Some background: I’m lactose intolerant. Some of my friends (such great friends that they actually remember my condition and don’t try to cram dairy products down my throat all the time!) told me I should try some raw milk as an experiment. They had some (no cow in the back yard … I don’t know if they bought it under the table or if it was a gift and I didn’t ask) and recommended I try some. This was very brave of them given the symptoms of lactose intolerance.
Anyway, since they had suggested it before I asked them what the deal was … just that raw milk is so great everyone should have it regardless of the symptoms? They said, No, it’s because it already has lactase in it, it’s just that pasteurization kills the enzyme. Naturally I countered that it’s just a compound, it can’t be killed, and they said Well, it gets denatured by pasteurizing.
I was surprised - I had never heard of this before; I do know of some lactase-fortified milk but it is far from raw. So I went online and found one site which agrees with me and a bunch which don’t. I’m outvoted but I’m still skeptical. I included the MD and PhD references mainly in jest but it is a surprise that this is even argued … it seems easily verified but I don’t have any lab equipment. Or any milk for that matter.
I’ll check if it’s in milk, but lactase is an enzyme that degrades lactose (a sugar) which otherwise gets digested by bacteria in the intestines and excreted as CO[sub]2[/sub] which produces the farting, bloating, stomach ache, etc.
It strikes me as highly unlikely that an enzyme that degraes the lactose in the milk is already present in the milk. That would imply that raw milk digests itself.
??? I’m not getting this. Your friends are saying that raw milk has both lactose–the milk sugar that gives you gas–and lactase–the enzyme that digests the milk sugar–in it, at the same time?
How could that possibly be true? Because then the lactase would get busy digesting the lactose before the calf could make any use of it. Cow’s milk is designed to be drunk by baby cows, remember, so it’s designed to be nutritious, and it seems counter-productive to have it busy removing its own nutritious milk-sugar components while it’s waiting in the udder to be drunk.
Please note that both your “yes” sites are special pleading raw milk propaganda vehicles and that both reference the ancient experiments of Dr. Pottenger.
Could they cite anything more recent or of more relevance? Highly doubtful.
I know of no evidence whatsoever that raw milk contains lactase, and I have studied the subject for over twenty years. As noted above, it would make no sense. Lactase is made in the intestines of all mammals under the age of weaning and so there is no need for the lactose to come pre-digested.
The battle between pasteurized and raw milk was fought out in the early part of the century, and both sides had points on their sides. (See, for example, Nature’s Perfect Food: How Milk Became America’s Drink, by E. Melanie Dupuis.) Raw milk lost out because it was too expensive to produce in quantity and bacterial problems could too easily creep into even “model” farm systems.
I don’t doubt that raw milk, produced under perfect sanitary conditions, is perhaps a better product than pasteurized milk, if only because pasteurization kills off vitamin C. But I do doubt that it has any special health benefits.
And it certainly doesn’t have lactase. Ruth Kava’s article is correct.
Hi Boris. Are your friends just using you for experiments? Or are you looking for a beverage yourself? If the latter, I’ve found Silk much nicer than most of the soy beverages. I served their eggnog this month and nobody guessed that it was soy.
I think the only way you’re going to be able to know if it upsets your system or not, is by trying it and I can understand why you might not want to
I think it depends on the individual person’s sensitivty: one of my friends sploshed skimmed milk into my tea thinking it “would be alright” without me knowing - only to find it wasn’t. heh.
Actually, the bacteria are probably dead and beyond helping you with anything by the time you get the product. However, it doesn’t make any difference, because they have already turned most of the lactose (which you are intolerant of) into lactic acid (which you can tolerate) in the process of turning fresh milk into yoghurt or kefir.
Many of the yogurts state on the container that they contain live bacteria. If this is not so, I would think the FDA would have stepped in by now. It’s a moot point as far as the lactose goes; however, it is important from the probiotics viewpoint.
Good fresh yogurt made with live and active cultures has cultures that are live and active when you spoon them into your mouth. Good thing, too, because much of the lactose still remains in the yogurt, but the lactase made by the cultures helps digest the lactose when it reaches the intestines.
…most of the adult world is also lactose intolerant…
Huh? First time I ever heard such a thing, and I can’t say I find it believable. There sure are a mess of adults who put milk on cereal, eat ice cream, etc. without complaint. Cite? Clarification?
Lactose Intolerance: A Common Problem
Most of the global population is lactose intolerant. The production of a high amount of lactase into adulthood exists only in a minority of ethnic groups. Here’s a brief scientific project description on The Decline of Intestinal Lactase at Weaning and in Human Adult-Type Lactose Intolerance, by Prof. G. Semenza and Dr. N. Mantei
Groups among whom lactose malabsorption predominates (60% to 100%):
Africa: South Nigerian peoples, Hausa, Bantu
Asia: Thais, Indonesians, Chinese, Koreans
Near East and Mediterranean: Arabs, Jews, Greek Cypriots, Southern Italians
North and South America: Eskimos, Canadian and U.S. Indians, Chami Indians
Groups among whom lactose absorption predominates (2% to 30%)
Africa: Hima, Tussi, Nomadic Fulani
Europe: Danes, Finns, Germans, French, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Northern Italians
India: Punjab and New Delhi areas
Source: adapted from Johnson et al. 1974
Gary, lactose intolerance is the rule for many east and central Asians, and I believe for those of African descent, as well. Lactose tolerance is mostly found in cultures with a long history of domestication of cattle, and not even in all of those (e.g., India).
The classic study on the incidence of lactose intolerance is Nevin S. Scrimshaw and Edwina B. Murray: “The Acceptability of Milk and Milk Products in Populations with a High Prevalence of Lactose Intolerance,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1988;48:1080-1159, a meta-analysis of all the hundreds of individual population studies done up to that time. Indeed there haven’t been that many since, probably because there were so few places left to study and the studies weren’t bringing in anything new. In truth, most of the earlier studies should be redone with more representative populations and more modern, more accurate LI tests, but LI just isn’t a glamour field.
Anyway, the study found that except for a few rare instances, the only populations with a majority of people who were tolerant to lactose as adults were those descended from northern white Europeans. The vast majority of Asians, Africans, and Native populations were LI as adults. Those around the Mediterranean Sea were about 50/50 and this faded to 5-15% LI as you looked north into Europe. There was even a correlation between how early a population became LI and how large a percent of adults were LI, the earlier the larger.
OK, but now I’ve got a question: If, as RealityChuck’s cite tells us, ingestion of lactase is pretty useless due to its inactivation by stomach acid, how do lactase products (Lactaid, etc.) work?
At least some lactase products are enteric coated. Check the label. Enteric coating means it’s protected from breakdown in the stomach, and becomes active in the small intestine.
