Before we start this (and you know I love controversy!).. I am *not* debating my views.

[conuly]

Sorry. If you wish to know my feelings on the dairy industry, there is one site on my links list which should make the point very clear, even if you never visit it.

I just have a question. Got that? No arguments over the merits of consuming dairy products or alternate sources of calcium or anything. Just a question.

How could anybody reasonably say that people have to drink milk to be healthy? No species could possibly evolve with a necessity for the milk of another species, or even their own species after a certain age. That's insane! We can't escape our evolution, and we haven't had domesticated animals long enough for us to evolve to need them. So, how is it justified to say we need milk? I'm actually curious here, not argumentative.

Comments

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

We don't need milk, but you're right. We can't escape our evolution.

We no longer eat bone marrow. Many of us don't eat the vegetables that would give us calcium. That's why milk is supposed to be a required nutrient. It's really not (just ask any vegan that knows how to eat). Humans are hunter-gatherers, but since we're not running around we've had to make infinite concessions to the supposedly delicate system of our nutrition.

Also-- humans live longer. We've evolved to only have a lifespan of 40 years. We haven't changed to live longer due to evolution, but thanks to medicine and generally living better. So we have slightly different requirements than we did way back when. Women need more calcium because osteoporosis sets in. Trust me, during the paleolithic era and the agrarian revolution women did NOT worry about osteoporosis. So we haven't really evolved to need milk. We've evolved to need certain nutrients found in milk.

So yeah, we don't NEED milk, it's just a very convenient source of necessary nutrients.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

I need to sound trying to sound intelligent at seven in the morning. But I think I still basically said what I wanted to.

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

It's also a very convenient source of DEATH!

I wouldn't say that we evolved to need nutrients found in milk; more like some of us evolved to tolerate it. The majority of the world's population is still lactose intolerant, because after infancy, we can chew our food and don't need our mothers to preprocess it for us any more. So the body stops making lactase, plain and simple.

And there are many studies that show that milk actually can contribute to osteoperosis. Ever notice how they stopped running "Milk. It does a body good?" Well, that's because it doesn't. Because ironically, the proteins in milk strip more calcium from your body than you absorb by drinking it.

Hi Conuly, remember me? :)

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

I've heard that one too, I was just saying that's why it's so commonly suggested-- besides, I don't really trust new studies that much. New studies have proven that asparagus not only decreases your chances of cancer, but causes cancer too! I say you eat what you want.

Besides. I like milk.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

I never knew that about soy. That's quite frankly... scary. Good thing I don't like soy!

My opinion is: living causes cancer. So if you don't shoot yourself now, enjoy yourself. Just not in excess. There's a lot of "having a uterus causes uterine cancer" type handwringing in the scientific community lately... I've learned to ignore most of it.

[georgiapeachy.livejournal.com]

Soy has also been shown to prevent some cancers, BUT CAUSE others!

Two senior US government scientists, Drs. Daniel Doerge and Daniel Sheehan, have revealed that chemicals in soy could increase the risk of breast cancer in women, brain damage in both men and women, and abnormalities in infants.

The scientists decided to break ranks with colleagues in the FDA and oppose its decision last year to approve a health claim that soy reduced the risk of heart disease.

They wrote an internal protest letter warning of 28 studies revealing toxic effects of soy, mostly focusing on chemicals in soy known as isoflavones, which have effects similar to the female hormone estrogen.

They claim that research has shown a clear link between soy and the potential for adverse effects in humans.

Soy may lead to health problems in animals including altering sexual development of fetuses and causing thyroid disorders.

Some studies show that chemicals in soy may increase the chances of estrogen-dependent breast cancer.

According to their letter:

'There is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid.'

'During pregnancy in humans, isoflavones per se could be a risk factor for abnormal brain and reproductive tract development.'
According to one of the scientists, parents who give their children soy milk or formulas "are exposing their children to chemicals which we know have adverse effects in animals. It's like doing a large uncontrolled and unmonitored experiment on infants.'

The soy industry insists that the adverse effects seen in animals do not apply to humans.

The Guardian August 13, 2000

In my opinion people do not need milk, soy milk either, they both have pitfalls, but in moderation I don't think they are going to kill you, in excess anything can kill. I personally alternate between the two, one week i'll use soy, the next i'll use milk.

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've seen the anti-soy studies too. Again, I don't generally trust facts that are supported by "studies" unless there's a bit more to go on.

I do have a problem with people who see soy milk as a "replacement" for milk. Because why replace something you don't need in the first place? I drink far less soy milk than I drank cow milk when I did drink it, which already was almost none, as drinking dairy would often induce me to have asthma attacks and other general respiratory difficulty. (Asthma, incidentally, being one of my many afflictions which miraculousy disappeared when I stopped consuming dairy some time ago.)

But anyway, I think the idea of soy formula for infants, as mentioned at the end of that article, is just as silly as feeding them cow milk. Human milk is best for human infants, because it's designed for them and they for it.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Forgot to ask this: but where do you get the idea that most of the world is lactose intolerant?

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I also tend to be wary of facts proven by "studies," as you can manipulate them to say most anything you want.

And North America and Europe are the only places I've been where there are significant numbers of people who aren't lactose intolerant; in many parts of Asia, the very idea of eating cheese is just... unthinkable. Disgusting, even. Also there are varying levels of lactose intolerance; plenty of people who are lactose intolerant don't even know it.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Ah, alright. I know most of the world isn't westerners, but I don't know about things over in Asia-- just curious :D It makes sense, especially considering India. My mother's lactose intolerant, so I'm getting in all my ice cream before I follow suit. That just reminds me of Super Dude from all that, and I thought it was "lactoast and tolerant." It makes much more sense to me now though *g*

I studied psychology and I found out just how easy it is to work a study to your benefit. There was even a guy that graduated from my school that just last week did a survey of the students and drug use-- and outright said 'I may or may not use your results." Which is more-than-easily translated into "I've got my thesis. If what you say doesn't agree with it, I chuck it." Too many ways to manipulate samples. =/

[conuly]

Most asians (the majority of the world) most africans (a good portion of the world) and a fair number of europeans are lactose intolerant. There are also many people who are allergic to or intolerant of casein, also found in milk... but casein allergies generally don't show themselves physically, instead you get moodiness or extra sensitivity to touch/sight/sound, or, if it does show physically, you might get asthma like symptoms, which most people don't associate with food.

[conuly]

Urg, skipped your last sentence, yes I *do* remember you! *grins*

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

Hehe!

Just looked at your userinfo... You're anti-milk... and you like SG-1? Welcome to my friends list!!! :)

Urgh?

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

::blinks:: And you went to Stuy? Unless you just happen to have stuyvesant in your friends list for some other random reason...

Dan Dadap, (Stuy '01)

My diploma says I completed a course in Science and Mathemetics. :)

Re: Urgh?

[conuly]

Hey, we were in the same year! Until I got sick of transfering, failed 10th grade, and transfered to icky Curtis.

But I still love that place, I think of it as home, despite my finally getting to college. Jenn (older sister) claims to have the same feelings about LaGuardia, and she was absolutely miserable when she was there (well, dancers are evil people to hang around).

Oddly, you're the first person I've met who actually graduated from Stuy. Everyone else I know who went there transfered out or took their GED. I was starting to think that nobody made it!

Re: Urgh?

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

Small world, small world. Incidentally, my non-milk-drinking-non-vegan-friends Jay Flynn and Adam Borrell are both Stuy '01 graduates as well.

My younger sister is at LaGuardia right now, and enjoying it well fine. I'm at NYU, because I just can't get enough of this city! :)

Re: Urgh?

[conuly]

Brooklyn College, because I'm too lazy to have good grades and too poor to afford anything private. *mock sobs*

Urg means... it means urg. I neologise a lot. It's kinda like ugh, but with a bit of oops mixed in, or alas.

Re: Urgh?

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

The "Urgh?" in the Subject line is me saying "Urgh?" to stuyvesant being in your friends list, not me asking you what "Urgh?" means... :)

Re: Urgh?

[conuly]

Okay, sorry then! Confuzzled me slightly.