On Oct 19, 1:12 pm, arch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Let us recap.
Will this be an attempt to invent a different debate (the opposite of
recap)?
> A strong assertion without qualification was made that
> people should absolutely not use milk because among other reasons it is
the
> cause of type 1 diabetes and lactose problems.
Who are you claiming made the "strong assertion"? Nobody said, "people
should absolutely not use milk because among other reasons it is the
cause of" anything. That recrap is yours alone. I informed you that
virtually any diet-related, acquired disease involves more than one
cause. I specifically told you genes don't work in isolation. We are
talking about A causal agent for MANY diseases though.
If you believe you "should" risk acquiring a preventable diseases for
a "mouth feel" then "should" is a relative term. If your goal is to
avoid diseases, you've provided no reason to substitute a given fruit
for milk. Nobody said you "should" not be unhealthy. That's your
personal choice.
If you try to compare disease risks of milk consumption with eating
any particular fruit like bananas, apples, figs, etc then you may
develop a better perspective of the absurd/recent customs to "use
milk". The lactose intolerance issue and unnecessary, yet avoidable
risk of DB1 (no matter how small you may imagine that risk to be for a
given individual's genetic makeup) alone may give pause to someone
considering a natural, healthy diet, but the list goes on for the
diseases in which cow milk is a causal agent (e.g. cancer, anxiety,
osteo****osis, etc). It seems the amount of diseases that are risked to
consume any given 'food' is contingent upon how much you personally
crave that fatty "mouth feel' you alluded to & the wish for social
dominance to bolster self-concept within meat dominated cultures.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4015305/The-Interactive-Effect-of-Cultural
> To the first the response was "could be"
Specifically, cow milk consumption is a causal factor for DB1. Only
social/addictive reasons have been provided for ignoring such risks.
> Some research suggests it is yes and others no as to
> playing some role.
The role of molecular mimicking has been provided for a biologically
plausible explanation of the positive association between cow milk
consumption and diabetes type 1. The only issue is that some studies
haven't provided results but of those that do, virtually all of these
show the correlation to be positive. Dr. Campbell addressed this issue
in The China Study. How many disease risks and how high does each
disease risk need to be in order to realize the health compromises of
consuming foreign milk after maturity?
> For an identified
> minority there is a set of genetic markers, and growing, for which there
is
> very much heightened risk but not absolute certainty of getting type 1
> diabetes.
Thank you. An identified minority (it isn't really that clear cut as
to all the genetically susceptible people, that's why DB1 incidences
have increased) but as you say, there is a minority of people at risk
for DB1 + a majority who are lactose intolerant + those at risk for
breast, colon & other cancers which milk contributes to + the
osteo****osis risk + gout + anxiety + Alzheimer's + + +... Now what
fruit would logically be traded for these disease risks? You're not
even talking about food. You're just talking about what you want to
get away with consuming within culture.
> The flip side of that coin is that for another
> set of genetic markers the risk is next to zero of getting it.
So while you continue to flip flop around you are at risk for other
diseases. All this flip flopping is totally unnecessary risk taking
and wears down organs. Eventually you flip from being lactose tolerant
to getting away w/suckling cows at a certain age to maybe flopping
back from a breast cancer risk, etc. But the entire time you are
congested and wearing down liver, heart, colon, gradually
demineralizing bones, teeth, eroding bacterial flora w/lower ph, etc.
Eventually it catches up to the luckiest of flip floppers. There
arises a point in which bone remodeling is outpaced by
demineralization (for example). The luckiest of flippers can only get
away with diet compromises of milk consumption as long as some sudden
tragedy unrelated to health doesn't come along and end the existence-
long flip flop gambling before the inevitable consequences of long-
term milk consumption catches up to the flopper..
> The absolute strong assertion that milk alone
> causes type 1 diabetes
"alone"?
No food "alone" causes diabetes. You insist on repeating an argument
between you and yourself. I clearly/repeatedly explained that milk is
a causal agent. Neither diet, genes, exercise, etc alone act in
isolation & genetic factors are expressed with diet. If I go back and
list all the times I've conveyed this message will you then "recap"?
I'm trying to understand how you believe adult humans adapted to cow
milk.
With fruit,
Chris
|
