-era peoples were much stronger, indicating that raw dairy is at the very least useless re building bones, and quite likely very harmful.
Quote
Even in that study, there is confusion. The art is telling them one thing and the lab studies are telling them another. They could be wrong in one or the other or both.

In any case, by the time we get more recorded history, the tendency is clear: large amounts of grain are for the poor. Those who aren't poor mainly eat meats, dairy, eggs, honey, vegetables and fruits.
All classes, even up to  middle-ages, ate large amounts of grains. Sure, the upper classes would have been more likely to have a wider variety of diet, but not on a regular basis.
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,790
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2019, 03:21:02 am »
By "looseness" I mean, my teeth were on the verge of falling off. Indeed, as I switched to eating raw meat, the raw meat hurt my teeth so badly that I was forced to age the meat a few days. I also had to cut the raw meat into tiny slices and just swallow without chewing.

I do accept that some people thrive on raw dairy. it is just that there are a lot of people who do better without it.
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline dariorpl

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2019, 07:36:36 am »
Like I said before, they were targetting the issue of excess calcium in dairy, the issue of raw vs cooked is not relevant since you have no solid  scientific data to prove that raw dairy is more protective of bones than pasteurised dairy.

They can "target" whatever they want. They base their whole analysis on survey data from various countries according to the comparative levels of consumption of cooked dairy. It's not me who has to prove that raw dairy wouldn't cause any problems. That's not how science works.

Meat isn't dairy, it is an entirely different substance, not comparable to dairy.

Gotcha. So meat is very different when going from raw to cooked, but dairy isn't, because you hate dairy.

Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all.

And the meat of a deer is meant to help the deer run around. What's that got to do with anything?

Even the meat comparison is absurd in other ways - I mean, if you eat the meat of a poison-dart frog, you die.

It's only absurd to you because you didn't understand it. All you can do is name a few species from animals of a completely different class.

The Pottenger studies were unscientific because they based evidence on cats not humans.

How does that make them unscientific? Again, I think you don't understand what something being unscientific means. In fact it's you who is using unscientific reasoning by claiming to have proven that raw dairy is harmful because some people have some evidence to suggest cooked dairy might be.


The studies also  did not focus on a low amount of dairy but on lots of it. Even the study focusing on lesser amounts of raw dairy involved the raw dairy component being 1/3 of the diet. For scientific rigor, they should have done long-term tests on cats fed only on raw dairy only. Interestingly, in the meat study on wikipedia:- " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger_Jr.  In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems. So, the study shows that, even including 1/3 of the diet as raw dairy was not enough to stop the cats from developing health-problems.

This has nothing to do with "scientific rigor". Nobody is arguing that a diet of pure dairy is superior to other diets. That would be like telling someone who claims that some salt is healthy to put test animals on a 100% salt diet, with no other nutrients being fed to them.

The studies showed basically the same result on 2/3 dairy as 1/3 dairy.

Wrong, cats were domesticated well before dairy was invented as a food by humans. Therefore the likelihood is that cats have been exposed to raw dairy as long as humans have been.

No, it was after. And in any case, they wouldn't have been fed dairy on a regular basis. Their feed was primarily the rodents and birds they'd catch, which is why they were kept around in the first place. They weren't pets.

Wrong again. Cows have multiple stomachs and extra enzymes etc. etc. unlike humans. Cats have simpler digestive systems more similiar to humans.

You keep reading whatever you want into what I say. I didn't say there is more difference between a cat and a human than between a human and a cow. I said there's more difference in dygestive abilities between a cat an a cow, than between a human and a cow.

You probably don't even realize it, but you're actually making my point when you say cats and humans have pretty similar digestive systems.

Also, humans are very poor at eugenics. Usually, any eugenics programs lead to horrors like the Habsburg Lip - take domesticated animals for example. Researchers have found that they on average have brain-sizes c.10% less than their wilder counterparts, and are generally more stupid than the latter. Cows with their unnaturally large udders get extra health-problems due to the millenia of dysgenics, and other domesticated species like dogs also have special health-problems if they are too inbred a breed.

That's because you're misunderstanding the actual goal of the breeding. Intelligence isn't always the best trait to have, just like for humans, it doesn't matter that much if cows aren't in perfect health, as long as they give us better health. Also, many of these problems are due to these animals being fed unnatural diets in modern times.

And, as I pointed out before, cows' milk is designed to feed a calf and get it to adult size within  a 2 year period -

Designed by who? God? Because if so, well then God probably also designed us with the ability to farm cattle and get their milk. If you mean designed by natural selection, well then again, we've selected the cows to give us better milk for us, too.

human milk differs considerably from cows' milk as it is designed to grow a much larger hominid brain compared to a cow. Here is data showing the wide differences:- http://www.jbc.org/content/16/2/147.full.pdf

I didn't say it doesn't differ. Btw, in that link it kinda looks like they're not very different at all. Definitely way more similar to each other than all the other milks from all the other mammals around.

Also, keep in mind that the selection of cow milk may not be to suit the needs of baby humans the best, but adult humans.

In order to get an accurate idea of peoples' health, it is necessary to spend more than a few days or weeks to examine them. That way, he could have learned a lot more about health-problems that take much longer to manifest. Basically, he was a naive believer in the Noble Savage theory and focused too much on the issue of teeth. I mean, just by lacking sweets and modern sugars, the tribespeople would have had healthier teeth - it does not mean that they thrived on raw dairy consumption. *sigh*

Looking at people's teeth is quick and easy, and through his studies he found that this correlated to general health in peoples whom he had studied more in deph. Also, look at Pottenger's studies again. Tooth decay corresponds with all the other health problems caused by the cooked foods diet.

The evidence that palaeo-era bones were much stronger than in Neolithic times is all over the Net and easily googleable. My point was simple:- if raw dairy really helped build bones, then one would have seen some sort of positive effect on bones, particularly among Neolithic-era societies which consumed raw dairy but no grains. Yet, the bones of palaeo-era peoples were much stronger, indicating that raw dairy is at the very least useless re building bones, and quite likely very harmful.

They were also stronger than modern day hunter gatherers. There's many other reasons to explain this, rather than simply blame dairy. They were cooking more of their foods, for starters, even if they weren't eating much grains.

All classes, even up to  middle-ages, ate large amounts of grains. Sure, the upper classes would have been more likely to have a wider variety of diet, but not on a regular basis.

Not really. Bread and other grains and legumes have always been associated with the poor. In the middle ages the nobility would use bread as a plate to serve food in, they didn't eat it, they just gave it to the poor to eat after the meal.
We now live in a world where medicine destroys health, law destroys justice, education destroys knowledge, government destroys order, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and banking destroys the economy

Offline PaganGoy

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Wewant2live
Re: drinking milk and dying earlier
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2019, 04:16:23 pm »
"Dairy, ultimately, is meant to sustain and help infants of the very species it is created from, that's all."
autism much?
A page from the ww2l members area

Raw Milk is Safe But Beware of Big Commercial Milks
 July 29, 2014  admin  Subscriber Content   
Viewed 12 times since 15 July 2018
Raw Milks are Safe and Nutritious but Beware of Big Commercial Milks

Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Okay, milk. Delicious, wonderful milk. Milk is one of the most nutritious foods there is.

 

Besides the egg, it is the most easily digestible. It only takes 6 - 10 hours to digest - raw milk of course.

 

Once it’s pasteurized, 50% of the calcium is cauterized. That means it’s hardened into a substance that can’t be utilized to do what it’s supposed to do in the body, including building healthy tissue.

 

It has a tendency to build brittle bones and dry tissue when you’re drinking pasteurized milk.

 

Milk is the most easily digested food, next to eggs. It only takes 6 - 10 hours. It’s already liquid, so the body doesn’t have to do much with hydrochloric acid or any of the digestive juices. What it will do is infiltrate with bacteria and as I said earlier, bacteria is the main process of digestion so all it has to do is infiltrate it.

 

Egg is the most digestible and that digests in a matter of 27 minutes. Again, it doesn’t require any hydrochloric acid or digestive juices to pre-digest it, to break larger particles of food down into smaller particles of food so that bacteria can eat it - consume it.

 

And of course, their waste is our food.

 

If you buy regular milk from a big milk company, you’ll notice that they say it’s milk, fat-free. That’s because they will take the milk, they’ll remove all animal fat from it and they will put oils and esters in place of it. They’re usually vegetable oils, and remember what I said about vegetable oils - they will crystallize and harden in the body. So when you’re drinking a very well-known, famous brand of milk, what they’ve basically done is taken the milk, they’ve deprived it of protein and they’ve deprived it of the fats. And it’s a blue liquid. It has no relationship to milk at all and it will have a very long shelf-life.

 

So then what they do is they take dolomite - mined calcium, calcium concentrated rock - and they shovel it into the vats to turn this blue fluid back into a white fluid. It’s all a hoax: there is no relationship to milk at all in it. Plus they use hydrogenated vegetable oils which are plastic. So you have something that is totally foreign and chemical, and it isn’t milk at all.

 

The only place you can get totally pure raw milk is from a farmer who produces raw milk. There are a few states you can get it commercially in stores, but not many: California is one, and you can go into some stores… Whole Foods is a joke again. Whole Foods stopped carrying raw milk in California when they could. They say it’s an insurance issue. It has nothing to do with insurance, they’ve carried insurance before. I talked to the insurance company and they are very willing to continue to insure that food, just like they insure the meats and everything else. So, raw milk is a wonderful food, it helps calm the body. The cream in it is the only fat that completely nutrifies the brain and nervous system. Butter can do it about two thirds, but raw cream and milk does it 100%.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk