Jump to content

Drinking Milk: Healthy or Not?


Recommended Posts

When I was 11 years old, I told my doctor that I was only drinking three small cups of milk a day. I was extremely skinny and short for my age, so she suggested that I increase my daily intake to four cups (and by cups I mean 8oz.) So for about a year and a half until I was 13, I was drinking four cups of 1% fat milk a day.

 

I didn't grow any taller. What I did end up doing, however, was gaining 25 pounds (80 to 105). And for a preteen, that's plenty to be freaked out about. I immediately stopped drinking milk. Instead, for the past four or so years I've only been drinking calcium-fortified soymilk. Since then, I have only gained 8 or so pounds, and most of that was probably due to the fact that I grew five inches ;)

 

Soymilk gets my vote over dairy milk any day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

To the best of my knowledge, in spite of all the half-assed studies to the contrary, the only substance in milk that has been scientifically demonstrated to be bad for you is saturated fat. Full cre

I think milk is good for you. It contains calcium. But I mean you could live without it.

I havent heard that it can kill you, only that if you drink too much you will spew it up, and that it's terribe for your vocal chords.

But that's it.

I guess to much of everything is bad for you =/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Urban legend, actually. There's not enough tryptophan in turkey to induce sleepiness. It's just the effect from over-eating in general.

 

This should be posted in the food myths thread.

 

And as for the milk bit, it's a source of protein, calcium, and fat. All of those are needed (in moderation, obviously). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this is really low down on the health priority list, and you'd have to be almost abusing milk to get any negative effects from it.

 

I realize that anecdotes aren't science, but w/e:

 

One of my friends from high school would drink more than a liter of milk in a day, every day (he liked the taste), and he saw no ill effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I have two questions:

 

(1) Ignoring whatever other stuff might be put into the milk in the massive commercial production it undergoes before reaching the store shelves: Is milk good for the human body?

 

This is still being debated. Some say it's bad, some say it's good.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS: The results support the hypothesis that cows' milk may contain a triggering factor for the development of IDDM (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus)

http://mail.turkiye-klinikleri.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/11/1081

 

 

Dietary patterns characterized by increased dairy consumption have a strong inverse association with IRS (insulin resistance syndrome) among overweight adults and may reduce risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/16/2081

 

 

Regular milk consumption in youth and adulthood is associated with better bone mineral density at cortical and trabecular sites in elderly women.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/8/1319

 

 

And there's the question of whether milk increases mucus production. Some people have an intolerance or allergy to milk, but for others a bit of dairy a day doesn't seem to be too harmful.

 

 

(2) Now, considering the commercial production, and whatever is inserted into it (I doubt it's poisonous, but i don't know enough to state anything about this..) -- is it *still* healthy?

 

Again, there are some that say raw milk is the best because pasteurisation destroys the vitamins in the milk, but pasteurisation also destroys the nasty bacteria.

 

 

So, in short: Should I still be drinking milk, and if so, how much is too much, and if not, how can I kill myself right now?

 

I think that if your body isn't showing any adverse affects when you consume milk then you can continue to drink it. Don't over do it though; it would probably be best to stick to the recommended daily calcium intake levels. And stick to low fat milk. But also remember that calcium can be found in other foods, and it's important to have a balanced diet.

 

 

To meet the body’s daily calcium requirement, it is recommended that you eat three serves of dairy products a day. One serve is equivalent to:

250ml of milk

35g (one matchbox-sized piece) of cheese

200g yoghurt

200g (four small scoops) of icecream.

 

 

Although milk is an excellent source of calcium, it isn’t the only one. Other good sources include:

Cheese, especially hard cheeses

Yoghurt

Calcium-fortified soy products

Calcium-fortified cereals, orange juice

Fish with edible bones, like canned salmon and sardines

Some nuts (almonds, brazil nuts)

Sesame seeds (tahini)

Dried fruit (figs, apricots)

Dark green leafy vegetables (Asian greens like bok choy).

 

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Milk_the_facts_and_fallacies?open

 

 

Something else to read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2003/dec/13/foodanddrink.weekend

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge, in spite of all the half-assed studies to the contrary, the only substance in milk that has been scientifically demonstrated to be bad for you is saturated fat. Full cream milk is about 5% fat by weight.

 

I drink lots of low fat milk - mainly in coffee, since I make my own latte's. The milk I drink is 0.2% fat by weight. This gives me heaps of calcium and protein etc.

 

Incidentally, another food with lots of calcium is any meat that is mechanically deboned. That is because the knives of the mechanical deboner scrape off bone dust into the meat. The bone dust is a great calcium additive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, another food with lots of calcium is any meat that is mechanically deboned. That is because the knives of the mechanical deboner scrape off bone dust into the meat. The bone dust is a great calcium additive.

 

Is this doen on purpose in the mechanical deboning process or is this a good byproduct? How much does it affect it btw? doesn't sound like a whole lot of bone dust will get into the meat like that, and wouldn't it be washed off when the meat is later on treated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I once had a meal cooked by a Nigerian man and his daughter. We had Chicken and rice with peas in it. As we got near to the end of the meal I was supprised to hear 'crunch, crunch, crunch..' coming from his direction - I looked over to see him munching away on the bones and knawing out the marrow. I told him that we don't usually do that and he said that it was his source of calcium as he thought drinking milk was disgusting - different culture. I drink alot less milk than I did as a child.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mechanical deboning of meat is done simply because it is cheaper than manual. The bone flour is ground off because the mechanical device is powerful - lots of horse power. The best high calcium meat is mince (hamburger) since the bone flour is mixed in with the meat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the reason why calves stop drinking their mother's milk, and why we as humans stop drinking our mother's milk, is because we all get too big. At a certain point, it becomes too much of a hassle for the calve to get under there and get the milk. Plus, milk is the initial form of nutrition because the organism's body just isn't able to digest or consume the food that the adult version does. For humans, it's pretty hard to eat anything without teeth. ;D

 

In regards to the research on health aspects of consumption, I won't believe any of it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a good study on a food or drink unless it has something that is completely different in it than any other food/drink out there. (Research on Alcoholic beverages is pretty easy since alcohol is a unique compound and it's easy to see the effects in causes).

 

To do a proper study on milk, one would need to keep track of EVERYTHING that a person ingests or is exposed to for a few decades. The "findings" in current research is flawed because you don't know if something else the people ingested or were exposed to caused any problems that are found. Unless you did a perfect control where the only differences in the subjects are the milk. This is only possible with identical twins to keep genetic differences out of the equation. As you can see, ethically a study of that nature would be horrifically wrong and impossible to do.

 

I don't drink as much milk as I used to because living on my own and constantly being away from my home, any milk I buy tends to go bad before I can drink it all and spoiled milk is the worst thing on the planet. I also would only drink skim milk because yes, the fats in milk are not good for you. The health qualities of fat are pretty well known, but fat itself isn't horrifically bad. In fact, you need fat in order to survive.

 

So I am not going to say that milk is bad to drink, nor will I say that it is a cure-all. I just do not believe any of the "conspiracy theories" out there and actually find many of them laughable. (People who go crazy over conspiracy theories have some psychological and cerebral deficiencies in my eyes).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I once had a meal cooked by a Nigerian man and his daughter. We had Chicken and rice with peas in it. As we got near to the end of the meal I was supprised to hear 'crunch, crunch, crunch..' coming from his direction - I looked over to see him munching away on the bones and knawing out the marrow. I told him that we don't usually do that and he said that it was his source of calcium as he thought drinking milk was disgusting - different culture. I drink alot less milk than I did as a child.

 

I also think drinking milk is disgusting... the taste is absolutely repulsive. My mom says I stopped drinking it when I was about 6 months old. However, I do not chow down on bones and marrow. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden we have something which is called: lättmjölk which has 0.5% in fat. It's something which I have nothing against drinking together with a meal. Milk with higher fat is in my opinion, disgusting!

 

Mostly I enjoy to mix some heated milk with some cocoa, cream and sugar. Tastes in my opinion very good.

 

I meant cacao.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in an area where there are a number of farms(my best friend as a kid lived on a farm, dairy as well) and i have done a study on the processing of milk and, well there is nothing much to it appart from pasteurising and possibly skimming if you want to remove the fats.

 

this will cause some degradation of the proteins in the milk and will lead to a slightly different taste but it does not substantially change the nutritional value of the milk. you will still be able to absorb all the nutrients you would if you were drinking it straight from the udders of the cow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In Sweden we have something which is called: lättmjölk which has 0.5% in fat. It's something which I have nothing against drinking together with a meal. Milk with higher fat is in my opinion, disgusting!

 

Mostly I enjoy to mix some heated milk with some cocoa, cream and sugar. Tastes in my opinion very good.

 

I meant cacao.

 

So, you get milk, remove the cream (low fat milk), and add more cream? :doh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that it's pretty funny! :)
Funny weird, not funny ha-ha. Why is regular milk disgusting, but low-fat milk with some cream added to it is not? I'm assuming the disgusting part is the fatty texture, which doesn't change by adding cacao and sugar, but maybe the flavors hide the texture for you. Or is regular milk disgusting because you know you're drinking more fat than the lättmjölk has? In that case, you're just fooling yourself by forgetting that you're adding the fat with the cream, perhaps even more than regular milk has.

 

Sorry to nitpick but this is Jump on Seeming Disparities Week and I just forgot to tell everyone else. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

OMG, mooeypoo, for some weird reason, I always thought that you were a he.

 

I have been waivering on this issue of calcium absorption from milk for quite some time, seen it argued both ways back and forth, back and forth ... until now. Houston, we have an answer.

 

In this study, calcium absorption from whole milk was compared to the absorption from 5 other calcium salts (supplements) and the differences were negligible.

 

Whether ingested calcium is absorbed more efficiently from freely water-soluble calcium salts than from poorly soluble salts is unclear. It is also unknown whether calcium is absorbed better from dairy products than from calcium salts. Using a method by which the net absorption of calcium can be accurately measured after a single dose, we studied eight healthy fasting subjects after they took a 500-mg dose of calcium from each of five calcium salts with various degrees of water solubility and from milk. The order of administration of the agents given was randomly determined. The mean (+/- SEM) net calcium absorption, in decreasing order of the solubility of the salts, was 32 +/- 4 percent from calcium acetate, 32 +/- 4 percent from calcium lactate, 27 +/- 3 percent from calcium gluconate, 30 +/- 3 percent from calcium citrate, and 39 +/- 3 percent from calcium carbonate. The differences in absorption were not statistically significant according to analysis of variance. On the basis of in vitro solubility experiments in acid mediums, we hypothesize that acid dissolution in the gastrointestinal tract may be responsible for the similar absorption of calcium from salts with widely different water solubilities. Calcium absorption from whole milk (31 +/- 3 percent) was similar to absorption from calcium salts. We conclude that calcium absorption from carbonate, acetate, lactate, gluconate, and citrate salts of calcium, and from whole milk, is similar in fasting healthy young subjects. Further study will be required to determine whether the results would be different in older subjects, with a higher dose of calcium, or if the calcium was ingested with food.

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/9/532

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly if cooked or radiated milk then become as pus. Dead blood cells that encourage mucous. Since that's all milk be are blood cells. We need to eat whole foods with living bacteria and need to stop killing all of the bacteria eaten. I don't get the reason the FDA seeks to outlaw raw milk. As long as someone understands that eating ANYTHING can get them sick they should be allowed to do as they please. As foods are not reacting the same as psychoactive drugs. Rural small farms have time and again been proven to have less harmful protozoa than large industries.

 

I am lactose intolerant unless goats milk. Goat and cow react different to the body with the goat being easier to digest (although both cow and goat are bovine and kin).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly if cooked or radiated milk then become as pus. Dead blood cells that encourage mucous.

...what? what blood cells? what mucous.. what.. uhm.. are you talking about?

 

 

Since that's all milk be are blood cells.

are you claiming milk is all blood cells? ... or that it has blood cells? I.. don't quite understand what you're saying.

 

We need to eat whole foods with living bacteria and need to stop killing all of the bacteria eaten. I don't get the reason the FDA seeks to outlaw raw milk. As long as someone understands that eating ANYTHING can get them sick they should be allowed to do as they please. As foods are not reacting the same as psychoactive drugs. Rural small farms have time and again been proven to have less harmful protozoa than large industries.

Raw milk is very fatty, that might be one reason, but regardless, I think you're mixing a bunch of subjects together, and it would help if you give a few supporting evidence?

 

I am lactose intolerant unless goats milk. Goat and cow react different to the body with the goat being easier to digest (although both cow and goat are bovine and kin).

 

I love milk and I am not lactose intolerant (I actually had a "scare" a few months ago where my doc claimed I might be.. but am not). The question is - with today's processing techniques in America, and growing methods (hormones? whatever), is it good for the body to drink milk, or isn't it?

 

As far as I can see, it's still unclear either way, leaning more towards the "safe to drink milk" side.

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I mean milk has large amount of white blood cells that are living. And that when those are heated they are killed and are dead. I see basis for there to be a difference of the effect on the body and health overall when eating such a large portion of these white blood cells at their dead state. I view these cells that are dead as the pus element.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have conducted several Internet searches with so many various terms and everything on this subject or raw versus pasteurized and or cooked (duh I know these processes are not the same thing but I found neither) appears to be so undisclosed to the public that are including 100% whole raw milk comparisons with pasteurized. I have used multiple search engines.

 

But I have found something about statistic sites that do list the same data as recorded by scientists a long time ago. :

 

 

http://www.livway.org/statistics.htmh

 

ttp://www.blackherbals.com/your_state's_average_pus_count.htm

 

I am not able to look all over and discover the data being hidden and undisclosed right now.

Alright I'll leave this subject be now. At this point I don't actually want to go any further talking about this since if you all to consume twice dead cells thats fine with me. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright I'll leave this subject be now. At this point I don't actually want to go any further talking about this since if you all to consume twice dead cells thats fine with me. :)

 

I postulate that your departure from this thread has more to do with the fact that you are a little kid who has said something which he cannot back up with real data, and that you've been openly challenged on that and still cannot support it. Either way, you're leaving is going to be appreciated by many here. Thanks! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.