Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Milk: Does not prevent broken bones and doubles your risk of early dea (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hilts
- Start date
BoerumHill
Footballguy
Ddddddoooonnnnnnttt caaaarrrreee
Tastes good, I like it, YOLO
Tastes good, I like it, YOLO
McGarnicle
Footballguy
I may have to stop seeing my favorite hooker, Lactatin' Lucy.
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
mr roboto
Footballguy
Actually no. Skim is worse for you than full fat milk.
culdeus
Footballguy
Most of the research is showing that milk fat is really the issue. Skim may be worse because it is higher in carbs, but the causation here seems to lie in milk fat.
Ned
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
And it costs more than gas.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
G
Guest
Guest
And milk protein. Studies have shown that diets high in animal protein as a portion of daily caloric intake (15% plus) lead to heart disease and cancers. The average American consumes around or over that, ergo rises in those diseases. I suspect that milk/dairy contributes to that high animal protein factor.
Ned
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
culdeus
Footballguy
No, It's the protein. There are a billion studies out on this. It's resolved science at this point.
Just google Insulin response of whey protein isolate.
Claessens M, Calame W, Siemensma AD, van Baak MA, Saris WH. The effect of different protein hydrolysate/carbohydrate mixtures on postprandial glucagon and insulin responses in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;63(1):48-56. Epub 2007 Sep 12
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n1/abs/1602896a.html
culdeus
Footballguy
Brony
Footballguy
The real skinny
Results During a mean follow-up of 20.1 years, 15 541 women died and 17 252 had a fracture, of whom 4259 had a hip fracture. In the male cohort with a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, 10 112 men died and 5066 had a fracture, with 1166 hip fracture cases. In women the adjusted mortality hazard ratio for three or more glasses of milk a day compared with less than one glass a day was 1.93 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 2.06). For every glass of milk, the adjusted hazard ratio of all cause mortality was 1.15 (1.13 to 1.17) in women and 1.03 (1.01 to 1.04) in men. For every glass of milk in women no reduction was observed in fracture risk with higher milk consumption for any fracture (1.02, 1.00 to 1.04) or for hip fracture (1.09, 1.05 to 1.13). The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios in men were 1.01 (0.99 to 1.03) and 1.03 (0.99 to 1.07). In subsamples of two additional cohorts, one in males and one in females, a positive association was seen between milk intake and both urine 8-iso-PGF2α (a biomarker of oxidative stress) and serum interleukin 6 (a main inflammatory biomarker).
Results During a mean follow-up of 20.1 years, 15 541 women died and 17 252 had a fracture, of whom 4259 had a hip fracture. In the male cohort with a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, 10 112 men died and 5066 had a fracture, with 1166 hip fracture cases. In women the adjusted mortality hazard ratio for three or more glasses of milk a day compared with less than one glass a day was 1.93 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 2.06). For every glass of milk, the adjusted hazard ratio of all cause mortality was 1.15 (1.13 to 1.17) in women and 1.03 (1.01 to 1.04) in men. For every glass of milk in women no reduction was observed in fracture risk with higher milk consumption for any fracture (1.02, 1.00 to 1.04) or for hip fracture (1.09, 1.05 to 1.13). The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios in men were 1.01 (0.99 to 1.03) and 1.03 (0.99 to 1.07). In subsamples of two additional cohorts, one in males and one in females, a positive association was seen between milk intake and both urine 8-iso-PGF2α (a biomarker of oxidative stress) and serum interleukin 6 (a main inflammatory biomarker).
This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
Last edited by a moderator:
jhib
Footballguy
This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
That argument has always rubbed me the wrong way.I'm pretty sure the almond wasn't designed by nature to be blended up with water, strained, and mixed with some other stuff so that we can pour it over our cereal. And yet, there are tons of people who use almond milk because cow's milk wasn't designed to be drunk by humans.
cstu
Footballguy
Milk is actually the only food specifically designed for human consumption.This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
culdeus
Footballguy
My general positioning statement on milk.
-Whey protein isolate seems like the very best part of milk. You should be getting as much of this as you can.
-The rest of milk and milk products are best consumed after being fermented.
-Skim milk and reduced fat milk is nearly certainly bad for you and should be avoided at all costs
-Coconut oil is in general a better option than butter, though butter isn't an awful option and you can do a hell of a lot worse.
-Whey protein isolate seems like the very best part of milk. You should be getting as much of this as you can.
-The rest of milk and milk products are best consumed after being fermented.
-Skim milk and reduced fat milk is nearly certainly bad for you and should be avoided at all costs
-Coconut oil is in general a better option than butter, though butter isn't an awful option and you can do a hell of a lot worse.
mr roboto
Footballguy
Sure, not cows milk though.Milk is actually the only food specifically designed for human consumption.This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
jhib
Footballguy
You should really only eat those fruits if you plan on pooping out their seeds somewhere where they have a chance to grow.This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
And that counter does nothing to change the fundamental truth of the statement.This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
I'm pretty sure the almond wasn't designed by nature to be blended up with water, strained, and mixed with some other stuff so that we can pour it over our cereal. And yet, there are tons of people who use almond milk because cow's milk wasn't designed to be drunk by humans.
Put a slightly different way, even though many fruits, meats, and vegetables aren't still "evolutionarily pure," fruits, meats, and vegetables are still what adult primate bodies have always used for food. Milk is the only think among those that was specifically designed to be abandoned by adult primates, and all other adult mammals.
:badposting: would have been more appropriate, I'm afraid. That one thing is better than some alternatives does not logically serve to make it a good choice. (Or a bad one, to be fair.)
You can try to make various science and nutrition arguments that suggest milk in its various guises work well into adulthood. But that's entirely different from the evolutionary point.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
"Humans were not designed to consume milk" is completely different from "Milk was not designed to be consumed by humans."
The first argument may have some merit. The second does not -- which was the point of my previous post.
(Even the first argument, however, is an overgeneralization. While many humans are not well adapted to consuming milk as adults, many others appear to be quite well adapted to it. It seems to be an individual thing based on genetic variation.)
Last edited by a moderator:
jhib
Footballguy
The fundamental truth of the statement changes when you change the focus of the statement from what the food was designed for to what foods our bodies have always used.And that counter does nothing to change the fundamental truth of the statement.This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
I'm pretty sure the almond wasn't designed by nature to be blended up with water, strained, and mixed with some other stuff so that we can pour it over our cereal. And yet, there are tons of people who use almond milk because cow's milk wasn't designed to be drunk by humans.
Put a slightly different way, even though many fruits, meats, and vegetables aren't still "evolutionarily pure," fruits, meats, and vegetables are still what adult primate bodies have always used for food. Milk is the only think among those that was specifically designed to be abandoned by adult primates, and all other adult mammals.
:badposting: would have been more appropriate, I'm afraid. That one thing is better than some alternatives does not logically serve to make it a good choice.
Also, milk wasn't necessarily designed to be abandoned by adults. It was designed to be consumed by and be beneficial for infants. That says nothing about whether or not it would also be beneficial for adults. It seems there would be many more important factors at play that cause individuals of a certain age to wean off their mother's milk.
cstu
Footballguy
Humans were designed to consume human milk, at least until a certain age. At some point we learned how to drink the milk of other animals and it could be argued that we aren't designed for that.
culdeus
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
I think that once children were able to eat other foods that mothers had better things to do (i.e. survival) than keep a kid on her boob all day.The fundamental truth of the statement changes when you change the focus of the statement from what the food was designed for to what foods our bodies have always used.And that counter does nothing to change the fundamental truth of the statement.This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
I'm pretty sure the almond wasn't designed by nature to be blended up with water, strained, and mixed with some other stuff so that we can pour it over our cereal. And yet, there are tons of people who use almond milk because cow's milk wasn't designed to be drunk by humans.
Put a slightly different way, even though many fruits, meats, and vegetables aren't still "evolutionarily pure," fruits, meats, and vegetables are still what adult primate bodies have always used for food. Milk is the only think among those that was specifically designed to be abandoned by adult primates, and all other adult mammals.
:badposting: would have been more appropriate, I'm afraid. That one thing is better than some alternatives does not logically serve to make it a good choice.
Also, milk wasn't necessarily designed to be abandoned by adults. It was designed to be consumed by and be beneficial for infants. That says nothing about whether or not it would also be beneficial for adults. It seems there would be many more important factors at play that cause individuals of a certain age to wean off their mother's milk.
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
Milk gives me gas.
jhib
Footballguy
Paid $2.19 for a gallon of milk at Wegmans yesterday.
The gas next door is still going for $3.29.
jhib
Footballguy
Exactly.I think that once children were able to eat other foods that mothers had better things to do (i.e. survival) than keep a kid on her boob all day.The fundamental truth of the statement changes when you change the focus of the statement from what the food was designed for to what foods our bodies have always used.And that counter does nothing to change the fundamental truth of the statement.This is true of milk, but it's less true of milk than it is of any other food I can think of. What was designed by nature for consumption by adult humans? Not kale. Not garlic. Not lentils. Not anything.It's almost like it was designed by nature to serve some fundamental purpose, and that purpose wasn't to pour over cereal in your 40s.
Edit: Arguably many fruits, in a way, were designed for mammalian consumption (though perhaps not specifically human consumption). So maybe fruits rank higher on the "designed for adult human consumption" scale than milk does, but milk still ranks very high. Certainly higher than the cereal it is being poured over.
I'm pretty sure the almond wasn't designed by nature to be blended up with water, strained, and mixed with some other stuff so that we can pour it over our cereal. And yet, there are tons of people who use almond milk because cow's milk wasn't designed to be drunk by humans.
Put a slightly different way, even though many fruits, meats, and vegetables aren't still "evolutionarily pure," fruits, meats, and vegetables are still what adult primate bodies have always used for food. Milk is the only think among those that was specifically designed to be abandoned by adult primates, and all other adult mammals.
:badposting: would have been more appropriate, I'm afraid. That one thing is better than some alternatives does not logically serve to make it a good choice.
Also, milk wasn't necessarily designed to be abandoned by adults. It was designed to be consumed by and be beneficial for infants. That says nothing about whether or not it would also be beneficial for adults. It seems there would be many more important factors at play that cause individuals of a certain age to wean off their mother's milk.
Conserve energy for herself, feed the next kid that comes along that doesn't yet have other options, etc. None of that says anything about whether the milk would be a good nutritional option for one of her older offspring.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
too much plastic. I bought a cow and drink straight from its udder. Just latch on and go to town.
jhib
Footballguy
G
Guest
Guest
culdeus
Footballguy
Drifter
Footballguy
You mean google two things that have largely been shown to use skewed data and bad logic to make their points?
G
Guest
Guest
Google animal protein and cancer. Several articles and studies suggest a correlation. You don't have to subscribe to the entire cult of China Study to understand that there are multiple peer reviewed studies that suggest high amounts of animal protein as a percentage of daily caloric intake are a cause of disease.China Study and Forks Over Knives go a bridge too far IMO, but are best when making fact based arguments related to science and studies.
Several more have been conducted since.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/diet-high-in-meat-proteins-raises-cancer-risk-for-middle-aged-people/
www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/03/04/the-protein-puzzle-meat-and-dairy-may-significantly-increase-cancer-risk/
Last edited:
Wilbur Wood
Footballguy
Dude, the China Study and Forks over Knives film have been completely debunked. The underlying science behind each is complete garbage. I will not provide links, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence who has taken dietary action based upon these sources go spend a few hours and do some research and you will clearly see the inherent flaws in both. It is better to learn this stuff for yourself than take my word. Go do your own research as it is better to learn than be told
G
Guest
Guest
I respectfully disagree. They have been partially debunked in that they prescribe an all vegetable diet with no oils or sugar. The part about high amounts of animal protein and heart disease and cancer has been supported. That's what I'm referencing.
Maik Jeaunz
Footballguy
how the hell else am I supposed to eat Oreos?!?!
Similar threads
