Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 72 of 72

Thread: This may make you never want to drink milk or take whey shakes again

  1. #51
    Wannabebig New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3
    I am not their personal doctor but I've heard a thing or two about their personal health situation and I can safely say they've had their share of problems ...

  2. #52
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6
    Yeah ... I've heard that too ... I really like Arnold and in my opinion he is a symbol of good health and sports ... Long live Arnold

  3. #53
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    12
    It is just someone's opinion of health. I mean what really is healthy? Never visiting the hospital? We drink crap loads of milk and take whey shakes every day because we want to look like Arnold. I guess in a bizarro world where being obese was considered sexy then we would be eating Big Macs and sitting on the couch every day. In this bizarro world we would know the "health risks" of eating so many Big Macs but you would do it anyway because we want to be fat and dead sexy!

    What people are trying to say is that: so what if milk and whey in large quantities are a health risk if they are proven to give us the results we're looking for.

    As far as the article posted at the top, it could at least give some examples of milk brands that are considered safe. "What you are doing now is wrong. I will tell you that but I won't tell you what is right." Sorry, but I don't fear god and I won't start fearing my milk either!

  4. #54
    Unremarkable Questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by waynis View Post
    I have leaky gut syndrome.
    I'm sorry to hear that!

  5. #55
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by ectx View Post
    And the vegan propaganda machine shows it's ugly head!

    The article, although well cited, is honestly, written by an etremely biased and uneducated source. It is full of falacies and inaccurarcies.

    I'll start off by pointing out that it is extremely...EXTREMELY difficult to denature a protein. It takes crazy amounts of heat to denature a protein. 88?C won't do it. In a laboratory it ususally takes very very high levels of urea to even solubilize a protein. To denature it and make it somewhat linear you need a mixture of SDS (a strong detergent) and sulfur (which helps break the disulfide bridges) and boiling the crap out of it for about 10 minutes to be able to linearize it and run it on a gel...and this still keeps the protein's primary structure intact....it does not break down into it's amino acid constituents.
    Damn, stole my words

    but considering this is from 2005, it probably wasn't that hard
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 12-20-2006 at 07:26 PM.

  6. #56
    Senior Member JamesBOMB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    312
    Honestly I dont give a f**k. Iv made it 22 years without one single problem, even though I feel more re tard ed now than I did 4 years ago.

    Why worry about anything in this world anymore, EVERYTHING you eat has something that could kill you. I am sure the mc d's I eat has giz, pee, boogers, hair etc in it. If I cant see it Ill eat it. Just the way the world is
    Last edited by JamesBOMB; 12-23-2006 at 12:48 AM.
    6' 2" 22years old
    05' 232lbs, 06' summer 200lbs, Currently 226lbs
    FB 345x1 Seated MP 225x5

  7. #57
    Smeagol on Steroids Mercuryblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,808
    * May alter lactose, making it more readily absorbable
    Ectx or someone else, please explain to me how that is in anyway possible??!

    Last time I checked lactose is beta galactose and beta glucose linked together... how can you alter it in anyway that would make it more absorbable and cause more problems for people with lactose intolerance?
    http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

    Starting Current
    Bench: 45 lbs Bench: 235 lbs
    Squat: 95 lbs Squat: 285 lbs
    Deadlift: 100 lbs Deadlift: 330 lbs

  8. #58
    Smeagol on Steroids Mercuryblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,808
    On another note, since we are bashing "informed" extremists, I used to work at an all natural health food store and there were all these articles about the "dangers" of GMO's (genetically modified organics), my favorite was when corn products carried the GMO free label, what do these people think corn is? It is the result of years of breeding different strains with desirable traits, ie GENETIC MODIFICATION.
    http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

    Starting Current
    Bench: 45 lbs Bench: 235 lbs
    Squat: 95 lbs Squat: 285 lbs
    Deadlift: 100 lbs Deadlift: 330 lbs

  9. #59
    Senior Member j03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Strats View Post
    Its just too bad that those growth hormones for cows are banned here in Canada.

    GO Canada, even though I'm an american
    Eat big, lift big, get BIG

    5'10'' - 172lbs up from: 125lbs (at age 18) - 20 yr old | bulking [til 200+] | BF 11% ?

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    University at Albany
    Posts
    2,513
    Milk - it does a body good.

    OP - you clearly have too much free time to read and post all this BS.

  11. #61
    Team Stocky Member. Killa Kurt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Neptune NJ
    Posts
    909
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutz981 View Post
    Milk is sooo good...and whey Oh god...I think I'll go have a shake made with milk right now...mmmm
    Yup!
    Journal

    Before you go to train everyday, think about the less fortunate and what they would give to just have the opportunity to be training like a madman.

    "The squat rack is my church, the dead lift platform my temple."

    Team Stocky - "It's not a hobby, it's a lifestyle."
    The Rawmighty Team Stocky.

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by j03 View Post
    GO Canada, even though I'm an american
    You bump this thread for THAT?

  13. #63
    Wannabebig New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1
    Stopped reading after this ridiculously unscientific statement:

    "Keep in mind that the more dead something is when you consume it, the more energy it takes your body to enliven it or make it transmutable to human tissue!"

    "[E]nliven" a protein to make it "transmutable to human tissue"?? Jesus. H. Christ.

    One semester of a sophmore biochemistry class and this guy will feel like an idiot.

    Not only that, but this guy has a fundamental misunderstanding as to how the human gut works.

  14. #64
    House Lannister
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,282

  15. #65
    Panic Prone waynis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jax, FL
    Posts
    1,363
    Wow, Can't believe I posted this 5 years ago. I probably haven't been on this site in the same amount of time but I got a notification and thought I'd log in. Well.. I never stopped drinking milk or buying whey products. A year or 2 ago I actually got tested to find out if I'm allergic to milk and I'm not so I see no reason not to ingest such milk products. I've changed a lot in the last 5 years.. lol.. and I'm leaning towards the mentality that life is going to get us one way or another and we can't avoid everything just to become paranoid about everything. We have to Live life the best we can. If we don't life will pass us by and we'll look back and think we wasted so much time worrying about nothing.
    Never Giving In.

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    216
    To the guy who was saying raw milk is dangerous I seriously disagree. The main reason being producers of raw milk typically feed their cows grass. It has been show that cows on a grass diet have pathogen free manure. The reason for this is raw milk has lactic-acid protection system. Its called competitive exclusion, non pathogenic bacteria kill many bad bugs that do end up in the milk, which is unlikely to happen anyway as long as production is clean. Heating milk (pasteurization) renders its immunoglobulins less capable of bacterial self-defense. With the destruction of its tiny bacterial lactic acid factories and other heat-sensitive anti-microbial substances, it can no longer protect itself as effectively.

    So to summarize raw milk keeps itself clean for the most part unless there are extreme situations and poor diets for the cows. Pasteurized milk is more susceptible to contamination than raw milk.
    “As to the methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.”

  17. #67
    Smeagol on Steroids Mercuryblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by TKisner View Post
    To the guy who was saying raw milk is dangerous I seriously disagree. The main reason being producers of raw milk typically feed their cows grass. It has been show that cows on a grass diet have pathogen free manure. The reason for this is raw milk has lactic-acid protection system. Its called competitive exclusion, non pathogenic bacteria kill many bad bugs that do end up in the milk, which is unlikely to happen anyway as long as production is clean. Heating milk (pasteurization) renders its immunoglobulins less capable of bacterial self-defense. With the destruction of its tiny bacterial lactic acid factories and other heat-sensitive anti-microbial substances, it can no longer protect itself as effectively.

    So to summarize raw milk keeps itself clean for the most part unless there are extreme situations and poor diets for the cows. Pasteurized milk is more susceptible to contamination than raw milk.
    I think you've unfortunately been duped by a lot of the false information about raw milk. There is so much dogma around this subject that it's really hard to find legitimate sources on this issue.

    "Pathogen-free manure" nope. The intestinal tract of an animal is rife with bacteria, both pathogenic and non-pathogenic. Feeding a cow grass instead of corn may tend to sway that balance in a particular direction, but there is no chance it completely eliminates harmful bacteria from their manure.

    Let's assume that the argument about the anti-bodies of non-pathogenic bacteria getting damaged is true. Since the bacteria are going to die during pasteurization it's kind of a moot point that their anti-bodies are no longer as effective. It's like worrying about a soldier's gun jamming after the soldier is already dead.
    Also, since pasteurization kills off pathogenic bacteria as well, it's even more irrelevant. Who cares about killing already dead bacteria? You don't need to worry about the non-pathogenic bacteria being able to perform the job you want them to do because the pasteurization is going to do it, and it's going to do a more complete job.
    Furthermore, nothing in biology is ever close to 100% nor is it instantaneous. There are going to be trace amounts of "bad" bacteria present in certain batches of raw milk, even with all the non-pathogenic bacteria present and their fully functioning antibodies that haven't been damaged by pasteurization. If we wanted to assume the competitive exclusion principle in this case, all raw milk would have to be left out for a period in a vacuum (so no other bacteria could contaminate the milk). Eventually the non-pathogenic would eliminate the pathogenic bacteria, over time, under those ideal conditions. These conditions will never be met, of course.

    As a side note, you copied and pasted directly from this lovely unbiased source http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_safety.html Please give credit where credit is due.
    Heating milk renders its immunoglobulins less capable of bacterial self-defense (10). With the destruction of its tiny bacterial lactic acid factories and other heat-sensitive anti-microbial substances, it can no longer protect itself as effectively (11)(12).
    http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

    Starting Current
    Bench: 45 lbs Bench: 235 lbs
    Squat: 95 lbs Squat: 285 lbs
    Deadlift: 100 lbs Deadlift: 330 lbs

  18. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins CO
    Posts
    1,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercuryblade View Post
    I think you've unfortunately been duped by a lot of the false information about raw milk.
    Thanks Mercury for that great post. You hit the nail on the head...pro-raw milk are spreading a lot of false information and people are listening.

    As a food microbiologist, I attend several conferences every year that focus on food safety. One of the big topics every year recently has been raw milk. It is CLEAR from a scientific standpoint that raw milk is much less safe to consume than pasteurized milk. Just look at all the recent outbreaks from raw milk this year that have silences many raw milk advocate groups
    http://www.ecoliblog.com/e-coli-watc...milk-industry/

    I guess what had the most impact on me recently was a mother at one of these conferences who fed her 6 yr old son who had multiple health issues raw milk because she had read some bogus facts on one of these raw milk advocacy sites that raw milk could basically "cure all ailments". Her son's health seemed to improved for the first few weeks, then his kidney's failed and he became seriously ill with O157:H7 E. coli illness.

    People. Open your eyes. Its not worth ANY potential benefits.

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    216
    According to the FDA from 1998-2005 there were 1007 illnesses and 2 deaths from raw milk and cheese consumption. Compared to 76 MILLION total food borne illnesses each year.

    A study of nearly 15,000 children ages 5 to 13 in five European countries published last year by the University of Basel in Switzerland showed that those who consumed raw milk had lower rates of both asthma and hay fever, and that the earlier in life the children started drinking the raw milk, the more effective the protection was.

    As far as raw milk not having protective qualities when the cows are raised in a proper environment I disagree.
    http://www.realmilk.com/safety-raw-milk.html Here's a letter written to the Colorado Department of Public Health. The parts which are relevant to this conversation are:

    "Dr. Caterina Berge, DVM and PhD candidate at UC Davis, tested our milk cows’ fresh manure and did not find any human pathogens. That’s right. . . no Salmonella. She was able to show that when antibiotics are not ever used on the herd (as stipulated in the organic standards) and when cows are not stressed (grass-fed and kept healthy) they simply do not slough off pathogens in their manure. The data collected at Organic Pastures was quite different from that found at other dairies. The typical conventional milk tank had either salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 detected about 30 percent of the time. In comparison, Organic Pastures has never had one pathogen—ever.

    To study this issue further, Organic Pastures contracted with BSK labs in Fresno to perform multiple challenge and recovery tests on our raw milk and raw colostrum. When 7 logs (10 million counts) of pathogens were added to one-milliliter samples of organic raw milk they would not grow. In fact they died off. The salmonella was so badly out-competed that it could not be found less than 24 hours later. The listeria drop was less dramatic and was similiar to the E. Coli O157:H7 samples that were studied, but they also did not grow and declined substantially over time.

    The lab concluded: “. . . organic raw milk and colostrum do not appear to support the growth of pathogens. . .”

    "This begs the bigger question. What is it that causes raw milk to kill pathogens? Just in the last 24 months, the FDA has approved lactoferrin as an approved method of treatment for pathogen reduction in beef slaughter plants. Raw milk naturally has levels of this enzyme-based pathogen killer. Pasteurization inactivates this and other enzymes that kill pathogens. These enzymes include lactoferrin, xanthine oxidase, lactoperoxidase, lysozyme and nisin. There are other interrelated enzymes and beneficial bacteria that also act on the pathogens to inhibit their growth."

    Reasons why I prefer raw milk.
    It controls my ulcerative colits. A disease which I had to take upwards of 40mg of prednisone a day for. Look up the side effects for Prednisone. Its definetly worth any risk (which I would argue is negligable)
    Probiotics
    It taste alot better.

    Pasteurization destroys vitamin C
    Pasteurization turns lactose into beta lactose (produces larger insulin spike)
    Pasteurization negative affects calcium absorption
    Pasteurization lowers protein availability
    Pasteurization destroys wulzen factor which protects arteries from calcification
    Pasteurization increases susceptibility to spoilage
    “As to the methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.”

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    216
    A few more thoughts J.E. Crewe one of the founders of the Mayo clinic had to say about raw milk as a cure for disease. Said “For fifteen years the writer has employed the certified milk treatment in various diseases and during the past ten he had a small sanitarium devoted principally to this treatment. The results obtained in various types of disease have been so uniformly excellent that one’s conception of disease and its alleviation is necessarily changed.”

    "Further compelling evidence of the superiority of raw milk appeared in The Lancet in 1937, in a report on the work of the medical officer to a group of orphanages. The physician gave pasteurized milk for five years to one group of 750 boys, while giving raw milk to another group of 750. All other conditions were alike except for this one item. During that period, 14 cases of tuberculosis occurred in the boys fed pasteurized milk, while only one occurred in those fed raw milk. The article also discusses the dental health of the children brought up on raw milk: “Dr. Evelyn Sprawson of the London Hospital has recently stated that in certain institutions children who were brought up on raw milk (as opposed to pasteurized milk) had perfect teeth and no decay. "

    My argument is that milk which is the product of cows raised in ideal conditions (which are quite possible) will be perfectly healthy for consumption, and will have numerous health benefits above and beyond that of pasteurized milk. I'm living proof of that.
    “As to the methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.”

  21. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins CO
    Posts
    1,829
    Alright TKisner, I'll try to address each of your points individually. You need to make sure to provide your sources as well. I am a scientist, so I take everything with a grain of salt unless I can read studies that contribute to claims. For example, someone once posted a study on this forum that claimed beta alanine greatly increased muscle growth in athletes. However when diving into the study further, I realized the statistics were all whack, and the researchers actually found no statistical support to back their claims, even though they still made their claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by TKisner View Post
    According to the FDA from 1998-2005 there were 1007 illnesses and 2 deaths from raw milk and cheese consumption. Compared to 76 MILLION total food borne illnesses each year.


    You are comparing apples to oranges here. The 76 million total foodborne illnesses each year (from 1999 Paul Meade paper) is an estimate of ALL foodborne illness in the US from ALL foods, including those caused by unidentified pathogens (things like viruses, etc., that are hard to isolate and confirm). You can't just compare these absolute numbers to raw milk outbreak numbers because raw milk is consumed by a much, much smaller population. Percentages and incidence rates are more relevant here.


    Quote Originally Posted by TKisner View Post
    A study of nearly 15,000 children ages 5 to 13 in five European countries published last year by the University of Basel in Switzerland showed that those who consumed raw milk had lower rates of both asthma and hay fever, and that the earlier in life the children started drinking the raw milk, the more effective the protection was.
    Link me to the peer reviewed article.
    Correlation does not equal causation. I recently read a hilarious journal article which claimed that women who had sex using condoms were less happier than those who were not using condoms. WTF?


    Quote Originally Posted by TKisner View Post
    As far as raw milk not having protective qualities when the cows are raised in a proper environment I disagree.
    http://www.realmilk.com/safety-raw-milk.html Here's a letter written to the Colorado Department of Public Health. The parts which are relevant to this conversation are:

    "Dr. Caterina Berge, DVM and PhD candidate at UC Davis, tested our milk cows’ fresh manure and did not find any human pathogens. That’s right. . . no Salmonella. She was able to show that when antibiotics are not ever used on the herd (as stipulated in the organic standards) and when cows are not stressed (grass-fed and kept healthy) they simply do not slough off pathogens in their manure. The data collected at Organic Pastures was quite different from that found at other dairies. The typical conventional milk tank had either salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 detected about 30 percent of the time. In comparison, Organic Pastures has never had one pathogen—ever.

    To study this issue further, Organic Pastures contracted with BSK labs in Fresno to perform multiple challenge and recovery tests on our raw milk and raw colostrum. When 7 logs (10 million counts) of pathogens were added to one-milliliter samples of organic raw milk they would not grow. In fact they died off. The salmonella was so badly out-competed that it could not be found less than 24 hours later. The listeria drop was less dramatic and was similiar to the E. Coli O157:H7 samples that were studied, but they also did not grow and declined substantially over time.

    The lab concluded: “. . . organic raw milk and colostrum do not appear to support the growth of pathogens. . .”
    Interesting claim, but did the researchers ever publish their data and findings in a peer-reviewed journal? If not, then I'm not buying it. The media may buy it because it sounds fancy schmancy and appealing, but this would never hold in a scientific forum.

    In response to not finding these pathogens on organic pastures... I disagree. I am actually sampling fecal material from organic pastures for my research right now and, without delving into much detail, I can assure you I am finding many pathogens in the fecal material. This will be published sometime in late 2011 likely.

    BTW, Organic Pastures have been implicated in O157:H7 outbreaks. The Statement, "Organic Pastures has never had one pathogen postive-EVER" Is a flat out lie. See here: http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/02/08/raw-milk-suit/


    As part of a large investigation back in the fall of 2006, California’s state veterinarian tested the stools of the entire herd at Organic Pastures. In a first round of testing, they grouped cows and heifers into groups of three, mixed their stool samples, and tested them for the virulent strain of E. coli 0157:H7. Five composite samples tested positive. Researchers then tested the 15 cows in those five clusters individually and isolated the bacteria in three of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by TKisner View Post
    This begs the bigger question. What is it that causes raw milk to kill pathogens? Just in the last 24 months, the FDA has approved lactoferrin as an approved method of treatment for pathogen reduction in beef slaughter plants. Raw milk naturally has levels of this enzyme-based pathogen killer. Pasteurization inactivates this and other enzymes that kill pathogens. These enzymes include lactoferrin, xanthine oxidase, lactoperoxidase, lysozyme and nisin. There are other interrelated enzymes and beneficial bacteria that also act on the pathogens to inhibit their growth."
    Yes, Lactoferrin is used as a carcass wash now, but at much, much higher concentrations in the wash than what is found in milk. I agree that raw milk does contain more of these enzymes than pasteurized milk (since heat will quickly inactivate them), but I would argue that the levels of these enzymes do not always inhibit pathogenic bacteria. Based on the prevalence of food borne pathogens in raw milk, and the number of documented outbreaks associated with its consumption, it's clear that these so called protective inhibitors are not doing their job.

    Quote Originally Posted by TKisner View Post
    Pasteurization destroys vitamin C
    Pasteurization increases susceptibility to spoilage
    1. Milk has low concentrations of Vitamin C. Moot Point.
    2. Explain to me how this works. How on earth can pasteurization (which destroys many spoilage organisms) actually decrease the shelf life of a product??

  22. #72
    Smeagol on Steroids Mercuryblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Cmanuel View Post
    Good stuff
    I'm impressed that you took the time to address all these points.
    It appears that TKisner has already made his mind up and doesn't care to look at things very objectively.
    But hopefully your post can serve as a information source for others curious about raw milk.

    Given widespread access to the internet, I hope that high schools and colleges will start to add units or workshops to address how to properly evaluate sources. This interchange is the perfect example of how difficult it can sometimes be to critically evaluate information found online. Especially when it comes to cherry picking studies to propel a preconceived opinion.
    http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

    Starting Current
    Bench: 45 lbs Bench: 235 lbs
    Squat: 95 lbs Squat: 285 lbs
    Deadlift: 100 lbs Deadlift: 330 lbs

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •