I have been trying to remember a story my brother-in-law (an ER surgeon in NYC)told me about a milk drinking kid. So I went to the source, and here’s what he wrote.
Straight from the doctor’s mouth. Now WHY it causes lower iron uptake and bleeding he doesn’t know, but he just has to treat it in ER.
I think this demonsrates two things:
in some cases, it is possible to dring too much milk.
doctors often write emails the same way they write prescriptions.
Umm, what do you think is in Mothers milk? Plant protien? :rolleyes: And your body cannot tell animal aminoacids from plant aminoacids, thus there is NO SUCH thing as “animal protien”.
Bad science. Scientific illiteracy strikes again.
Quote:
Um Daniel, not entirely true. There are certain aminoacids that are not found in plants that are only found in meat and vice versa. This is one reason that felines really can’t go fully vegan, their systems are very much dependent on a specific protein that is only found in meat.
That said, humans as Omnivores are far more unconcerned about the kind of aminoacid that they digest than are herbivores or carnivores. Our bodies are better adapted for it.
OK no need to be nasty. I do not claim to be a scientist and of course tend to look for statements which support my point of view. (But I am not a vegan, only a quasi-vegetarian with suspicions that milk is not altogether good for us.) However, Jodi, I linked the whole article that others might read and draw conclusions. I read and drew mine. I see no problem with extracting statements which seem to go towards my point, if the whole article is available.
Daniel, as you presumably possess vastly superior scientific knowledge, perhaps you can explain to me this statement:
Milk proteins are also among the most common causes of food
allergies. Often, the cause of the symptoms is not recognized
for substantial periods of time.
You have a problem with the use of the term ‘animal protein’ – is there a problem with using ‘milk protein.’ Are you sayin’ protein’s protein? (This is from the PCRM article, already slammed for being pro-vegetarian.) (This is a sincere question, BTW: please 'splain.)
As for cow’s milk versus mother’s milk, it’s not a matter of animal vs. vegetable protein :rolleyes:, but how much. Babies can digest human milk more easily than the milk of other animals, probably because human milk contains an enzyme that aids in this process. Breast milk forms softer curds in the infant’s stomach than cow’s milk (the basis for most formulas) and is more quickly assimilated into the body system. While it contains less protein than does cow’s milk, virtually all the protein in breast milk is available to the baby. By contrast, about half the protein in cow’s milk passes through the baby’s body as a waste product. This I learn from The Complete Book Of Breastfeeding by M.S. Eiger. MD and S. Wendkos Olds.
I also read in various places that milk tends to thicken mucus and exascerbates colds and sinus infections. Ferret out the ‘bad science’ in that?
There’s an article in this month’s Discover magazine which supports the claim that milk ain’t all that great for you. It mentions a study with a sample size of some 78,000 participants. Those that drank 2 or more glasses of milk per day were more likely to break bones that those who didn’t.
I haven’t read the entire article yet, or I’d paraphrase it better. I’ll read the whole thing when I get home and post anything else of relevance to this discussion. Or maybe you could just go buy the mag yourselves, you cheap bastards. 
Unfortunately, the article isn’t on Discover’s site which still shows the articles from last month in its “Current Issue” section. Slackers…
Ok, protein is made up of amino acids. “Animal protein” has all the amino acids we need, so does “plant protein”, but not in any one plant source. That is why as a Vegan, one must mix their proteins, so as to not get a protein defic, even tho you are eating plenty of “protein”, Now, what narile said is somewhat true, there are a few amnino acids that are not normally avialable in plants, but those we do not need. Protein can possibly block some mineral absorbtion, but it does not matter which type of protein is present. You body does not differentiate the SOURCE of the protien, ir just breaks it down into amino acids, of which proteins have a different mix. Mothersmilk has almost exactly the same amount of protein as cows milk, and the amino acids are the same, i think. What is different is the fat content (higher), the lactose content (much more in cows milk, thus it tastes 'sweeter"), thus the digestability (moms is way better for people, here) and finally the immune system stuff mom passes. Thus, for babies, moms is better, no doubt, as I have said before.
But for toddlers, and then more for bigger kids, there is nothing “bad” about cows milk (wierd allergies, etc, aside)it is a good source of vitamins, minerals, & protein. Kids sometimes do not get enuf of this stuff. Yes, some kids get on a milk kick, and drink a lot of it. But what would be better? Certainly not the dreaded “juice boxes” (90% highfructose corn syrup, 10% fruit juice, no protein, no minerals, some vitamin C, not much else) or soda (much worse than juice boxes). (note that there is nothing “evil” about sugar, but nothing much good= empty calories).
When you read these terribly biased sources, they are NOT giving you good info for your kids. If for some reason a meat/dairy product was the best thing for “X”* you would never see it there, they would NEVER admit it. Instead, anything that is anti-animal product is given high billing.
Are these the kind of folks you want to listen to, re YOUR kids health? They don’t give a rats ass about the health of your kid, all they care about is their agenda. (I wouldn’t listen to the Milk advisory board, either). Listen to the US Govt, they are unbiased.
*(For example, Liver <yechh> is the best thing for certain types of anemia, especially that which is common in some vegan women. But they would NEVER recommend it, even if it meant life or death).
I’ve seen numerous sources discussing the differences in the protein of human milk and cow’s milk. It seems to be the main problem with giving babies cows milk. (See my souce above.) This directly contradicts your assertion that the two have “almost exactly the same amount of protein.” The source is a guide to breastfeeding, written by a physician.
Ok now I do have a question. It is my observation that the “agenda” these people are “pushing” is desseminating information about health. What is this insideious hidden agenda that I must be so wary about? Certainly I’m not naive, but I gotta wonder why you put such an automatic negative spin on anything vegetarian, Daniel. It seems pretty clear that there’s a connection between consumption of meat and heart disease, for starters. What’s the big deal? You don’t work for the Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner people, do ya? 
BWAAAAAAAAAAahahahahahahahahahaha! :::wipes tears from eyes:::
>>snort<< ::::blows nose::::
I would be willing to bet that the U.S. Government received more lobbying money from the dairy association than from PETA, PCRM, and HSUS combined. Congresscritters from meat- and dairy-intensive states rely on those people for enormous contributions, and if you think that doesn’t color the conclusions of government agencies in regards to nutritional information, you’re nuts.
Has it been mentioned yet that areas with the highest consumption of diary products have higher rates of breast cancer in women and higher rates of prostate cancer in men? Has is yet been mentioned that the USDA daily recommendation of calcium intake is higher than the UN recommended dose, and that too much calcium actually increases the odds of breaking bones? Also, things in dairy products tend to leach calcium out of bones.
BTW, I’m paraphrasing the article in Discover that Neutron Star mentions.
sigh
So drink Skim Milk, which is fat FREE.
Yeesh!
OK, on to point 1. Your source says the protein in moms is more digestable, not because of the nature of the protein, but because of the nature of the milk, ie the enzymes, etc, thus the milk, including the protien, is more digestable. No arguements there- Moms milk is good for babies. But it still has “animal protein”, and if “animal protein” blocks calcium absorption, then moms milk would not be a good source of calcium either. Get it? The point is not that moms milk is bad for babies, it’s not- it’s wonderful, the point is that the “protein” in moms & cows is virtually the same, ie both “animal protein”, and thus if “animal protein” is bad, (which it is not), then moms milk is just as bad.
On to point 2. Any biased source is not good. That is exactly why I pointed out that I would not turn to the Milk Advisory board either. And the scientists and staff who work for the Dept of health get no $$ from those sources, and they back the results. There is a correlation between heart disease and eating TOO MUCH RED meat. Not from a “moderate amount”, and fish is held to be good for your heart, in some degree. You could also get heart problems from consuming too much “tropical oils”, too, but thats not a big health problem, as the American “diet” is a doublecheeseburger, fries nad a soda. Very bad, if eaten often. If you were a big macadamia nut freak, that would be just as bad, but we don’t hear about too many of them. the Gov’t site tell you to “cut back” on the amount of redmeat you consume, I note.
A vegetarian diet, esp an ovo-lacto V, is usually more healthful than the normal american “see-food” diet, ie as above. If I had a 400+ chol count, I might even consider a Vegan diet, but remembering to lay off the tropical oils and add B12.
But those vegan agenda sites are not interested in improving your health, they want to scare you out of consuming any animal products, by using bad science, and lies of ommission. They just want you to stop consuming animal products, "free’ your pets, and get rid of your leather. They don’t care about YOUR KID. In fact PETA has said YOUR KID has no more right to live than a lab rat. 'nuff said.
adam: all your stuff is unproven.
[hijack]
Intrinsically speaking, he doesn’t (unless, I suppose, you’re a theist, but that isn’t what we’re talking about).
Whose life we place more value on, culturally speaking, is an entirely different matter.
There is no natural right to life. To claim otherwise is irrational, although excusable.
[/hijack]
“the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Not for rats, just for humans.
I really hate being called a liar. You can start here http://www.afpafitness.com/MILK.HTM
Some of the high points:
Regarding calcium loss from taking dairy products…
Regarding diary intake and bone breaks…
Now Daniel lets see some of your evidence that will support your contention that my statements are unproven.
I said that the chances that hormones, passed along in cow’s milk, would have a pretty low chance of impacting the health of kids who drank the milk.
jb_farley replied:
There’s also the problem that some hormones do not survive digestion. Insulin, for example – diabetics must inject insulin, not merely swallow an insulin pill, if they wish to control their blood sugar levels.
Some hormones can survive digestion, though. The chemicals comprising anabolic steroid tablets are little more than synthetic testosterone. Likewise, estrogen and progeserone are the primary ingredients in birth control pills.
So the question is: Do any of the hormones present in cow’s milk survive digestion when ingested by small children?
Yep. Some humans wrote that, and lots of 'em believe it. It has no bearing on what I said, which I’ll repeat: “There is no natural right to life. To believe otherwise is irrational, although excusable.” I also said that intrinsically, there is no difference, unless you’re a theist (and a particular type of theist, at that); culturally, we value them differently.
If you think there is a natural right to life, outside the bounds of that created by theism, I’ll be happy to hear you defend your arguments, then defend why they apply only to one type of life and not another.
Those are very nice studies that aren’t worth diddly. Studies which ASK what people did in the past and compare have been shown to be so inaccurate as to be NEARLY worthless. I say nearly, as the studies show an “indication”. You need a properly designed double-blind or its all just ancedotes. But, studies like those can lead to a proper experiment, with double-blinds, etc. There are several problems with studies that ASK what folks did: 1 People do not always remember right, or tell the truth. 2. It is too easy for the “studyier” to “bias’ the results with their particular bias. 3. Milk (or whatever) is not the only variable, thus a condition which is thought to be caused by “milk” is actually caused by stress, or vitamins, or smoking, or… Studies like those can be used to show that alien abductions are real. Thus, the conclusions from these and similar 'studies” are considered “unproven” by the scientific community. Wasn’t calling you a liar, that’s just the term for such studies. OK?