On Oct 9, 5:58 pm, arch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On my part I said that humans have no problem metabolizing milk when
> someone noted it contains some proteins the same as humans have..
Nobody established that the amount and types of proteins contained in
cow milk is suited for human metabolism. You went on preparing for
some speciation party because a fraction of the population has a
persistent lactase gene. You don't want to factor in the other
intolerable contents of milk and above you don't even want to consider
the fact that the concentration of Bovine BCM-7 in cow milk is not the
same as traces of human BCM-7 (a non-essential amino acid).
Naturally, human adults need even less casein than babies. "To prevent
mother's milk from being rejected by the baby, women should not
consume any dairy products while pregnant or lactating, as well as
during pre-pregnancy." http://www.13.waisays.com/breastfeeding.htm
> 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.
Genes don't act alone either and diet activates genes. And because of
the fact there are different genes and different degrees of genetic
susceptibility to DM1 after exposure to cow milk, you're still playing
in traffic. So, in the likely event that a given person hasn't mutated
with the lactose persistence gene and if a person isn't genetically
susceptible to DM1 or now pregnant and prone to contaminate breast
milk for the baby, then there remains numerous other contents in cow
milk that contribute to disease risks ranging from gout, acne, anxiety
(you already admitted to "cravings" for fat & salt, consider
casomorphine), macular degeneration, etc. But we'll get to the other
risks later, right now you're still conditioned to believe humans have
no problem metabolizing the contents within the udders of another
lactating mammal.
> 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.
No matter how you want to juggle the genes, genes alone do not explain
the increased rate of diabetes incidences. "We have seen disease rates
change over time so drastically that it is biologically impossible to
put the blame on genes." The China Study, p. 234. In terms of
susceptibility to acquired diseases, gene expression is mainly due to
diet anyway. For example, Campbell demonstrated that rats exposed to
aflatoxin developed cancer or precursors in 100% of the trials by the
2nd yr on a 20% protein diet, while rats developed cancer in 0% of
cases after initiation of the same carcinogen aflatoxin, on a 5%
protein diet for 2 yrs. The low protein rats were also more active.
The association was linear and convincing. This and a lot more were
demonstrated in lab studies. Rats require more protein than humans so
why would anyone think mature humans need or benefit from more than 5%
of diet as any combination of protein- much less beta casein
concentrations in cow milk, specifically for the growth of calves?
> 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.
partly because of the increased fat in the diet lately. Diabetes,
obesity, heart disease, etc are rising as the mostly vegetarian,
traditional Indian diet is eroding with more meat on top of the fried
food, dairy & inadequate fruit intake. "Diabetes rates in India have
doubled in the last decade or two=94 but the Indian diet has only
become more (not less) westernized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D73b_OL=
q5-70
But back to DM1..
Chart 9.3: Association of Cow=92s Milk Consumption and Incidence of Type
1 Diabetes in Different Countries
Incidence
Per
100,000/year
40| /
| /
| /
| /
_| /
30| Finland */
| /
| /
| /
_| Sweden * /
20| /* Norway
| /
| Great Britain */
| U.S.A.*/ * Denmark
_| / * New Zealand
10| / * Netherlands
| Canada */
| /
| Japan / * France
0_|_____*/_______________________________________
0 100 200 300
Cow Milk Consumption (liters/person/year)
Chart shown in The China Study p. 190 from (27) Dahl-Jorgensen K,
Joner G, and Hanssen KF. =93Relation****p between cow=92s milk consumption
and incidence of IDDM in childhood.=94 Diabetes Care 14 (1991):
1081-1083.
(28) The pro****tion of Type 1 diabetes due to the consumption of cow=92s
milk, the r2 value, is 96%
>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
"We"?
Anyway, it's very simple- most of the studies measuring DM1 risk with
cow milk consumption show a correlation, most of those are positive
correlations and the rare exception researchers re****ted an inverse
correlation, which you also provided the only one I saw, down the
list..
The evidence for the linear correlation between cow=92s milk consumption
and diabetes continues to ac***ulate. There are thousands of studies
on diabetes and milk consumption. The consensus is that the only real
question is how long can parents postpone administering a particular
dosage of cow milk to human offspring without contracting DM1 (among
other disease risks). Oh and whether or not Momma carne is
contaminating amniotic fluid and breast milk w/cow milk consumption to
put her baby at risk could be another issue.
A random search on Pubmed revealed that of the first 10 working links
of studies that did produce results, 6/10 indicated cow=92s milk was
positively associated w/diabetes incidences. 1 outlier out of 10 (#9)
produced results inversely related with the consensus of researchers
testing the hypothesis for the biologically plausible, linear
relation****p of DM1 incidence and cow milk consumption.
> 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.
Not only is evidence lacking for a positive correlation between fruit
and DM1 but I have shown you evidence for negative correlation between
fruit and MD2 risk a few months ago.
Now for type 1:
BR J. Nutr. 2008 Feb;99 Suppl 1:S33-9.
Finally, children and parents should be taught how to count
carbohydrates, which would help them manage exceptions in their daily
meal plan. Specifically, nutritional recommendations for children with
diabetes focus on limiting the intake of foods of animal origin (red
meat, cheese, cold cuts), moderating fat intake and promoting the
intake of foods that naturally contain fibre (mainly vegetables,
legumes, fruit).
Diabetologia. 2007 Feb;50(2):307-16. Epub 2006 Nov 29.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Diabetic children and adolescents had a
high intake of energy from saturated fat and low intake of fibre,
fruits and vegetables, which could increase the risk of development of
atherosclerosis. This study sup****ts the idea that nutritional
guidance in the treatment of children and adolescents with type 1
diabetes should be more focused, especially with regard to intake of
fibre, fruits and vegetables and to quality and quantity of fat
intake.
Etc... Search words for random Pubmed search: "diabetes type 1 fruit"
Results for the first 2 working links to articles were provided (#1 &
#3).
> we still are not in a position to say that milk
> is such a huge source of adverse problems as some want to assert
Still? We have barely covered 1 random disease associated w/milk
consumption (DM1). Would you like to choose the next disease
associated w/zoosucivorous adults trying to digest incompatible milk
or shall I? With no response I'll go in alphabetical order so the ball
is in your court. We've gone from Sept 25, 1:49 pm "humans have no
problem metabolizing those proteins [in cow's milk]" to =93I stand fully
by my statement of "could be" with the reasons as mentioned on Oct. 2
10:32 pm to your above statement =93we still are not in a position to
say that milk is such a huge source of adverse problems as some want
to assert=94 Yet it isn=92t a question of what I want at all.
>We
> can only say that in the bell curve of human diets some will have
> adverse reactions.
in the case of DM1, then create another curve for DM2, now cancer, now
gout, etc..
> But in the fat middle of the curve where the
> overwhealming population is found
Ahh yes, the fat middle part where most human adults are lactose
intolerant... I know that part..
> 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.
And since most people still aren't even lactose tolerant and because
of the positive correlation between acquired diseases with the various
contents in cow's milk (perfect for calves), there is no nutritional
advantage to consuming cow's milk instead of available fruit. It is
im****tant to be aware of the fact that you can be lactose tolerant but
that doesn't mean you can digest the casein, insulin growth factor 1,
chol, etc without disease risk. Therefore, the indisputable fact will
always remain; adult humans will never be able to adapt to another
species' milk (the combination of all the contents, which are
associated w/various diseases, regardless of minor genetic differences
among human consumers). You would have to imagine humans in an
isolated, competitive biotic refugia with positive selection for
suckling across species over unavailable fruit or negative selection
of fruit for millions of years to reverse the contrasting digestive
processes that result in opposite affects for disease prevention
(fruit intake) and risks of diseases correlated with unnecessary dairy
consumption today.
Chris
|
