On my part I said that humans have no problem metabolizing milk when
someone noted it contains some proteins the same as humans have..
Then examples of adverse effects said to be tied to milk use were
offered. Noting their absolute assertion my reply was the nore
qualified "could bee" as to theexample of type 1 diabees offered. To
demonstrate there is where the scientific community is on the question a
recent article was used to show that mixed results and more im****ttant
even where positive indications occur that it is not milk alone but only
in association with other specif factors in some of the population.
Now we get:
"Yep, another way to obtain diabetes just through milk and although the
gene pool isn't changing much, the disease incidences are. DM1 & 2 are
rising."
The gene pool is not only changing it has changed in recent tousands of
years since people spread over the globe. The recent ability to look at
specific genetic information for given populations show that most
genetic change in humas is related to medical and/or such other
challendges as climate which of course also means diet which is a
function of climate.
The rise in diabetes type 2 is most tied to decrease in physical
activity and increases in over consumption. The world's highest rate of
it is in india with a low meat use.
> conflicting re****ts
"doesn't mean conflicting risk or no consensus but may reflect different
risk factors or incomplete examination. You've only proved that you'll
claim humans have no problem metabolizing cow's milk, regardless of the
risk & regardless of the diseases- and there are many."
So now we are to accept a particular take "explaining" the reasons for
the mixed results on milk and diabetes 1 for the past 30 or so years it
has been researched? That it continues to be so and with the clearly
mixed results presented in detail in the discussion section of the
article posted speaks loudly to that state of affairs. There is now
concensus that the cause of various diseases is explained by the germ
theory of disease. Nothing even approaching that level can be said of
the role of milk and diabetes. How many factors did the authors find,
was it a dozen or so without going back to count?
I will gladly modify my statement that humans have no problem
metabolizing milk, with the understanding that in the human population
as a whole some can be found who have adverse reactions to any food
source. For example as noted in the article, some plant sources have
been tied to type 1 diabetes also.
Even if we ignore the mixed results and demonstrated multifactorial
reasons for diabetes 1, we still are not in a position to say that milk
is such a huge source of adverse problems as some want to assert . We
can only say that in the bell curve of human diets some will have
adverse reactions. But in the fat middle of the curve where the
overwhealming population is found there does not exist sup****t for the
strong assertions made about milk. This too is the case for plant
sources of adverse reactions in common foods.
"Beyond The Ice Age,""
Of course since the ice age, those humans who adopted domestication of
milk producing animals in part for milk foods the level of lactose
problems are greatly reduced because of a mutation in the genetics
related to lactase production. In those parts of the world which did
not adopt milk as a food source lactose problems are found at a much
higher level because the lactase mutations did not occur.
As to other possible adverse effects to milk we would want to look at
the milk adopters and nonadopters for levels of them as explanation. So
too for adverse to plant sources of adverse reactions as to their
history of place of origin and where levels vary accordingly.
|
