RE: Lactose Intolerance

RE: Lactose Intolerance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Lactose Intolerance (8/7/2011 1:31:58 PM)
I don`t know,if there is more crime,one would think, more cops. But for the paranoid gubment haters that`s just to much thinking.

Aylee -> RE: Lactose Intolerance (8/7/2011 3:29:37 PM)
First they came for the Lemonade Stands and I did not speak out because I did not drink Lemonade. Then they came for the Happy Meals and I did not speak out because I did not eat Happy Meals. Then they came for the Raw Milk Distributors and I did not speak out because I did not buy Raw Milk.

MileHighM -> RE: Lactose Intolerance (8/8/2011 11:23:34 AM)
quote: quote: If you are concerned about the Raw foods movement, Read this: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-milk People see shit like this and worry big time if conventional methods, dietary guidlines etc. aren't ruining our health and lives. I am not claiming that the raw foods movement doesn't have its flaws.... Technically, humankind has been cooking food for so long we have evolved to digest many food better cooked. Plus our immune systems aren't as tough as they once were (look at a dog, they can eat nearly anything including shit and they rarely get sick. we eat peanuts now and our immune system tries to kill us). With as bad as our food is treated, it is only natural for people to respond in such drastic ways. More BS. The real facts are that westerners are the tallest, healthiest, longest lived culture ever. Much of that is because we are the best nutritioned culture ever. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying or misinformed and more than likely is trying to sell some fraud to gullible people. Hmm. BS to you. We are not the best nutritioned, the most fed, but not the best nourished. A fucking Chicago dog and fries dowsed in ketchup, ain't exactly nutrition. AND REALLY????!!?!?! healthiest????? Half of of Ammurica is fat. 10 states have 30+% of its population designated as obese (thats really damn fat). We have the greatest amount of available food to us at the lowest prices relative to GDP, which means none of us are running around starving like central African children. That article I posted was chosen because of its references, mostly ones like the fucking New England Journal of Medicinem, Science, and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ---Not some crack-pot hippy publications. You can't just point to diet for life span... How about we have low crime relative to 3rd world countries? How about we have good hospitals and doctors and drugs to fix us up? We also are paranoid about safety, you know airbags, helmets, etc. People who do dumb shit just don't get darwinized in our society. Sure, we now live longer, but how much longer could we live if we coupled an abundant food supply with healthy unpoisoned food? Also, you got to look at the facts about our aged population. Someone who is 70 now, didn't grow up with all the hormones and shit in their milk, beef, chicken, etc. The practice of pumping our food full of additives and other shit wasn't widely acceptable until recent history. Additionally, you think our life expectancy will continue to rise in the future? Not with all the fatties, obesity related dealths are starting outpace smoking related deaths. The rate of congested heart failure amung people under the age of 50 is beginning to rise. quote: Reducing the amount of dairy produced would likely make the milk supply more dangerous because there would be less public concern for the safety of the milk supply. Specious logic at best. Who the hell eats many rudabagas anymore? Yet, we all still care if the rudabagas on the shelf in our grocery stores are safe to eat. Milk will remain safe. I could argue back the limited supply and higher price of milk, would make it more affordable for the farmer and easier to regulate. Following your logic, if we banned diet soda with all of it modern chemistry in it, everyone would get fat from all the sugar. However, ever since diet soda hit the market we have been getting fatter and fatter, and someday just take a look at all the fat people waddling around drinking diet soda. quote: As to diabetes (type II I assume you eant) cancer and osteoperosis, these are diseases of long life. They were uncommon in earlier generations because people simply didn't live long enough for them to occur. Anyone who pushes the modern diet as bad based on diseases earlier generations did not live long enough to have is yet again a fraudster looking to make a buck on the gullible. Yes type II. Um, not anymore. more and more people of younger ages are getting type II diabetes. They are even starting to see it in 20 something year olds. Once it was a disease of ths old, not anymore. Cancer, not always a disease of the old anymore either. The rate of breast, prostate, and testicular cancer among people under the age of 60 continues to escalate. Those cancers are most directly related hormones. There are studies coming out pretty regularly now showing how the surge in artificial hormones in our environment are screwing with people's sex drive, causing premature cancers, kickstarting puberty in girls at earlier and earlier ages (now as low as 8yo in some cases !!!!!!), and giving men a host of emotional problems. If you look at what I said about milk in general, it is not a good idea to consume that much of regularly. Even without the artificial crap being pumped in there, milk that is not human has a host of proteins and whatnot in proportions that aren't good for people, including high levels of a natural opioid tied to cancers. And soy ain't much better. With the abundance of plant sterols resembling estrogen, it isn't a good idea for men to really consume any soy milk at any age. For adult women it may be helpful with things like menopause, but can screw with the hormone levels of developing girls. I personally don't consume much milk and dairy. I know there are other ways to get calcium naturally in my diet, and I don't want the negative effects of over consumption of dairy. However, when I have a choice, I will at least go hormone free organic, otherwise I just won't touch it. The Modern US diet is shit. Europe doesn't allow all that crap being squirted into their food and they don't have giant escalation in health problems we are starting to see in the US. And free healthcare doesn't cure a bad diet. So, I am pointing to diet. I'm a fraudster? What division of Monsanto/Cargill/ADM do you work for?

DomKen -> RE: Lactose Intolerance (8/8/2011 1:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM Hmm. BS to you. We are not the best nutritioned, the most fed, but not the best nourished. A fucking Chicago dog and fries dowsed in ketchup, ain't exactly nutrition. AND REALLY????!!?!?! healthiest????? Half of of Ammurica is fat. 10 states have 30+% of its population designated as obese (thats really damn fat). We have the greatest amount of available food to us at the lowest prices relative to GDP, which means none of us are running around starving like central African children. That article I posted was chosen because of its references, mostly ones like the fucking New England Journal of Medicinem, Science, and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ---Not some crack-pot hippy publications. You posted an article that mostlu used 15 year old studies. I decided to be kind and not point out the problem with using old studies. Since you decided to attack me, after your spectacular failures previously in this thread, I'll now show you what is wrong with this article in detail. Most of the article is dedicated to attempting to debunk well known facts behind why people consume dairy products. For instance they use several articles studying bone density in women. However the studiously avoid more recent studies showing that Vitamin D, added to milk in the US, is important to maintaining bone density. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12540414 The fact is that large consumption of calcium is important during growth and calcium found in the diet even without dairy products is sufficient to maintain bone density in most people. However Vitamin D which is produced through sun exposure is vital to bone density and since sun exposure is much lower today than in the past supplementation, with dairy for instance, is very important to bone health. Moving on to the article's claim that childhood consumption of dairy products is related to cancer rates. This article is used to support the claim: http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/6/1722.short This is the studies design quote: Design: From 1937 through 1939, some 4999 children living in England and Scotland participated in a study of family food consumption, assessed from 7-d household food inventories. The National Health Service central register was used to ascertain cancer registrations and deaths between 1948 and 2005 in the 4383 traced cohort members. Per capita household intake estimates for dairy products and calcium were used as proxy for individual intake. So in reality the very minor increase in colorectal cancer observed was in children raised in homes with higher dairy consumption. There was absolutely no evidence showing the children studied actually consumed more dairy. Even if you take their assumption the increase in colorectal cancer rate was small and the decrease in prostate cancer risk was also found. More than likely the colorectal cancer rate was associated with drinking high fat whole milk (colorectal cancer is associated with high fat intake). So the study really establishes nothing not already well known. Finally the author includes references to several books including http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/USOMilk/ Two things jump out to me. First is the publisher. New Trends Publishing is the book imprint associated with the Nourishing Traditions magazine and a prime publisher of people who claim chlosterol is not associated with heart disease. Secondly the author Ron Schmid who is a "naturopathic physician" who sells raw milk products to the gullible. He also pushes a "hunter/gatherer" diet. Neither the publisher not author seem to me to be reliable sources on anything. quote: You can't just point to diet for life span... How about we have low crime relative to 3rd world countries? How about we have good hospitals and doctors and drugs to fix us up? We also are paranoid about safety, you know airbags, helmets, etc. People who do dumb shit just don't get darwinized in our society. Sure, we now live longer, but how much longer could we live if we coupled an abundant food supply with healthy unpoisoned food? Also, you got to look at the facts about our aged population. Someone who is 70 now, didn't grow up with all the hormones and shit in their milk, beef, chicken, etc. The practice of pumping our food full of additives and other shit wasn't widely acceptable until recent history. Additionally, you think our life expectancy will continue to rise in the future? Not with all the fatties, obesity related dealths are starting outpace smoking related deaths. The rate of congested heart failure amung people under the age of 50 is beginning to rise. You seem to have a real problem accepting reality isn't what the quacks you bought into told you it was. I invite you to go discuss your misconceptions with a public health specialist. I've already wasted too much time on your fantasies.

MileHighM -> RE: Lactose Intolerance (8/8/2011 4:00:42 PM)
quote: You seem to have a real problem accepting reality isn't what the quacks you bought into told you it was. I invite you to go discuss your misconceptions with a public health specialist. I've already wasted too much time on your fantasies. Well if that's your final word so be it. Here is mine. You admit you can get adequate calcium via a diet which does not include dairy, therefore you won't be malnourished. Your concern is with vitamin D. Well, I am an active outdoorsy person with no vitamin D problems so why should I drink milk just as a means get something that is only supplemented into it anyways (I could just take Vitamin D supplements as well). According to http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind/ "It has been suggested by some vitamin D researchers, for example, that approximately 5–30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM at least twice a week to the face, arms, legs, or back without sunscreen usually lead to sufficient vitamin D synthesis." Now we all know of skin cancer risks, but 5-30 minutes?!?!?! that is nothing. I can do about an hour buck naked in the altitude of the Rockies here with a UV index of 10+ and not get a sun burn on my pecker. So, one more reason I don't need agribusiness milk. If people are so tied to their X-box that they don't see the sun for weeks, it ain't fortified milk thats gonna save their lazy ass from bad health. quote: So in reality the very minor increase in colorectal cancer observed was in children raised in homes with higher dairy consumption. There was absolutely no evidence showing the children studied actually consumed more dairy. Even if you take their assumption the increase in colorectal cancer rate was small and the decrease in prostate cancer risk was also found. More than likely the colorectal cancer rate was associated with drinking high fat whole milk (colorectal cancer is associated with high fat intake). So the study really establishes nothing not already well known. The study didn't say a minor increase in colorectal cancer, but a tripling of the rate...Even though the conumption was monitored household by household, and not by the individual, a trippling in the rate would suggest the correlation is not coincidental. I may have bought into the quacks as you put it. But the quacks don't make you sick, they just fail to cure you. The quacks don't have a job unless you're sick. You bought into the poison dealers, just like smokers used think cigarettes were safe. In your rant about how necessary milk is for vitamin D, and your refutation of the sources based only on the age of the study, your most recent post really didn't even address the heart of my arguement from the post you were addressing. That arguement revolves on the fact that our national health is decline now. For years, we were living longer and healthier lives. During that period of health improvements it was most based on regulations that ensured our food was, in general, safer than before. But now with big agribusiness running the show, they have money no one little farmer once had to buy off government. Their intent on pumping preservative, hormones, and other crap in the food, isn't for health and safety. It is for the bucks. I don't need growth hormones in my food to make it safe. They may not have an immediate effect on one's health, but the agregate effect is a negative one. Our food can be produced safely without all the additives, 'fortification,' and unnatural growing methods. It will just cost more. I am happy to let people eat whatever shit they want to. You keep consuming the foods made with the greatest forms of industrial processing. Just know that they have their own risks. I'll eat what you call diseased food, but naturally produced. I know the risks, and they are mine to take. But, when I switched my diet, I lost weight, feel full of energy and have a happier bowel.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125