Got Milk? (And does it REALLY do a body good?)
2 2014-09-05 by strokethekitty
From Nestle's website, or a subsidiary of it anyhow. Explains why milk is good for you.
- http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/facts/environmental-health-reasons-dairy.htm
From "HowStuffWorks", explaining why it is bad for you.
From WebMD, explaining good and bad things about milk
This last link explains some connections between milk and such illnesses as cancer, diabetes, and, of course, osteoporosis.
Anyhow, ive heard both sides of the story, with good arguments for each. But, what is most shocking to me, is the study (couldnt find it again, once i do, ill submit it in the comment section) that explained that the populations with the highest milk consumption rates correlate to a higher osteoporosis rate, contrary to what we were taught as children.
This got me thinking. From GMOs to horomones, there may be more in the milk than what is beneficial. Also, (again from thst study im still trying to find again, so take this for whatever its worth to you) milk is a bit acidic, which causes the body to extract the calcium in your bones to de-acidify it during digestion, causing weaker bones, and eventually osteoporosis.
This got me thinking, at the very least, (referencing the Harvard study from above), milk is not nearly as awesome as those commercials on tv pushed by Big Agro. At the very least, something as incospicuous, trite, and innocuous as those milk commercials could, in fact, be designed as propaganda to sell the population milk, helping to keep the wallets fat of Big Agriculture businesses (Im sure Monsanto probably has a stake in milk, but that is, as of now, an unsupported assumption as i havent looked for a link to justify thst statement). This also serves Big Pharma in assuring the perpetuity of certain illnesses and conditions such as osteoporosis, ovarian cancer, and diabetes (all discussed within the links above). Each of these conditions bring to them large amount of profits to "attempt" to "fix" these conditions in people, often times the prescribed solution is "Drink more milk!!"
So, the first link above was an attempt to be unbiased in presentation. You know, to show you what is said about why milk is good for you. Because you shouldnt just take my word for it.
So, r/conspiracy, what are your thoughts about this possible conspiracy? Do you "Got Milk?"
EDIT OKAY. This isnt the study that i was talking about, but i believe it references it with citation. Either way, itll do:
60 comments
5 downtowne 2014-09-05
Raw milk is great especially raw goat milk.
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Isnt there a certain danger about raw milk? (Forgive my ignorance about raw milk, i know next to nothing in this regard...)
3 s70n3834r 2014-09-05
Only if it's produced in squalid conditions; like factory dairies. That's why pasteurization of milk is required; to allow more profit through shabby dairy farming without making the public sick. If raw milk was allowed, proper dairy techniques would have to be enforced; which is something the factory farm lobby cannot allow.
3 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Is this why those farmers were getting charged with shit when they were trying to sell raw milk to their neighbors? To protect the "factory farmers" (i read that as agribusinesses, the likes of monsanto and such ilk) assets?
3 s70n3834r 2014-09-05
Yes.
3 sinominous 2014-09-05
calcium is needed, especially when growing but these days with the shit they pump into the cows and their feed the positives are probably quite slim compared to getting yourself a goat or drinking your coffee black
2 shadowofashadow 2014-09-05
As someone who is into lifting weights and getting strong, milk is a godsend. Lots of nutrients, a good amount of fat and protein. It's what baby mamals drink to grow, it's perfect for someone trying to put on good bodyweight. You can drink lots of it without getting too full. Milk is great. I know a guy who drank 1-2 gallons of milk a day for over 6 years. He's the strongest person I've ever met (benches 500) and is in pretty good shape other than his torn up hips.
0 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Curious, his "torn up hips," is that a ligament issue or a bone issue? Or was it caused by some unrelated trauma?
1 shadowofashadow 2014-09-05
It's osteoarthritis. He thinks it's a combination of genetics, his old powerlifting style which used a very wide stance and the fact that he did some crazy stuff to his body during strongman competitions like 1000lb yoke runs and 800lb farmer carries. Puts a lot of stress on the body.
-1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
See, if i was "that guy," id be all like, "see?! This is proof milk is bad for you!" But im not, as i dont see correlation to equate causation. And in his case, i would think all that stress on his body would be the cause. Also genetics, but i dont know the dude or his family medical history.
But still, its interesting, imo.
Btw, that dude sounds like he is a fucking tank!
2 shadowofashadow 2014-09-05
:) Cheers. I know there are a lot of people who have trouble with digesting milk so as much as I like it I'd still believe a lot of the stuff you are saying. It may have bad effects on a significant portion of the population. You hear about lactose intolerance often enough.
And yeah, he's a tank. Biggest guy I've ever met in real life.
2 redreine 2014-09-05
No milk for me, thanks. Cow's milk is only for growing calves, just as breast milk is only for growing infants.
Ask yourself this. Aside from humans, what other grown animal drinks milk?
6 s70n3834r 2014-09-05
It should be plain by now we are not normal animals; what other animals do most of the things we do.
-1 redreine 2014-09-05
Then put it this way. Cows don't drink their own milk. Why should we?
Milk isn't some sort of wonderful thing we need to survive. It's not healthy for us, especially considering the practices of that industry.
There are plenty of healthier, tastier options out there that don't involve torturing some poor animal her entire life, cutting it short due to the torture, then just throwing her out to pasture.
Drinking milk is perpetuating abuse.
3 lajaw 2014-09-05
Really?
They don't all do it, but you are mistaken.
-1 redreine 2014-09-05
Cows milk is meant for growing calves.
You can try and convince me all day long that we should drink milk, but you never will. You're wasting your time.
2 lajaw 2014-09-05
I'm not trying to convince you that anyone should drink milk. I'm just flat out telling you that can drink milk if you decide to. It's not bad for the cow or for us. Milk, it is food.
0 redreine 2014-09-05
I never said you couldn't drink milk. I said it's healthier to drink milk from soy, almonds, coconuts, etc.
-1 redreine 2014-09-05
As far as eating habits, most don't do what we do. Because they inherently know better than to eat what is bad for them.
2 lajaw 2014-09-05
pigs, dogs, chickens, cats, etc. They just don't have a means of getting it in most instances.
0 redreine 2014-09-05
They don't NEED it. Neither do we.
2 lajaw 2014-09-05
We don't NEED t-bone steak either. But we eat it. We don't NEED beer. But some drink it. It's food. And we NEED food. All different types.
0 redreine 2014-09-05
Thanks for making my point for me? We don't NEED any type of food product that involves torturing the animal providing it.
2 lajaw 2014-09-05
What a foolish statement. We don't torture cows when we milk them. Have you ever been around a cow? If you don't milk a lactating cow, she suffers. Swollen bag and mammary glands and inflamed teats. you think that is more pleasant that someone milking a cow out or allowing the calf to suck? Geez.
0 redreine 2014-09-05
And ftr, I'm a country girl from a southern family in the Midwest. I've been around plenty of cows.
-1 redreine 2014-09-05
Have you seen what is done to milk cows?
They're left in a very small stall their entire lives and hooked up to a machine that takes the milk from their udders, which causes them a great deal of pain, and has been known to cause diseases similar to breast cancer in the udders.
Not to mention that they're pumped full of hormones to produce more milk. Their udders end up bleeding and full of puss, then they're killed because they're no longer useful. They live no life.
2 lajaw 2014-09-05
That's strange. My cows live their lives on pasture. They get moved everyday to nice fresh grass. I haul spring water to them every morning and they they will get milked once a day while they have calves on them. I expect them to live at least 15 years and produce at least 13 offspring. You are generalizing the dairy industry to confinement dairies. Yea, there's problems with those type operations. But they are a minority of the operations. The family farmer doesn't mistreat his animals nor do they burn them out like the large operations. You've got part of it right, but mostly you are wrong. I've dealt with a lot of dairies in my years. The largest Registered Jersey dairy in the US (3000+ head) keeps their production cows for years. Last time I bought cows from them, they had a really nice 13 year old that they still milked and they had bred here to a champion bull and were hoping to get a bull calf from her.
0 redreine 2014-09-05
Like I've previously mentioned, I'm not referring to the practices of small dairy farmers, but mass production dairy "farms".
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
I believe it is important to differentiate between the "business" of milking cows and the "farming practices" involved in caring for the cows.
Local farmers indeed need to milk the cows of their hefers, for the reasons the other dude stated.
But, the main issue i believe you were addressing is when an entire "factory" is established for the sole purpose of mass producing milk, which, for economical reasons devoid of care and compassion for the animals, dictate poor living conditions in small pens or whatnot. In the "agribusiness" of mass producing milk (which can be arguably stated is where most of the milk in the grocery stores come from) the animals are treated as assets, property.
And whenever a living creature is treated as an asset, their inherint rights are stripped from them.
But, again, as i believe the other dude was trying to say, the local farmers who have a herd, their animals are generally treated with reverence and respect. Milking them is just part of that. And why waste a nutritional substance in this case?
Again, the difference is from which the purpose the milk is derived. Business=torture in this regard, while the typical farmer joe is merely caring for their animals and taking advantage of it at the same time.
So while yall are arguing, i just wanted to point out that it is quite possible yall are arguing two different things about the same subject (hope you dont mind my interjection...)
-1 redreine 2014-09-05
Absolutely.
I am specially directing my thoughts toward mass production. That's all I'm addressing as far as torture goes.
As far as the actual nutritional value, I am discussing milk in general. It's healthier to drink almond milk, soy milk, coconut milk, etc.
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
No doubt. I could also argue that it is best and most healthiest to only drink water and to get our sources of nutrition (vitamins, nutrients, etc.) only from the foods we eat. Drinking calories in generally is typically not a good idea, imo. (With the exception of fruot juices, but even then, it is incredibly easy to get way more calories and sugars than what is considered healthy in this way.)
While milk surely has nutritional value, the efficiency of which we can extract it for beneficial advantages is arguable. Same goes for grains, actually. But thats a different discussion, too.
1 redreine 2014-09-05
I noticed I've gotten a down vote on each of my comments in this particular part of the discussion.
I wonder who that could be...
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Haha i think i know who...
1 dtiftw 2014-09-05
Aside from humans, what other grown animal cooks its food?
1 redreine 2014-09-05
We don't need a cow's milk to cook.
1 dtiftw 2014-09-05
Not the point. You're claiming that since adult animals don't drink milk, we shouldn't. But adult animals don't cook their food, either. So by your standards, we shouldn't cook our food.
1 redreine 2014-09-05
That's not what I'm claiming. I'm just saying it's odd that we drink something from an animal that it doesn't even drink itself.
1 dtiftw 2014-09-05
Why is it odd? You're making an argument from nature. Which isn't necessarily wrong, but you need to define it.
You make the claim that because other animals don't do something, it isn't right for us to do that thing. If you believe that, then you need to distinguish between lots of things that animals don't do. The prime example that I brought up is cooking. Animals don't cook their food. They don't preserve food. They don't use seasoning or spices.
For your point to carry weight, you need more than to just say that animals don't do it. Otherwise you have to discard anything that animals don't do.
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Its odd for the mere fact that we do these things, while being generally the only species that does so. By definition, that is odd.
As far as cooking food, we just cannot digest raw meat like other animals can. We can argue the origins of this inability, citing micro evolution as the catalyst once we discovered fire and utilized it to cook meat, finding it is preferable in taste. But i guess thst is a different discussion.
The point about cooking is, we cannot digest raw meat safely. We cannt deal with the bacteria that other animals can. And again, i bekieve this is because we started cooking our meat once we discovered fire, and prefered the taste over the raw form, amd our bodies adapted to thst by conserving energy by means of eliminating thst part of our body thst used to be able to digest the raw food (if im not mistaken, i believe it is thought that this was the original purpose of our appendix, which is now considered to be a semi-vestigial organ).
1 dtiftw 2014-09-05
Cooking food isn't a different discussion. Our evolutionary ancestors could eat and digest raw meat (in reality, we still can). But after the advent of fire, we stopped being able to fend off common paraistes. So cooking became a "natural" thing for us to do evn though we are unique in that aspect.
When it comes to milk, entire populations have evolved to be able to process cow's milk. So how is it any less natural or normal for us as humans to drink milk if we've adapted to it naturally?
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
I guess the argument is the difference in perspective about what is "normal." Purely looking at all mammalian species, we are not normal, for many different reasons. But then again, there is the argument that because we evolved naturally (which, btw, reminds me of other theories concerning this specific topic --- one of my favorite theories but completely irrelevant to this discussion) that it should be considered normal for us to do these "abnormal" things. Just like it is a normal, natural thing for bats to fly, even though flying is an "abnormal" ability for mammals, or like how platypuses lay eggs...
But, going back to milk, there are good arguments for both sides. Certainly many folks can digest cows milk. But there is also a certain percentage of folks who cannot, even within those populatioms you described. To me, that indicates that we havent (yet) fully developed the ability, as a species, to properly digest cows milk. We seem to be well into the process of this evolution/adaption, though.
But the issues contrary to your arguments arise when you consider the things noted in the links i provided in the OP. For instance, dairy consumption rates seem to correlste to higher incidents of certain diseases and other issues. That doesnt necessarily indicate causation, mind you, but to me, it provides enough argument to look into the assertion that we can effeciently and properly digest cows milk in a natural, healthy way, a little more closely.
0 dtiftw 2014-09-05
If you honestly want to know more about the science, go post in /r/askscience.
0 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Or one could go look at the links i have provided in the OP, specifically the one that talks about the study conducted from Harvard. But i guess thats too much to ask?
In case you were gonna ask, heres the citation:
If you need more info, here is an article on this subject from Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/
Where one would be able to read lines like this one:
In order to see that the argument to look into the assertion that cows milk is 100% healthy for humans to drink is definately warranted despite your personal views on the matter.
There is no need to go over to r/askscience, as you have arrongantly suggested. The purpose of this submission, orginally, was to discuss this issue about milk, keeping in mind the other conspiracy theories that exist and are discussed within this sub, particularily Pro-Milk "propaganda" campaigns that disseminate the (possibly) false notion that milk is 100% safe for you, whilst negating the correlations (of which i wish to discuss) of cows milk and the illnesses and other issues that seem to coincide with the higher rates of cows milk consumption, possibly for the motives of perpetuating said illnesses and conditions/issues for the mere purpose of guarenteeing profits for Big Pharmaceutical companies, as well as Big Agriculture businesses such as Monsanto.
If you cant deal with that, or do not wish to contribute towards this, then one could arguably state that your presence in this thread is quite ironic. Wouldnt you agree?
1 dtiftw 2014-09-05
You asked if milk really was healthy. That's a scientific question. That's for askscience. It's not arrogant to say that for scientific questions you should ask scientists. If you want to discuss Big Ag propaganda, that's more in line with this sub.
No, it's not ironic. That's not what ironic means.
I haven't addressed the propaganda issues, and I haven't addressed the science issues. I've simply rebutted the proposition that since other animals don't drink milk, it's not good for humans to drink milk. That's a poor argument.
Again, discussing whether or not Big Ag is covering up evidence that milk is unhealthy is fair game for conspiracy. What the science actually says is for askscience.
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
I agree with the first part, disagree with the second. Again, the whole purpose of the OP was to discuss the conspiratal nature of this topic. As far as what the science actually says, that belongs here, as well. It would certainly have its place in askscience, especially as a supportive role in this discussion. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing that stuff here, as well.
For the record, i apologize for the "arrogant" comment. I suppose i took it personal, as most times when folks say something like (go ask r/whatever), they tend to mean it in a less than polite way --- a patronizing sort of arrogance i guess. That is how i took your comment.
But if you truely believe that scientific discussions only belong in askscience and absolutely not r/conspiracy, that is your right to believe so. I will disagree, of course. But i will also support your right to own your own beliefs as well.
Oh, and one more thing, about the whole "ironic" comment, it most certainly would be ironic. As the definition of ironic is "contrary to what is expected", in short. And, ones presence in r/conspiracy is to discuss the conspirital nature of such things as is in the details section of my OP, and if, in fact, you were not interested in discussing that specifically, then your presence and contributions in this thread would, indeed, be unexpected.
Itd be like me going into r/cats and not want to talk about cats.
Nonetheless, i apologize again for the whole "arrogant" comment.
1 dtiftw 2014-09-05
As well, yes. Have you cross-posted this? If you want to be truly skeptical, there's nothing wrong with looking for a wide range of opinions. But if you're only willing to look to non-scientists, you're going to limit what you hear.
Again, no. I haven't said that I won't address other issues. I haven't said that I'm not interested in the other issues. I'm not here unaware of the sub's purpose. Simply addressing a single point isn't ironic. Especially since I'm responding to a specific point. Is it really unexpected that someone would respond to a specific argument with a specific rebuttal?
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
I actually didnt even think about cross posting. Ill probably end up sending them some questions while i am at work tomorrow, though. Thanks for the advice.
Wait a minute, :-) i was saying IF. IF you werent interested in what i said earlier. In the hypothetical case where one would visit this sub and not wish to discuss such things, their presence within the thread would be contrary to what is generally expected, or in one word, ironic. But that was an IF. That truely wasnt meant as a definitive question earlier. Does that make sense?
0 redreine 2014-09-05
No, I really don't. I've given other examples as well. I'm not here trying to convince the OP not to drink milk. I'm just saying why I personally find it to be bad.
1 TheNarrMaster 2014-09-05
Aside from humans, what other grown animal goes to space?
0 redreine 2014-09-05
A monkey went, a dog went...
2 TheNarrMaster 2014-09-05
Aside from humans, what other grown animals intentionally, and of their own volition, goes to space. There, fixed.
0 redreine 2014-09-05
My point still stands. We should not be torturing animals, especially not for a product we don't need to survive.
2 s70n3834r 2014-09-05
I look at milk like I do soybeans; it's good food if it's been fermented first, and isn't adulterated with chemicals. I don't care for milk, but really enjoy cheese.
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Cheese is the crux of my diet. Im doing my best to eventually eliminate it almost completely, but its so damn good!
0 SquareHimself 2014-09-05
There was a recent post of a documentary called Cowspiracy that touched on this, but moreover dealt with the much larger issue surrounding it. Personally... if you're going to drink milk, I'd say almond milk is far healthier for you and is much tastier. Cow milk is for baby cows. You wouldn't want to drink your sister's milk, your dog's milk, your cat's milk, a monkey's milk... Why do you want to drink a cow's milk?
Also... don't trust anything coming out of the mouths of people supporting their multi-billion dollar investment companies. Remember how big tobacco said cigarettes were good for you and cool?
2 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Personally, i hate the taste of it. There was one brand, though, that didnt taste all that bad. But id take cows milk over almond milk any day. Just a personal preference, i guess. But i dont drink that much milk, anyhow...
2 materhern 2014-09-05
Almond breeze is the best IMO. Did you get the sweetened or unsweetened?
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Probably the sweetened kind. I dont remember because, honestly, i dont care much for milk. I drink water 95% of the time and get my protein and calcium from other sources..
The only time i really drink milk is in coffee. So i prefer whole milk for a smoother mix. The almond milk taints the taste of my coffee, and its even worse on its own, imo. Im just not a fan, really. Though my wife loves it...
1 materhern 2014-09-05
Oh yeah I don't like it in coffee. I love it on its own though.
I don't drink much milk either. To me, regular cows milk was produced for baby cows. And there are far better sources of calcium than milk.
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
Exactly. Though regular milk does taste quite good, imo. I just try my best not to drink any calories. Im trying my best to become much healthier and fit (in a natural, lean sort of way) instead of "prepping" for when/if shtf. (I hope that doesnt make me sound crazy...)
2 materhern 2014-09-05
Nope, I'm the same way. I've always done a small amount of prepping. Living in the midwest means needing to be prepared for tornado season any way, plus I like roughing it when I go camping. But getting yourself healthy and fit will go a long way towards surviving something bad happening.
0 redreine 2014-09-05
My point still stands. We should not be torturing animals, especially not for a product we don't need to survive.
1 strokethekitty 2014-09-05
I believe it is important to differentiate between the "business" of milking cows and the "farming practices" involved in caring for the cows.
Local farmers indeed need to milk the cows of their hefers, for the reasons the other dude stated.
But, the main issue i believe you were addressing is when an entire "factory" is established for the sole purpose of mass producing milk, which, for economical reasons devoid of care and compassion for the animals, dictate poor living conditions in small pens or whatnot. In the "agribusiness" of mass producing milk (which can be arguably stated is where most of the milk in the grocery stores come from) the animals are treated as assets, property.
And whenever a living creature is treated as an asset, their inherint rights are stripped from them.
But, again, as i believe the other dude was trying to say, the local farmers who have a herd, their animals are generally treated with reverence and respect. Milking them is just part of that. And why waste a nutritional substance in this case?
Again, the difference is from which the purpose the milk is derived. Business=torture in this regard, while the typical farmer joe is merely caring for their animals and taking advantage of it at the same time.
So while yall are arguing, i just wanted to point out that it is quite possible yall are arguing two different things about the same subject (hope you dont mind my interjection...)
2 lajaw 2014-09-05
That's strange. My cows live their lives on pasture. They get moved everyday to nice fresh grass. I haul spring water to them every morning and they they will get milked once a day while they have calves on them. I expect them to live at least 15 years and produce at least 13 offspring. You are generalizing the dairy industry to confinement dairies. Yea, there's problems with those type operations. But they are a minority of the operations. The family farmer doesn't mistreat his animals nor do they burn them out like the large operations. You've got part of it right, but mostly you are wrong. I've dealt with a lot of dairies in my years. The largest Registered Jersey dairy in the US (3000+ head) keeps their production cows for years. Last time I bought cows from them, they had a really nice 13 year old that they still milked and they had bred here to a champion bull and were hoping to get a bull calf from her.