Gyroscopic Investing

A question to the health-conscious crowd on the forum. Is there any truth to this?

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/ ... u-fat-and/

Makes you wonder if everything we've taken for granted over the past few decades is just dead wrong. Maybe up is down, and down is up?

Whole milk is better than skim milk because it's closer to natural.

However, no milk is better than any milk because of all the shit the farmers pump into the cows and the fact that humans weren't meant evolutionarily to drink cow milk.

Why is it "common knowledge" that drinking milk is "good" for you? Because of the cattle lobbyists launching marketing efforts over the last century. Why hasn't the government stepped in to stop the propaganda? 90% of voters from many states back in the early 1900s were farmers.

I do eat cheese and occasionally put milk on cereal but I am aware it's unhealthy and do it solely for taste.

However, no milk is better than any milk because of all the shit the farmers pump into the cows and the fact that humans weren't meant evolutionarily to drink cow milk.

The first one is probably true. Who knows what weird things are being pumped into cows. Recent study shows arsenic and benedryl in our chickens, I don't imagine cows would be any different.

As far as the second reason, I recently watched a national geographic special documenting human evolution and apparently humans developed the ability to digest cows milks many thousands of years ago although it varys between regions of the world. According to the article linked below, 99 percent of Chinese get an upset stomach from drinking milk. (I wonder if McDonalds does milkshakes there?) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 01_lactose

As to it's real health benefits or drawbacks, that will be a question that will probably be muddled by milk lobby for many years to come.

Compare the composition of human breast milk to whole milk and 2% let alone skim or fat free milk.  If breastmilk (with all the saturated fat and cholesterol) is the perfect food for infants, I have no idea why some feel fat free or skim milk is the healthiest for adults. It doesn't make any sense to me. 



                            Breastmilk                    whole cow’s milk                      2% cow’s milk

cholesterol            43 mg/cup                      33 mg/cup                              18 mg/cup

fat                        11.2 g/cup                        8 g/cup                                  5 g/cup


http://kellymom.com/nutrition/milk/bmilk-composition/

I don't know the answer, but I drink raw unpasteurized goat milk. I thought I was lactose intolerant until I tried it. Good stuff.

Organic whole milk is a good choice.

Gumby,

I see that the article you linked to was influenced by The Weston A. Price Foundation.  I generally agree with their advise, but I am not as hardcore as they recommend -- I follow a more lazy and slightly more processed version of their diet.

What really bothers me about nutritional advise is that it's mostly based on reductionist thinking and a few random studies where an individual component was isolated.  I don't know what the best diet is, but I have a guess that it is somewhere between what we evolved to eat, combined with food from the past 10,000 years (the start of agriculture).  Basically I try to avoid all the crap developed over the past 100-200 years.

So IMO whole milk is better for you, plus it contains all those lovely fat soluble vitamins, which will actually be absorbed.

doodle wrote:According to the article linked below, 99 percent of Chinese get an upset stomach from drinking milk. (I wonder if McDonalds does milkshakes there?)

Perhaps they do the "Krusty partially gelatinated non-dairy gum-based beverage" from The Simpsons instead of milkshakes?

Humans evolved drinking milk. The mammals are called mammals for a reason.  And milk, although varying quit a bit among species, contains the same kind of basic stuff (lactose, fats, hormones, vitamins, minerals, etc.).  Cow's (or goat's or water buffalo's) is just a convenient food we happened upon.

It also makes sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, that human adults could lose the ability to digest lactose.  Babies not born with the ability to digest lactose, however, would have been a problem until recently.

FarmerD wrote: Compare the composition of human breast milk to whole milk and 2% let alone skim or fat free milk.  If breastmilk (with all the saturated fat and cholesterol) is the perfect food for infants, I have no idea why some feel fat free or skim milk is the healthiest for adults. It doesn't make any sense to me.   



                            Breastmilk                     whole cow’s milk                       2% cow’s milk

cholesterol            43 mg/cup                       33 mg/cup                              18 mg/cup

fat                        11.2 g/cup                         8 g/cup                                  5 g/cup


http://kellymom.com/nutrition/milk/bmilk-composition/

I'm not an expert, but I believe infants do need a lot more fat than a grown adult would need in order to grow tissue, etc.  I think if I was given a diet of 100% breast milk I'd probably put on a little weight too.

doodle wrote: (I wonder if McDonalds does milkshakes {in China}?)  

They do indeed.

doodle wrote:

However, no milk is better than any milk because of all the shit the farmers pump into the cows and the fact that humans weren't meant evolutionarily to drink cow milk.

The first one is probably true. Who knows what weird things are being pumped into cows. Recent study shows arsenic and benedryl in our chickens, I don't imagine cows would be any different.

As far as the second reason, I recently watched a national geographic special documenting human evolution and apparently humans developed the ability to digest cows milks many thousands of years ago although it varys between regions of the world. According to the article linked below, 99 percent of Chinese get an upset stomach from drinking milk. (I wonder if McDonalds does milkshakes there?) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 01_lactose

As to it's real health benefits or drawbacks, that will be a question that will probably be muddled by milk lobby for many years to come.

I've got lactose intolerance myself, and I don't consume milk at all because of the effect it has on my digestive tract.  Actually, lactose intolerance is the "default" state for human beings.  It's only in northern Europe and parts of the Middle East where the mutant lactose-digesting genes are prominent.  My ancestors were from northern Europe, but I somehow ended up without that gene anyway.

I remember that when I was in high school, I didn't know what lactose intolerance was.  All I knew was that EVERY DAY I would get horrifically bloated and my stomach would start to feel awful at school.  I never deduced that it was because of the milk I put on my cereal in the morning.

edsanville wrote:Actually, lactose intolerance is the "default" state for human beings

Hardly the default state, and certainly not the default state for human infants.  And not just Europeans and Middle Easterners.  The Masai, from Africa, eat milk, blood, meat, etc.

And if you read Wheat Belly you will see a good argument that it is the cereal, not the milk, that can be the problem.

Gumby wrote: A question to the health-conscious crowd on the forum. Is there any truth to this?

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/ ... u-fat-and/

Makes you wonder if everything we've taken for granted over the past few decades is just dead wrong. Maybe up is down, and down is up?

Pretty much.  It's the legacy of institutonalized capitalism getting involved in the health and food marketplace.  Profits over health.

Skim milk usually contains oxidized dry milk powder.  On the other hand, homogenized (fat) milk produces xanthine oxidase which damages the heart.  Fat also concentrates the antibiotics and hormones.  Factory farmed cows wallow in their shit, piss and infected udder pus.  Pasteurization is a technique to allow such poor quality milk containing said to be commercially sold.  But, while the pasteurization process may denature the pathogen baddies, the dead debris still remains floating in the milk and can cause intolerance and health issues.  And that's on top of the denatured proteins caused by pastuerization and is another source of intolerance and health issues.

The solution is not to drink commercial milk, but stick to raw, grass fed milk.  There's a growing black market in raw milk going on right now between the states as more and more people wake up to commercial milk.  The FDA's crony and laughable position is that raw milk is literally dangerous without exception and will not legally allow any interstate sales under the commerce clause power.

Just keep in mind, that saturated fat is still inflammatory, whether or not its raw or grass fed.  I see a lot of Paleos making this tragic mistake in recommending butter, coconut oil, etc..  Being dogmatic appears to mean selective interpretation not objective.

MG

MachineGhost wrote:Just keep in mind, that saturated fat is still inflammatory, whether or not its raw or grass fed.  I see a lot of Paleos making this tragic mistake in recommending butter, coconut oil, etc..

Food is inflamatory.

WildAboutHarry wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:Just keep in mind, that saturated fat is still inflammatory, whether or not its raw or grass fed.  I see a lot of Paleos making this tragic mistake in recommending butter, coconut oil, etc..

Food is inflamatory.

Coconut oil is inflammatory, but I don't know that it's a tragic mistake. The jury's not out on that yet.
I eat a lot of anti-inflammatory foods like mackerel, so I don't worry about. I think coconut oil is good.

dualstow wrote:

WildAboutHarry wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:Just keep in mind, that saturated fat is still inflammatory, whether or not its raw or grass fed.  I see a lot of Paleos making this tragic mistake in recommending butter, coconut oil, etc..

Food is inflamatory.

Coconut oil is inflammatory, but I don't know that it's a tragic mistake. The jury's not out on that yet.
I eat a lot of anti-inflammatory foods like mackerel, so I don't worry about. I think coconut oil is good.

Physical exercise is also inflammatory.

I agree that too much inflammation is a bad thing, but it is healthy in a certain dose, since our bodies adjust through the process of hormesis and become stronger because of it.

So, I will continue to enjoy my butter, potatoes, and ice cream! 

Gosso wrote:

dualstow wrote:

WildAboutHarry wrote: Food is inflamatory.

Coconut oil is inflammatory, but I don't know that it's a tragic mistake. The jury's not out on that yet.
I eat a lot of anti-inflammatory foods like mackerel, so I don't worry about. I think coconut oil is good.

Physical exercise is also inflammatory.

I agree that too much inflammation is a bad thing, but it is healthy in a certain dose, since our bodies adjust through the process of hormesis and become stronger because of it.

So, I will continue to enjoy my butter, potatoes, and ice cream! 

You guys are rationalizing.  Just about every disease now arises first from systemic inflammation, and I'm not talking about the kind of inflammation from exercise, but primarily from ongoing food ingestion, especially saturated fat or its arachidonic acid that sets off the inflammatory cascade.

The best way to deal with this risk is to have a balanced and moderate intake of the three types of fats: the inflammatory (Omega-6/Saturated), the anti-inflammatory (Omega-3) and the neutral (Omega-9).  But, to do this properly, you have to eat low saturated fat foodstuffs, or the balance will get out of whack.  In practical terms, that means only eating lean trimmed meats such as ground beef <10%, top sirloin or chicken breast, not saturated fat concentrates such as ghee, butter, ice cream, coconut fat, etc.. that Paleos and Atkins overindulge in.  Coconut fat is especially inflammatory as it is over 80% saturated fat.

Several years ago, I came across an obscure paper by Hegsted on PubMed that predicts how the type of fat increases or decreases cholesterol.  The information got incorporated into the section "Balancing Fatty Acids" here (not my site): http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health ... erol1.html

Do note that cholesterol and systemic inflammation are entirely different things.  One is primarily drug industry propaganda, another is a real world risk factor.  As an aside, I should point out that statins have an interesting and unintended side effect of reducing inflammation and thus, cancer.

MG

MG,

I agree with regards to balancing omega 3's and 6's, but I'm not convinced about the saturated fat.  Maybe you can direct me to further reading on this...

Just did a quick google search and found this, Saturated fat is not your heart’s enemy:

We’ve been told for decades to lower our intake of saturated fat to guard against heart disease. The rationale: Saturated fat can raise LDL (bad) cholesterol in the blood, a risk factor for heart attack and stroke.  But according to a new report that will be published in the March issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there’s no evidence that saturated fat is linked with a higher risk of heart disease.
...
While it’s true that lab animals fed diets high in saturated fat develop fatty plaques in their arteries, not all studies suggest this is the case in humans.
...
Over all, there was no difference in the risks of heart disease or stroke between people with the highest and lowest intakes of saturated fat.

But honestly, I'm not too worried about eating the perfect diet.  As long as it is relatively "healthy" (whatever that means), and I exercise, keep stress controlled, sleep well, etc., then I figure I'm doing the best I can.

We all die at some point...if I die at 80 rather than 90, then so be it.  I'm more worried about quality rather than quantity. 

Besides, I'm kinda interested to see what happens after we die anyway. 

WildAboutHarry wrote:

edsanville wrote:Actually, lactose intolerance is the "default" state for human beings

Hardly the default state, and certainly not the default state for human infants.  And not just Europeans and Middle Easterners.  The Masai, from Africa, eat milk, blood, meat, etc.

And if you read Wheat Belly you will see a good argument that it is the cereal, not the milk, that can be the problem.

I should clarify, I am talking about the lactose intolerance that I have "Primary lactase deficiency."  From Wikipedia:

"Primary lactase deficiency is genetic, only affects adults and is caused by the absence of a lactase persistence allele.[4][5] It is the most common cause of lactose intolerance as a majority of the world's population lacks these alleles.[6]"

Yes, I was talking about adults, not babies...  I thought that was pretty much understood.

Also, just because non-Europeans and non-Middle Easterners consume milk doesn't mean they can digest the lactose like Europeans and Middle Easterners do.  Anyway, I didn't mean lactose tolerance was limited completely to those areas, I just meant that lactose tolerance is much more common in those areas.  The further away from Europe/Middle East you go (genetically-speaking), the less tolerance for lactose the human race seems to have:

"The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[3]"

WildAboutHarry wrote:

edsanville wrote:Actually, lactose intolerance is the "default" state for human beings

Hardly the default state, and certainly not the default state for human infants.  And not just Europeans and Middle Easterners.  The Masai, from Africa, eat milk, blood, meat, etc.

Looking at a lactose intolerance frequency table, it appears that Native Americans are 95% LI, Japanese are 90% LI, Thais are 99% LI, Australian Aborigines are 85% LI.  Even the Greeks are 88% LI:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_5.htm

I think the pattern is pretty clear from that chart, that the vast majority of the world's population is/was lactose intolerant.  In fact, the more European admixture in a population, the higher the lactose tolerance gets.  This is why I said lactose intolerance is the "default" state of humanity.  It definitely appears that humanity was basically lactose intolerant (like our ape ancestors), until the lactase persistence allele evolved.

And if you read Wheat Belly you will see a good argument that it is the cereal, not the milk, that can be the problem.

I'm sorry, but the theory that "the cereal is causing the problem, not the milk,"  is utter crap.  Take it from someone who actually lives with this problem.  Once I figured out it was the milk, everything clicked.  If I avoid milk, I'm fine.  If I ingest milk, I'm in a world of hurt.  Cereal doesn't cause me problems at all.  The last time I had serious issues was from unknowingly eating scrambled eggs that were made from milk.  I won't go into details, but I spent about half an hour on the toilet.  No cereals were involved.

Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread, but I had to clarify these facts.

Storm wrote:

FarmerD wrote: Compare the composition of human breast milk to whole milk and 2% let alone skim or fat free milk.  If breastmilk (with all the saturated fat and cholesterol) is the perfect food for infants, I have no idea why some feel fat free or skim milk is the healthiest for adults. It doesn't make any sense to me.   



                            Breastmilk                     whole cow’s milk                       2% cow’s milk

cholesterol            43 mg/cup                       33 mg/cup                              18 mg/cup

fat                        11.2 g/cup                         8 g/cup                                  5 g/cup


http://kellymom.com/nutrition/milk/bmilk-composition/

I'm not an expert, but I believe infants do need a lot more fat than a grown adult would need in order to grow tissue, etc.  I think if I was given a diet of 100% breast milk I'd probably put on a little weight too.

I'm sorry to be unproductive but I just noticed that last bit and I'd like to add "and put a big smile on my face." 

edsanville wrote:I'm sorry, but the theory that "the cereal is causing the problem, not the milk,"  is utter crap.

Sorry, the effects of carbohydrates in the diet, manifesting as digestive upsets, is not "...utter crap..." no pun intended.

As someone who used to consume bucketloads of Tums with a high-carb, low fat diet, I can attest that the cereal can be the problem.  Obviously for those who cannot tolerate lactose in the diet that is not the case.

Regarding lactose intolerance, clearly the default state in humans, the one switched on at birth, is the ability to digest lactose.  Also clearly, the loss of the ability to digest lactose was not a big deal in hunter-gatherer societies, since the hunters were not interested in milking prey species.

I am not lactose intolerant, as far as I know (although I haven't drank milk in years), but my understanding is that the manifestation of lactose intolerance varies greatly among those individuals that do not have the persistence allele, and that certain kinds of dairy product s (e.g. yogurt, cheese, etc.) are better tolerated.

WildAboutHarry wrote:

edsanville wrote:I'm sorry, but the theory that "the cereal is causing the problem, not the milk,"  is utter crap.

Sorry, the effects of carbohydrates in the diet, manifesting as digestive upsets, is not "...utter crap..." no pun intended.

As someone who used to consume bucketloads of Tums with a high-carb, low fat diet, I can attest that the cereal can be the problem.  Obviously for those who cannot tolerate lactose in the diet that is not the case.

I'll take your word for it that cereal can cause digestive problems in some people.  That doesn't surprise me very much.  Luckily, I'm not one of those people.  However, my original post was only about lactose intolerance, and you seemed to be implying that maybe lactose intolerance was just a misdiagnosis of something else related to cereals.  My point was that modern science and my own experience disagrees with that interpretation.

Regarding lactose intolerance, clearly the default state in humans, the one switched on at birth, is the ability to digest lactose.  Also clearly, the loss of the ability to digest lactose was not a big deal in hunter-gatherer societies, since the hunters were not interested in milking prey species.

Yes, exactly!  Once certain humans (in Europe and the Middle East mostly) started domesticating animals and consuming their milk, there was evolutionary pressure to keep producing lactase into adulthood.  That's what I meant when I said "default," and I assumed it was understood in context.  I guess I just didn't think somebody would interpret my statement to mean that I wasn't aware that babies can digest milk by default.

I am not lactose intolerant, as far as I know (although I haven't drank milk in years), but my understanding is that the manifestation of lactose intolerance varies greatly among those individuals that do not have the persistence allele, and that certain kinds of dairy product s (e.g. yogurt, cheese, etc.) are better tolerated.

Yeah, that's true.  Some dairy products have a much higher concentration of lactose than others.  One of the clinical tests for primary lactase deficiency is to eat different kinds of cheese, and record your bodily response.  If the symptoms get worse as you go up the lactose ladder, you've got lactose intolerance.

The interesting thing about lactase persistence is that the evolutionary pressure existed.  That must mean that lactose intolerant people, at some locations and times in human history, must have had a lower probability of survival than their lactase-persistent brethren.  Of course, what was good thousands of years ago isn't necessarily good today.  I really think cow's milk is an unnecessary part of the modern human diet altogether.

edsanville wrote:The interesting thing about lactase persistence is that the evolutionary pressure existed.  That must mean that lactose intolerant people, at some locations and times in human history, must have had a lower probability of survival than their lactase-persistent brethren.  Of course, what was good thousands of years ago isn't necessarily good today.

Right.  This is an interesting phenomenon.  And it was obviously easier (in an evolutionary sense) for humans to re-acquire the ability to digest lactose from a set of dormant alleles than it would have been to have that ability arise de novo.

edsanville wrote: I really think cow's milk is an unnecessary part of the modern human diet altogether.

I agree as a beverage, but as raw material for cheese, indispensable!

WildAboutHarry wrote: I agree as a beverage, but as raw material for cheese, indispensable!

Cheese is addictive because caseine releases calming opiods.  Caseine also causes cancer.

I can go for about a week before literally craving some dairy just to destress.

MG