• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

VERY interesting and educational...

I will have to do some research and try and remember where I read it, but the jest was that when milk is pasteurized, it destroys some of the enzymes that occur in milk naturally to help break down lactose.

I will see if I can remember where I read that.

Bry
 
Here is one place-not where I read it originally but still a link?

Raw Milk FAQ

Q: I'm lactose intolerant. Can I drink raw milk?

A: Chances are good that you may, even if you're of African or Asian descent, assuming you can find a reliable source near your home. Unheated milk contains its full complement of enzymes and lactase-producing bacteria needed by our bodies to break down and assimilate the milk sugar lactose. These helpful bacteria are killed in the pasteurization/homogenization process. Fermented milk products, such as yogurt and kefir, naturally lower in lactose due to the actions of various Lactobacillus and other lactic acid-producing bacteria, may be better tolerated by some.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I got nothing out of reading that.
 
I will have to do some research and try and remember where I read it, but the jest was that when milk is pasteurized, it destroys some of the enzymes that occur in milk naturally to help break down lactose.

I will see if I can remember where I read that.

Bry

Okay, but referring to the link that I posted.....the Masai only drink raw milk. So either way it was the raw milk or meat that causes their atheroschlerosis. The pasteurization and homegenization don't have anything to do with it. I've heard all these special claims from people who drink raw milk and I'm really not convinced of any of them. Just 2 months ago a person in a town over from me got brucelosis from a raw milk farm pick-up associated with the Weston Price Foundation. Not for me, no thanks.
 
I drank only raw milk for about two months. Then I went back to drinking pasteurized milk, because raw milk was about double the price and I thought I could better spend that money elsewhere.

Never really saw much difference...except raw milk is goddamn delicious.

If I had to put my money on one or the other, I'd say it was the meat that caused the atherosclerosis...or they're all sneaking in mass quantities of peanut butter to eat.
 
Yup the discussion with Mark.

Have you gone Paleo yourself/ever dealt with Paleo people (whether the moderates or the fanatics)? If not, this probably wouldn't be interesting to you at all. If so, it should be very interesting.
 
If I had to put my money on one or the other, I'd say it was the meat that caused the atherosclerosis...or they're all sneaking in mass quantities of peanut butter to eat.

Just a humble thought, why would it be the meat and not the milk though? Dairy can actually be considered meat being animal sourced with high cholesterol, fat, and protein. If I had to guess, it would be the sugar in the high consumption of milk causing it.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I got nothing out of reading that.
All I got out of it was this:

"...genetic adaptations only occur in the event that there is a differential ability to reproduce."
 
Have you gone Paleo yourself/ever dealt with Paleo people (whether the moderates or the fanatics)? If not, this probably wouldn't be interesting to you at all. If so, it should be very interesting.

I practically eat Paleo, but my point is this. Whether it be paleo, zone, atkins, south beach etc, people will argue for and against it. I haven't seen anything at all in that thread that makes me say its ground breaking or even all that interesting really. Just my opinion though.
 
I also eat "nearly" Paleo, with the exception of things like oats, milk, and legumes. I have, at times, wondered if I would do better on a strictly Paleo diet. I haven't gone over because I feel great right now, and I hate the dogma. Still, some of their theories are interesting.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen this basic principle of Paleo dieting (no dairy) attacked (in an educated manner) on the basis that humans have physically adapted to neolithic/agricultural diet, including milk. If humans have physically changed/adapted/whatever since the Paleo man, the entire premise of Paleo dieting goes out the window, or at the very least, has its foundation shaken considerably.
 
Not really. Otherwise adaptation and theory of all old lifters would be out the window, as would most diets etc. But that's not the case, nor will it ever be.
 
Can you explain that post? I feel like there's a grammar error or something in there that's muddling it but I can't put my finger on it.
 
What I am saying is that in ES and NS the arguining of things should change, new ways are better, old ways are better argument, is old, drawn out and done to its entirety all to often. How can it "debunk" paleo? Even if it wasn't called Paleo, the way of eating has lots of merit, especially in some medical instances, as do other diets as well. Make sense?
 
I don't know about you, but I've never seen this basic principle of Paleo dieting (no dairy) attacked (in an educated manner) on the basis that humans have physically adapted to neolithic/agricultural diet, including milk. If humans have physically changed/adapted/whatever since the Paleo man, the entire premise of Paleo dieting goes out the window, or at the very least, has its foundation shaken considerably.


The Paleo diet leaves out grains and dairy. Coincidentally, grains and dairy are the two most allergenic food groups. That could be a big hint that humans haven't physically adapted to them.
 
If I had to guess, it would be the sugar in the high consumption of milk causing it.

I would guess that their overall simple carb consumption is way lower than other cultures who have less atherosclerosis (Sweeds). It could be the saturated fat afterall, the lipid hypothesis is false but there is a correlation between ldl's and saturated fats (I think according to Berardi) and the Masai probably consume more saturated fat than any other culture.
 
Back
Top