Dp
Lynn, your posts are the evidence. Everyone who reads here knows that you are enormous, that one speck of black pepper sends you to the toilet for DAYS. We all know your vaseline and Q-tip trick. Why are you trying to be coy?
As far as raw wheat, I tried it for about 4 days, 6 years ago. My gums started bleeding badly, I stopped using it, the bleeding stopped.
So you know Amish people, yet you still act like you work for the state dairy board? It’s not like I’m saying raw dairy is magical. I think the health differences between raw and pasteurized are moderate, but not extreme. I’d say the differences between grainfed and grassfed are quite a bit larger, in terms of health effects.
I wasn’t trying to make some exact point about allergies and adaptation in human evolution. I was merely pointing out that, speaking very generally, the foods that cause the least allergic reactions are the ones a particular species is most adapted to.
And you’re somewhat wrong about allergies not interfering with digestibility. Crohn’s disease, for instance, is most definitely an immune system disorder, as are many other digestive problems. You think those don’t interfere with digestion and absorption? Come on, now. What are you selling? Because I’m not buying.
If you think any farmer selling raw milk in the US is allowing his cows to have tuberculosis, you’re lost it. Sure, there are probably some Third-World cows with it. So what? Much the same goes for the other diseases you mentioned in raw milk.
You DO realize that there was a large push for CERTIFIED raw milk in the late 1800s in the US, right? Pasteurization was seen as a stopgap measure for people living in cities, whose cows couldn’t get fresh grass. Clean milk from clean, healthy, grassfed cows was seen as preferable, and pasteurization was seen as a necessary evil needed only for sick cows living in cities.
As far as starting a new thread for raw dairy, look, you’re the one who wanted this discussion. I have little faith that anything productive will happen on this message board in this area. I’m just waiting for the discussion to reach its natural end.
And you don’t have to be so abusive. In fact, keep it up, and I might decide you’re not worth the energy.
What’s the deal with you not knowing the difference between pasteurizing and homogenizing, yet still arguing like you’re an expert about dairy? You’re begging the question.
I didn’t say the Amish never get sick. They’re actually pretty prone to head injuries, according to a chiropractor I once spoke to. Raising barns, working with heavy logs, farm equipment, etc.. They get hurt a fair amount. I also imagine they don’t get blood work done regularly, or their blood pressure checked regularly, and, quitely honestly, their diet could use some work. They eat a lot of refined grains and sweeteners in pies and pastries, and they overcook a good bit of their food, except for dairy.
What I was SAYING was that all the raw milk drinkers I know don’t ever get sick from it. They are careful to buy from scrupulous dairy farmers, and get grassfed milk too, whenever possible.
Really, though, I’d imagine most populations that do hard manual labor on farms are probably not especially long-lived. A hard life is hard on the body.
Now you’ve shown that you really don’t know what you’re talking about (although you think you do). Allergies and digestibility are not the same thing. Someone can be able to digest milk and still be allergic to it (a true IgE allergy). And someone can be lactose intolerant and unable to digest milk properly, and they are not allergic.
Your mentioning Crohn’s disease is a classic case of shifting the goalposts. Crohn’s disease has an autoimmune component to it and it affects digestion, but it is not an “allergy”. You were asking to defend your claim that allergies decrease digestibility - bringing up Crohn’s as an example is entirely wrong.
In Crohn’s the body has an autoimmune response to itself, which causes lesions in the digestive tract, and having lesions along the mucosa obviously will affect digestion. However, it’s not an allergy. And the Crohn’s autoimmune response is not in response to particular foods eaten. Although some people with Crohn’s may find that particular foods irritate them (e.g. high fiber, or spicy food, or high fat) and it maybe be helpful for an individual to avoid the foods that bother them, this “bothering” is not an allergic reaction even though it is unpleasant. And there is no consistency across individuals as to what foods are troubling - one person may have to avoid spicy foods, and another can eat it as much as they want. Also, studies have shown that there are no particular foods that trigger Crohn’s, or can ameliorate it’s symptoms. It’s very individual.
Edited to add: I have had Crohn’s disease for four years, and I am in my fourth year of nursing school. I have done a lot of research in this area.
Cease distorting what I say. One need not work for the “state dairy board”, one need only look up information on the internet from a reputable source like the Centers for Disease Control
The problem is that dairies have shown that they can not maintain the necessary levels of health and sanitation on a commercial basis. That’s why it may be permissible in many places for you to drink raw milk from a cow you own, but not to sell it. I’m sorry if it gives you cramps, but requiring pasteurization was a major public health victory. The magic of raw milk was not worth thousands of people falling ill from easily preventable disease.
And I say you’re wrong because digestibility and allergies are two different things.
See, this is why you loose credibility here. Crohn’s disease is NOT an allergy. It is an autoimmune disorder, as is multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, lupus, lactose intolerance, celiac sprue, and a number of other things that aren’t allergies, either. Allergies are also an immune system disorder, but not all immune disorders are allergies.
Please, please, educate yourself to at least the level of wikipedia on these topics before you come back here and embarrass yourself further.
Please, don’t be ignorant. Why would our farmers be any more or less ethical than farmers in other countries? There’s nothing magical about the US that makes our cows immune to disease. Cattle do suffer from disease, even when vaccinations are required. That’s why inspections are mandated.
Many of those diseases can be spread by contact with wild animals which, unless you keep the cows locked in a hermetically sealed barn their entire lives, dairy cattle will encounter. Keeping milk disease-free requires constant vigilance and effort, not going back to the way things were 150 years ago.
So? And morphine used to be for sale over the counter without a prescription and tobacco used to though good for you. History is littered with bad ideas.
Nice distortion. And irrelevant today when cities are largely cow-free and milk products are transported hundreds if not thousands of miles before reaching the end consumer.
This is not Great Debates, it’s the BBQ Pit. Please review the rules for each forum. I do not have to tolerate either misinformation or snake oil salesmen here without saying they’re wrong to their face, and I’m not required to be falsely polite about it. I think people who push unsafe ideas like raw milk being perfectly safe are a danger to others. I think people who can’t understand the difference between Crohn’s disease and a food allergy yet proselytize that ignorance are likewise a hazard to both better understanding of the real world and again to public health.
I don’t care if you stay or go. I didn’t come here to be popular or like by you, I came here to combat ignorance.
Reread my post. I didn’t say they were exactly the same.
I wish to re-visit some of the links provided by our “buddy” al27052
That link goes to a page of articles by one Ron Hoggan – well, some written things from places like alt.allergies.su and e-mails/post-replies to people also presumably on mailing lists or other internet forums. In this link Mr. Hoggan straight up admits he is not a doctor, then prattles terrible misinformation about Prader-Willi Syndrome. Most of links do not, in fact, quote any peer-reviewed studies and those that do look quite a bit like cherry-picking and/or quoting papers that do not, in fact, support his statements. Mr. Hoggan’s answer to everything seems to be that Gluten Is Evil. All of this is hosted on a website www.gluten-free.org which, on the homepage is listed as “Don Wiss’s home page”. Frankly, I have little confidence that either Mr. Hoggan or Mr. Wiss know what the fuck they are actually talking about when it comes to diet. FAIL
This is just a link to a news site, and I might add one with grammatical errors in its alledged summary of the article. Given that this site also has news on “teen celebrities” and “rejuvenating cream” it’s clearly NOT a science-oriented site but more of a general news outlet. This is NOT a peer-reviewed study, nor does it link to an actual peer-reviewed paper of any sort. FAIL.
Really, this is not looking good for your cause, Al. I’ll keep looking hoping for at least ONE actual cite that can stand on its own, but seriously, these links are not helping your argument here at all. I can see why you were so reluctant to provide them.
I know of several cases of serious digestive problems, including Crohn’s disease, that were cured or greatly improved by a radical change in diet. That’s not to say everyone with those type of disease will have the same results, but it’s pretty clear that it is, in some cases, quite curable. I’d be happy to refer you to the patients in question, if you’d like.
Just because neither of you has the knowledge to do this, or the willingness to do the research to figure out how it’s done, has nothing to do with anything.
I never said Crohn’s disease is an allergy. I’m being misquoted. And that’s that.
Yep, keep eating grains and overcooked food. Under no circumstances cook your food any less than 180 F wet heat for at least 3 hours, and eat at least 70% of your calories from refined grains.
I can provide plenty of links, but I’d rather you get sicker than change and maybe get healthier. It’s funnier that way.
In fact, I’d like to see everyone have the courage of their convictions, if they disagree with me on diet.
Eat the most refined, heavily-cooked diet possible. Include no animal products or seafoods of any kind. Eat either 90+% fat or 90+% carbs by total calorie content, nothing in between. Eat at least 70% of total calories from refined gluten-containing grains. And do it every day from now until you die.
Come on, do it. Either I’m right about overcooking and grains, or I’m wrong. Have the balls to live your convictions, people. I live my dietary convictions every day. Raw wild-caught ocean fish, raw grassfed meat, fresh organic fruit…these make up about 98% of my diet. I live my dietary convictions.
Have the courage to live yours.
You are not being misquoted. I didn’t actually accuse you of directly calling Crohn’s disease an allergy, instead I said you were shifting the goalposts and bringing up irrelevancies in order to deflect attention from your claim that allergies interfere with digestibility. Instead of defending that claim and providing evidence, you brought up Crohn’s instead.
This is typical of your behaviour in this thread. When challenged, instead of providing evidence you dance around the topic and introduce irrelevancies and go off on yet another tangent.
Are you really that stupid? Honestly? Have you ever heard of fallacy of thefalse dilemma? Just because people are asking you to provide proof about your claims that gluten is bad for everyone or that diseases can be completely eliminated by “changes in diet” which you refuse to provide details for, does not mean that they believe the “opposite” diet is best.
Only a moron would think that just because I don’t think gluten is the root of all evil and that it can be a part of a healthy diet means that I think it would be ok to have a diet that is 70% gluten.
Similarly, I think chocolate can be part of a healthy diet, but it would be stupid to live on a diet that is 70% chocolate. Quinoa is a very healthy food (that is gluten free!), but eating a diet that is 90% quinoa would not be healthy.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether an “ideal” diet has 50% carbs, or 25% carbs or 65% carbs, but if you think there’s anyone in this thread recommending a diet of 90% refined white grains then I have some oceanfront property I want to sell you in Saskatchewan.
So what you’re saying seems to be: “Eat a diet of nothing but Twinkies and Ding Dongs. That will prove that my dietary recommendations are healthy!”
Seems a bit silly to suppose that the choices are so… binary? Is that the word I’m looking for?
Binary works, as does dichotomous. As in false dichotomy.
As it stands, this guy gets by just fine with no animal products or seafood.
Omnivores consume significantly fewer carbs than vegetarians, but they weigh more on average.
AFAIK, the term “homogeneous for allergies” wouldn’t have any meaning regardless of the genetic makeup of the person. The term is ‘homozygous’.
Correct. Damn autocorrect!
You still haven’t learned that “data” is NOT the plural of “anecdote”.
Crohn’s is NOT curable. It can, in some cases, go into remission and the patient stop showing symptoms but absent completely replacing the patient’s immune system it is not curable. Crohn’s is a case of the body attacking itself.
May I point out that of course a digestive issue will improve if you change your diet accordingly. It is not cured it is in remission. If you go back to the prior eating habits, the issue will flare again.
Other than soup, stews and some braised dishes, I don’t know many cooked dishes that use those as rough directions.
What a moron. I do not know many people eating anywhere near that type of diet, nor does it come recommended to anybody. The closest I can think of is the BRAT which is used for certain issues like diagnosing dietary issues and recovery from certain diseases. There are many ways to eat that include farmed fish and seafoods, battery raised poultry, feed lot beef and factory-farmed fruits and veggies [and grains] that are perfectly healthy. All organic means is it contains carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. Anything else is advertising twaddle. And no I do not work for Con-Agra.
That’s not what I said. You are complaining of being misquoted and misrepresented yet you are doing the bulk of it. Others have addressed this as well.
Yes, you have provided links as requested. Unfortunately, so far they’ve all been shit. I can only conclude that when you provided them you hoped that I wouldn’t actually read them, and if I did, I would give up after the first page or two. Unfortunately for you, although my time to look into this is limited, I actually looked at what you provided. “Cites” are mostly reprinted postings from the old Usenet “alt” groups is not a peer-reviewed or scientific reference.
You may have been “studying” these topics for years but the sources you have been studying are shit and bullshit, mostly the opinion of food fadists of various sorts from what I’ve seen so far and in no way based in scientific research. I am trying to keep an open mind which continuing to look at the links you provided but between what I’ve seen so far, and your conduct here, I am not at all hopeful.
Well, I’ll darned – this actually does link to a study! However, the summary does NOT say a high calcium is bad for bones, what is actually says is that aging osteoblasts can not utilize high mineral levels due to diminishing numbers of such cells and age-related changes. Overstimulation may be a factor, but changing estrogen levels are mentioned as well and it is noted that estrogen is protective against osteoporosis. It should also be pointed out that the authors did not feel this definitively answered the questions and called for more research on the subject. Did you choose this based solely on the title, or did you actually bother to read the summary?
In other words, you cite does not support your claim. FAIL.
I’ll also note that the ill effects of excessive calcium have long been known – like so many other things, too much of it is not good. The problem in regards to maximizing health is not “high calcium” or “low calcium” but rather determining optimal calcium. The summary listed leaves me with the idea that simply throwing more calcium at an aging person is NOT the answer to osteoporosis, as it may be the body can’t properly utilize the calcium due to other cellular problems.
No, that is NOT a “study”, that is a link to a Reuters news article. It doesn’t provide a link to the original study. It is a revisiting of the “hygiene hypothesis” for various auto-immune disorders. It also points out that bacterial loads were not measured directly but rather were estimated using “surrogate markers”. Oh, yeah, that’s proof – not. FAIL. Again.
And… again, this is NOT a “study”, it’s an article (this time in a patient-oriented site) summarizing and simplifying research, with no link any actual peer-reviewed paper, article, or research.
I can only conclude that you have no idea what constitutes a peer-reviewed paper, actual scientific research, or a supporting cite.
No, they don’t. They don’t advise eating bateria-laden food. In fact, the Reuters article even cautions against returning to unhygenic conditions and suggests exposing the vulnerable to carefully selected harmless bacteria, not simply consuming random pathogens. Likewise, researchers investing the use of intestinal worms in auto-immune disorders don’t suggest going back to consuming food infested with wild worms, they’re trying to develop varieties least likely to cause illness for therapeutic use.
No one here (other than you and a few paleo-enthusiasts and gluten-phobics) are suggesting NO grains in the diet. No one is suggesting your absurd “70% grain” diet, either, and invariably when the word “grains” is mentioned it’s proceeded by “whole”, in other words, minimally processed. Clearly, if grains give a particular individual problems he or she should avoid them but for the vast majority of human beings grains are not harmful. Thank goodness humans are omnivores so it’s possible to eliminate large categories of foods when medically necessary and maintain health but needlessly restricting the diets of healthy people without disorders is ridiculous.
The little-to-no dairy is likewise a distortion on your part. Clearly, if one belongs the group of humans that cease lactase production in adulthood dairy is not such a good idea (again, yay that we’re omnivores) but if such capability is retained moderate dairy consumption is no problem. Also, many people with lactase deficiency can utilize dairy products that are sufficiently fermented though they certainly aren’t necessary. However, your false dichotomy here is the notion that “high calcium” = “high dairy”. Dairy is most certainly NOT the only source of calcium in the diet. Other sources include seaweeds such as kelp, nori, dulse, carrageenan, and wakame; nuts and seeds like almonds, hazelnuts, sesame, and pistachio; blackstrap molasses, beans, figs, quinoa, okra, rutabaga, broccoli, dandelion leaves and kale. If you look at that list, there are items from every continent (I’m not sure where the Austalian aborgines got theirs, but seaside there would be seaweeds and fish at the very least and in the interior I expect there were vegetable and nut sources like everywhere else). Bottom line, you can have a high-calcium diet with no dairy in it whatsoever, and too much calcium, regardless of origin, is bad for you.
I really hope by that you don’t mean “agree with the bullshit I’m trying to feed you or I’m going to go off and pout”. I have read your links. I am not impressed.